Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My experience with NIMBYs is that they are pretty much liberal greenys......Those folks hate power plants and power lines.......
You just don't understand and resort to falsehoods to critcize.
You know why NIMBYs are almost always liberals? It's a value system you apparently don't seem to see, have, or maybe even realize.
Most heavily blue cities are expensive, which means 1 thing, lack of housing because a lack of space.
The NIMBY attitude stems from, what do you value more, making housing affordable or getting rid of history/culture to make space.
Hypothetical for you:
Washington DC's housing is expensive in nature, which means we need more housing (shortage of supply causes prices to go up, Economics 101). Should we get rid of the National Mall, bulldoze all the monuments around the Capitol and stack them all in 1 tall building to make space for more housing construction? This is the heart of the argument and why I fundamentally believe all major metropolitan, expensive areas are "blue". As they call on the government to make ever more complex laws to balance both of these 2 agendas, because the free market cannot replace cultural landmarks.
It seems like nowadays, preserving what you have in your neighborhood will get you the "NIMBY" label, especially if those concerns can strain infrastructure and the general dynamic of the area. Ironically, the folks who dictate what should or shouldn't be in their neighborhood aren't just conservatives that fall into that category, but even liberals fall into this as well, both from my own experience and on these boards.
With that all said, how do you distinguish someone who prefers a more quiet lifestyle to someone who falls into that "NIMBY" attitude?
So true, liberals always talk about how they support illegal immigration and encourage the construction of Section 8 housing. Yet when I lived in the Baltimore area, its always the blue collar suburban areas who have to deal with the influx of ghetto people from the city and illegal immigrants while the rich suburbs don't see any of this Section 8 built.
Also interesting how liberals love mass transit but don't want it in their neighborhood, like the resistance to the Purple Line in Washington DC. Also interesting how the liberal elites of Martha's Vineyard opposed a wind farm off the coast because it would have affected their beach views.
No one wants the half way house near them. Idiots walk away from those all the time. They wanted to put a methadone clinic in a neighborhood here. Put it near other businesses, not next to peoples homes.... We have fought against halfway houses in suburban areas, there are better places, not right on top of family homes. For sale- lovely 3 br cape on quiet street, next to heroin clinic. Nooo.
better places, you mean near other people's houses, as long as it is not yours.
NIMBY is far from just against half way houses. If a developer proposes to build a a 4 story townhome complex, they will oppose it. If the government wants to build some public transportation, they will oppose it. If company wants to build a retail mall nearby, they will oppose it.
In sum, they oppose anything that is different from their own home, or anything that might bring in additional "undesirable" people of different tax brackets anywhere near their neighbourhood. Thats what matters to NIMBYs.
You just don't understand and resort to falsehoods to critcize.
You know why NIMBYs are almost always liberals? It's a value system you apparently don't seem to see, have, or maybe even realize.
Most heavily blue cities are expensive, which means 1 thing, lack of housing because a lack of space.
The NIMBY attitude stems from, what do you value more, making housing affordable or getting rid of history/culture to make space.
Hypothetical for you:
Washington DC's housing is expensive in nature, which means we need more housing (shortage of supply causes prices to go up, Economics 101). Should we get rid of the National Mall, bulldoze all the monuments around the Capitol and stack them all in 1 tall building to make space for more housing construction? This is the heart of the argument and why I fundamentally believe all major metropolitan, expensive areas are "blue". As they call on the government to make ever more complex laws to balance both of these 2 agendas, because the free market cannot replace cultural landmarks.
except in 99% cases, NIMBYs are against something that have nothing to do with cultural landmarks. And their value is not usually about culture or history, but about their property value. They want the country to be diverse, with people from all backgrounds, however, they insist their own neighhourhood should be composed of people of exactly the same background and income as their own. This is where the hypocricy lies.
except in 99% cases, NIMBYs are against something that have nothing to do with cultural landmarks. And their value is not usually about culture or history, but about their property value. They want the country to be diverse, with people from all backgrounds, however, they insist their own neighhourhood should be composed of people of exactly the same background and income as their own. This is where the hypocricy lies.
It's why I see lots of cookie-cutter neighborhoods that often seem to have that kind of diversity as opposed to wealthy areas. I've found most of those areas to be fairly conservative in my experience as well but it never amounted to anything negative from what I've seen.
Historically low income minorities have been burdened with a disproportionate level of environmentally destructive projects, sewage plants, power plants, hazardous waste but that is changing. The current developments, shopping malls, McMansions impact pretty much all walks of life. They are proposing another much needed rail line on Long Island and the opposition comes from all demographics.
You just don't understand and resort to falsehoods to critcize.
You know why NIMBYs are almost always liberals? It's a value system you apparently don't seem to see, have, or maybe even realize.
Most heavily blue cities are expensive, which means 1 thing, lack of housing because a lack of space.
The NIMBY attitude stems from, what do you value more, making housing affordable or getting rid of history/culture to make space.
Hypothetical for you:
Washington DC's housing is expensive in nature, which means we need more housing (shortage of supply causes prices to go up, Economics 101). Should we get rid of the National Mall, bulldoze all the monuments around the Capitol and stack them all in 1 tall building to make space for more housing construction? This is the heart of the argument and why I fundamentally believe all major metropolitan, expensive areas are "blue". As they call on the government to make ever more complex laws to balance both of these 2 agendas, because the free market cannot replace cultural landmarks.
What the heck does that have to do with power lines or generation plants?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
