YIMBY movement: Difference between revisions

<blockquote>''"One of my points in yesterday’s discussion was, simply, that the rhetorical or persuasive burden on YIMBY advocates is higher than it is on the NIMBY component (which is different than the anti-displacement side, btw). I stand by that statement for the simple reason that NIMBY have policy inertia on their side. They have existing zoning laws on their side; they have federal home ownership favoritism on their side. They have close to 70 years of zoning being mainstream practice, at least in the US. It’s not just or right, necessarily; it’s that any form of progressive reform always has to break free of the event horizon of the status quo. Those who want the status quo only have to maintain it.<br/> <br/> "Given that progressive reforms have happened and do happen, it’s not impossible. It just requires heavy lifting, and some of that heavy lifting is tediously having to repeat the same points on the policy agenda to anybody who doesn’t run away quickly enough.<br/> <br/> "I’ve been spending my summer working on interviews with anti-displacement advocates (if you are reading this, and I haven’t pestered you, and you have something you want to say, hit me up), and it’s been enlightening. It caused me to back up and examine what premises you have to accept in order to arrive at a yes for YIMBY if you, yourself, don’t have a preference for urbanism. And it’s a pretty long persuasive journey.<br/> <br/> a) that zoning contributes to sprawl (probably the least contentious);<br/> <br/> b) that sprawl’s environmental and social consequences are sufficiently important to require that existing neighborhoods, which people may enjoy as they currently are, allow infill, even at the risk of crowding and other problems that strangers bring, in order to prevent the consequences of more building on the suburban fringe;<br/> <br/> c) that infill development actually can fix affordability or the other problems wrought by exclusion/zoning/sprawl rather than just displacing and potentially harming existing residents; that is, it is possible to accommodate as many new people (or more) in existing neighborhoods, closer to the city center, as it would have been to put them in new suburban developments on the fringe to address housing demand in urbanizing metro areas;<br/> <br/> d) that doing so will result in more good than harm overall; and for various subgroups at any given time,<br/> <br/> e) that doing so will result in more good than harm *to them personally* overall. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''<br/> &nbsp;</blockquote> ▼

from[https: Lisa Schweitzer, Lisa (//lisaschweitzer.com/2017). "Getting /07/19/getting-to Yes -yes-with YIMBY -yimby-in LA, -la-or -my -summer -interviews." Lisaschweitzer.com,&nbsp;19 July 2017.&nbsp;/ https://lisaschweitzer.com/2017/07/19/getting-to-yes-with-yimby-in-la-or-my-summer-interviews/.<br/> &nbsp;]▼