
Battle lines being drawn: A map of YIMBY-NIMBY skirmishes in Bay Area - masonic
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/06/26/battle-lines-being-drawn-a-map-of-yimby-nimby-skirmishes-in-bay-area/
======
jedberg
Apparently every single browser on my iPhone is “too private” for the Mercury
News.

~~~
tonywastaken
Same. The DuckDuckGo app did the trick

------
RickJWagner
Somehow I think the balance of power will tilt towards NIMBY. The wealthy just
won't put up with it. Even Cher (reliably liberal) says it's not sustainable.

~~~
pcwalton
The "progressive" NIMBYs have a 9-2 majority on the Board of Supervisors. Hard
for things to tilt even more toward them.

------
pacala
Spelling suggestion: YIYBY - YesInYourBackYard

~~~
TACIXAT
Taking backyard literally, this is exactly the opposite of what is happening.
NIMBYs are concerned far beyond their property line. If someone owns land,
they shouldn't be blocked from increasing density by someone who doesn't own
that land.

~~~
irq11
It’s simply _true by definition_ that everyone who wants to alter zoning rules
- no matter how - is telling other people what should be in their backyard. To
suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest. Your drive to change building
rules _mostly affects other people_.

...but that’s also how our system of government works, so just own it already.

What the OP is pointing out is the doublespeak nature of “YIMBY” as a rallying
cry. Just be honest about what you want: unless you truly only care about what
you can do with _your_ property, what you really want is for other people to
stop fighting development in _their_ backyard, too.

Trying to frame this as a drive for personal choice misses the point of the
debate: the other side doesn’t care what you do in _your_ backyard, but they
sure as hell don’t want it affecting _theirs_.

(Nothing I’m saying here is advocating for a side in this argument. If you’re
downvoting me reflexively because you think I’m being “NIMBY”, you’re blinded
by ideology.)

~~~
TACIXAT
By changing zoning rules, I'm not forcing you to upgrade your single family
home. I am enabling me to do so.

~~~
irq11
You’re attempting to force everyone to live with the externalities of your
decision.

It’s fine to want density, but stop being dishonest about why other people
might oppose what you want.

~~~
TACIXAT
I do not think that is distinct to YIMBYs. I am forced to live with the
externalities of high housing prices (3400 for a 900 sq.ft 2 bed room), lower
freedom to utilize personal property (land), high homeless population, and
cities you need a car to live in. Both ways will have externalities. I do not
think I was dishonest about why anyone would oppose this.

I own property in another city and it is bat shit to me that you can not build
freely on your land. The people filing lawsuits about their view or forcing
environmental impact studies (when it doesn't matter) need to get smacked back
to their property lines. If they don't like it, they can buy the land they
want to control. If they don't have enough money for that, tough.

~~~
irq11
Once again: you’re arguing against something that I’m not saying. In fact,
you’re making my point: the changes you want to make affect other people.
_That’s why they disagree with you._

The “YIMBY movement” starts with a terrible, condescending name that
implicitly mocks the other side. It’s as if the GOP changed it’s name to the
“anti-libtard party”.

Why should the people with the money and power listen to you when you position
yourselves only as opposition to a cartoon version of what they believe?

Also: every city in the world restricts what you can do with property you own.
You can’t build a radioactive waste site in your backyard, or a pork rendering
plant in your garage. Get over it.

~~~
TACIXAT
I don't want to build a pork farm, I want some higher density housing so that
I pay less in rent. This isn't an extreme thing.

I am also a rich person and have heard some very dumb excuses as to why my
colleagues' neighborhoods should stay zoned single family. From traffic to
character. In the end, people are just preserving their home values at the
expense of others and it is not a sustainable system. That motivation is
misguided though, their million dollar plot of land is still going to be worth
a million dollars with a duplex on it.

------
einarvollset
While I have friends who have had to leave the Bay Area because of high rents,
I also have (non tech, multi-generational local) friends who have the vast
majority of their wealth tied up in their (or their parents) house here.

I don’t love how some members of the YC community (often independently wealthy
tech types) seem to suggest that this latter group need to sacrifice
themselves by supporting policies that would effectively undermine the only
thing that is allowing them to stay in the Bay Area.

I realize that the YIMBY crowd fervently believe that eventually, at some
point, their policies will benefit both groups, but in the meanwhile the house
prices here are stagnating and predicted to fall next 12 months which is
already causing anxiety. Simply dismissing this group as NIMBYs who don’t want
to look at high rises so badly misses the point that I’m not surprised they
are failing in their mission

