Re: NIMBYism
Posted: Wed June 17, 2020 5:26 pm
Probably because the right doesn't want many of those things at all.
Yeah, none of that is true. Convince me.tragabigzanda wrote:It was super prevalent when I lived in the super liberal college town of Amherst, MA. Professors and doctoral students espousing all manner of liberal social mechanism would be the loudest voices in opposition to an ongoing affordable housing project.wease wrote:I haven't decided if NIMBYism exists. Convince me that it does.
Also Ted Kennedy in Nantucket — he’s all for renewable energy, except for then the turbines would be within the sight line of his home and impact his property value.
Here in southwest MT: Lots of libs pushing for more affordable housing, yet actively challenging high density apartment building projects.
Broadly speaking, I think the behavior is evidenced more frequently from the left, rather than the right.
wind turbines not so awesometragabigzanda wrote:Also Ted Kennedy in Nantucket — he’s all for renewable energy, except for then the turbines would be within the sight line of his home and impact his property value.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features ... -landfillsTens of thousands of aging blades are coming down from steel towers around the world and most have nowhere to go but landfills. In the U.S. alone, about 8,000 will be removed in each of the next four years. Europe, which has been dealing with the problem longer, has about 3,800 coming down annually through at least 2022, according to BloombergNEF. It’s going to get worse: Most were built more than a decade ago, when installations were less than a fifth of what they are now.
Built to withstand hurricane-force winds, the blades can’t easily be crushed, recycled or repurposed. That’s created an urgent search for alternatives in places that lack wide-open prairies. In the U.S., they go to the handful of landfills that accept them, in Lake Mills, Iowa; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; and Casper, where they will be interred in stacks that reach 30 feet under.

The Berkeley city government has done a great job of physically manifesting the simmering resentment the city feels for motorists trying to travel anywhere in the city. Of course they hate the idea of anyone else living in their neighborhood. There's a nice coalition of aging hippy boomers living in rent stablized units and well to do homeowners who got a ton of free equity over the past 20 or so years that are anti growth.BurtReynolds wrote:
Man, fuck those NIMBYs.simple schoolboy wrote:The Berkeley city government has done a great job of physically manifesting the simmering resentment the city feels for motorists trying to travel anywhere in the city. Of course they hate the idea of anyone else living in their neighborhood. There's a nice coalition of aging hippy boomers living in rent stablized units and well to do homeowners who got a ton of free equity over the past 20 or so years that are anti growth.
I have a friend thats a Civil Engineer who refuses to conceed that CEQA is a problem. Presumably its a suvivorship bias issue because anything that actually breaks ground has passed the environmental review.Green Habit wrote:Man, fuck those NIMBYs.simple schoolboy wrote:The Berkeley city government has done a great job of physically manifesting the simmering resentment the city feels for motorists trying to travel anywhere in the city. Of course they hate the idea of anyone else living in their neighborhood. There's a nice coalition of aging hippy boomers living in rent stablized units and well to do homeowners who got a ton of free equity over the past 20 or so years that are anti growth.
Since you and Burt were talking about something different, here's more info on the latest absolute disgrace that happened there: