> The Yimby (“Yes In My Back Yard”) movement in the US has sprung up to fight for less restrictive zoning and more housing, often coming up against Nimby (“Not In My Back Yard”) opponents. Broadly, this is a contest of ideals against self-interest,
No, its not. Fundamentally, this contrast is nonsense because “ideals” and “self-interest” amount to the same thing, personal preferences, depending on whether you focus upon the experienced utility fron fulfilling them (“self-interest”) or the fact yhat the elements of personal utility functions can be decomposed into rules (“ideals”).
But even in the superficial view where this contrast in general seems to make sense, YIMBYs are quite often people who have a perceived narrow financial self-interest in reduced housing prices, while NIMBYs (in a policy sense, the name imputes a particular motive and relation to the policy area that can be inaccurate) are often people who idealize the protection of existing character even in places they don’t currently live.
> YIMBYs are quite often people who have a perceived narrow financial self-interest in reduced housing prices,
Are you suggesting NIMBYs aren't quite often people with a narrow financial self-interest in maintaining above-inflation rises in (mostly local) housing prices?
Because in my experience, NIMBYs are much more motivated by financial self-interest than YIMBYs.
I consider myself a YIMBY and I believe that a lot (if not most) NIMBYs do not operate out of financial self-interest. Defending the character of a neighborhood is often done against NIMBYs own potential financial benefit! Having more people move into your neighborhood is likely to increase the value of your property as businesses pop up to take advantage of the increase in density. But many NIMBYs do not plan to sell! They want to live there, that is all, and simply do not want things to change. They don't want it to be harder to find parking. They don't want people richer than them moving in and businesses catering to those with larger bank accounts.
> idealize the protection of existing character even in places they don’t currently live.
That's when they go beyond being NIMBYs and become BANANAs ("Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything"). A.k.a. CAVE dwellers ("Citizens Against Virtually Everything").
I don't know why you are getting down voted, the author of this blog is clearly making an ideological statement when he claims Yimbys are values driven vs Nimbys who are driven by self interest.
In my experience the Yimbys are the ones who are aware of the economics and the Nimbys are the ones driven by the value of nostalgia. (PS: Nimby are almost always older in California) The other unspoken value of nimbys is racism-- that's a value, not a calculation of self interest.
Property prices always go up as density increases. Density does change the nature of these neighborhood but in every case the nature has been changing for decades and the neighborhoods are nothing like they were fifty years ago-- objectively change is inevitable.
> The other unspoken value of nimbys is racism-- that's a value, not a calculation of self interest.
This is a shocking claim, and I consider myself a strong YIMBY type. I worry that you are ascribing the worst possible reason to an observation of others that hold opinions or behave different from yourself.
“It’s hard to tell when you’re being discriminated against.” —IASIP
It's only hard now because we've spent 100 years fighting discrimination. Back in the 1920s land deeds would have restrictive covenants on them that explicitly spelled out that only white Christians could buy that land.
It's a strong claim, I don't see how it could be shocking unless you're unaware of the recent history of housing policy and urban-suburban dynamics in the US. Or think that, uniquely among all things in history, that ended at a specific recent time with no consequences carried forward into the present.
The civil rights era is in living memory, people who were children for white flight are retirees and homeowners now. They're not all or even largely racist or strictly motivated by racism, but some of them are, somewhat. No one identifies as a racist and if asked could probably find marginally acceptable euphemisms for who they do and don't want in their neighborhoods and why. But come on.
I think you are confusing “being aware of economics” with being driven by self-interest.
As I understand it, most B&Bs are not campaigning for more housebuilding because it benefits them personally, but because they believe it is right. That is compatible with them having a good understanding of the economics. Note that understanding trade-offs and relative costs is not the same as being affected by trade-offs and relative costs.
No, its not. Fundamentally, this contrast is nonsense because “ideals” and “self-interest” amount to the same thing, personal preferences, depending on whether you focus upon the experienced utility fron fulfilling them (“self-interest”) or the fact yhat the elements of personal utility functions can be decomposed into rules (“ideals”).
But even in the superficial view where this contrast in general seems to make sense, YIMBYs are quite often people who have a perceived narrow financial self-interest in reduced housing prices, while NIMBYs (in a policy sense, the name imputes a particular motive and relation to the policy area that can be inaccurate) are often people who idealize the protection of existing character even in places they don’t currently live.