~~~
richk449
>I also have (non tech, multi-generational local) friends who have the vast
majority of their wealth tied up in their (or their parents) house here. ... I
don’t love how some members of the YC community (often independently wealthy
tech types) seem to suggest that this latter group need to sacrifice
themselves by supporting policies that would effectively undermine the only
thing that is allowing them to stay in the Bay Area.

If they already own a house in the bay area, why would falling housing prices
affect their ability to stay here?

~~~
einarvollset
Because few people own their house outright, and the equity in their house is
their only form of financial cushion or retirement savings. In many cases, the
kind of house price drop agitated for would bankrupt and evict them, with no
way of buying into the market again despite the average lower prices.

~~~
richk449
Those scenarios seem few and far between. If it is a family home that has been
owned for at least a decade in the bay area, then it has increased in value
dramatically since it was bought, and no matter what kind of mortgage they
have, they will have plenty of equity. If it was bought recently, then they
probably don't have HELOCs or other instruments that would put them at risk,
so the market value should be irrelevant to their financial situation.

I can't see how a market price decrease of a house that one owns, or has a
mortgage on, could bankrupt someone or cause them to be evicted. The worst
thing that could happen is for they homeowner to go "underwater", but even
then, as long as they continue to pay their monthly mortgage payments, they
get to keep their house.

~~~
einarvollset
Keeping in mind that these are not tech types with the associated salaries,
you can’t see how a market price decrease could bankrupt or evict someone?
Mkay

~~~
richk449
No, I don’t see it. But I’m open to the idea that I am missing something.

Maybe they have an ARM mortgage, and are planning to refinance just before the
adjustable period begins, and are worried they won’t be able to get new
financing if the home value is significantly lower than the remaining
principle? That would be easily solved by refinancing now into a fixed
mortgage, but maybe they can’t afford the increased monthly payment that would
cause?

That’s the only scenario I can think of, and it seems unlikely to affect many
Bay Area homeowners, given the incredible rise in prices recently.

If you understand how a market price decrease would cause a homeowner to be
evicted, please explain it.

~~~
einarvollset
I am actually in favor of building more housing. But I think that doing so
will (on top of prices already being projected to fall) put further downward
pressure on house prices.

To think that this is a rosy story for everyone with no losers is a fairy
tale.

I believe that the already squeezed, non-tech, middle class of the Bay Area
will suffer at the expense of new, younger tech workforce (and incidentally
play into the hand of the actually wealthy tech leaders who are some of the
biggest proponents). If you choose not believe that, then please provide a
historical example of where deflationary pressure on house prices have been a
boon for the existing working/middle class that own houses anywhere.

I realize that this is not a popular opinion among the HN crowd, which
obviously skews young and tech, but it certainly is the opinion/anxiety that I
hear expressed on the ground in the Bay Area among non-tech families. Are they
delusional and should simply welcome lower house prices? Are their wealth and
security something that must be sacrificed for the greater good? Maybe.

But I am very suspicious of some of the tech leader pushing this. It’s
obviously great for them if they can pay their employees less because rent is
lower.

~~~
richk449
> I am actually in favor of building more housing. But I think that doing so
> will (on top of prices already being projected to fall) put further downward
> pressure on house prices.

> To think that this is a rosy story for everyone with no losers is a fairy
> tale.

> I believe that the already squeezed, non-tech, middle class of the Bay Area
> will suffer at the expense of new, younger tech workforce (and incidentally
> play into the hand of the actually wealthy tech leaders who are some of the
> biggest proponents). If you choose not believe that, then please provide a
> historical example of where deflationary pressure on house prices have been
> a boon for the existing working/middle class that own houses anywhere.

I never said that a decrease in housing prices would be good for non-tech
homeowners. I just contested your claim that it would lead to them being
evicted.

