NIMBY Brookhaven strikes again (this time against MARTA mixed-use) (Atlanta: house, neighborhoods)

[netdragon]

MARTA's Mixed-Use Overhaul in Brookhaven Hits a Snag - Curbed Atlanta

It appears Brookhaven wants no stinkin' MARTA -oriented mixed-use.

[wasel]

Duplicate post (and not true BTW)

[arjay57]

Looks like Obama is going after the NIMBY's.

Restrictive local zoning regulations prevent housing supply from keeping up with rising demand, thereby pushing up rents and exacerbating inequality.

That's the problem the administration hopes to solve. While economists across the ideological spectrum agree on the harmful effects of many zoning regulations, Urban Land Institute Terwilliger Center for Housing executive director Stockton Williams tells Bisnow that neighborhood activists often stand in the way of removing them.

"Incumbent homeowners and other residents are often beneficiaries of those policies because they make their homes more valuable," Stockton, above with his son at a Washington Nationals game, says. "NIMBYs are very real, and often these constituencies are highly informed and able to mobilize effectively to stop development."

More....THE WHITE HOUSE IS TAKING ON NIMBYS WITH NEW ZONING PROPOSALS

[jsvh]

Good. Glad they are recommending an end to parking minimums too. Those are good policies for improving housing affordability.

[MattCW]

Right because anyone ever opposed to any project is just a NIMBY, the complaints about insufficient traffic or sewage infrastructure are just nonsense!

[Pemgin]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Right because anyone ever opposed to any project is just a NIMBY, the complaints about insufficient traffic or sewage infrastructure are just nonsense!

If we entertained every complaint about traffic nothing would get built.

[Iconographer]

Originally Posted by Pemgin

If we entertained every complaint about traffic nothing would get built.

It's not that simple. Government does have a responsibility to manage infrastructure and protect it from overly aggressive development. Time and again we've seen the results of abdicating this responsibility.

[fourthwarden]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Right because anyone ever opposed to any project is just a NIMBY, the complaints about insufficient traffic or sewage infrastructure are just nonsense!

The administration has put forth a general stance on low density developments. That is not a push against any legitimate infrastructure problems, which can happen at any given level of density. What this is, is a statement on the relative inequality that artificially lowering housing supply through NIMBY tactics focused on keeping an area low density no matter what, primarily in the case of non-existent problems only used to scare people into keeping an area under-built.

In fact, it's far more likely to run into infrastructure maintainability issues in low-density settings, since the network is so much more spread out. It's generally easier to maintain a wider pipe, than it is a longer one. Extremely low dense areas are more likely to not have enough funding per person to pay for the longer pipes or longer roads since the ratio of revenue to maintenance cost is lower, making maintenance at all, difficult. (See: The Growth Ponzi Scheme)

NIMBY's who don't have legitimate worries of infrastructure cost might actually be creating a worse long-term situation as maintainability costs go up and surpasses revenue from the low-density areas. Constant growth is required prop up back-logged maintenance, and as soon as that stops, and without attempts to desnify, the whole thing grinds to a halt.

NIMBY's who do have legitimate worries often shoot themselves in the foot by attempting to shut down the conversation entirely, in an attempt to keep things at the current (functioning) level of use. If the conversation of higher-density was allowed to happen, then infrastructure buy ins for new developments could be arranged to resolve infrastructure problems. That then lowers the overall cost per person to maintain the area, and the amenities that support more dense development.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by jsvh

Good. Glad they are recommending an end to parking minimums too. Those are good policies for improving housing affordability.

Or you could just do it like Texas and let the market decide instead of another government getting involved. Houston doesn't even have zoning.

Urbanism, Texas-Style | OpportunityUrbanism.org

"....A key part of this opportunity culture rests on housing affordability. Property inflation plagues east/west coastal cities, largely because of restrictive planning policies that slow development, making the cost of living exorbitant. Texas cities are instead pro-development—“self-organizing,” in the words of Rice University’s Lars Lerup—and, as they happily expand their peripheries, they encourage a healthy supply of housing at all income levels. The inexpensive housing, a major draw for those relocating firms, has helped shift a long-standing migration pattern of jobs and people...."

[arjay57]

Since when did folks fighting to preserve a little elbow room become evil NIMBY's?

Were the people who battled against freeways just a bunch of backwards NIMBY's? What about the neighborhoods who opposed having their communities razed for a baseball stadium? How about those who were unhappy with being pushed up by yuppie gentrification? And I guess we've gotta put those landfills and cemeteries and airport runways somewhere.

Seems to me there's an awful lot of value judgments being made here.