This is so true for the housing crisis. Conservative NIMBYs will be like “deregulation good!” and “free market good!”, but then they religiously show up to any and all city hall meetings to rant and rave about how we need to use heavy-handed regulations to protect “historic” parking lots and the “neighborhood character”.
I used to live in a pretty liberal area and when the topic of a homeless shelter came out, the same people who campaigned for it suddenly were against it because it was down the street from them.
Same thing happens here in Seattle and the surrounding suburbs pretty regularly.
“House the homeless! Housing should be a right! Take my tax money!”
[new shelter, tiny home village, or other transitional housing project gets planned]
“No, not like that!”
Same here in Seattle. Most people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and vote for increased taxes to address the housing shortage and need for transitional services for homeless people, but then that NIMBYism wins out when a project is proposed in their area.
Who else is losing? Nimbys can fuck right off if the loser in that situation is the NIMBY because a homeless person got a “win.”
I don’t give a flying fuck, a rats ass, or whatever other colorful saying there is that someone’s neighborhood loses “character” or home value (it’s a necessity not a fucking investment, even though we made it one.) If the end result is we fix homelessness I say they can deal with it, humans are great at adapting just ask the homeless.
Edit: I’ll leave it as it’s still an important thought, but I misread “politically.” Yeah a politician will want to fix the problem and then the voters will vote them out because of their personal greed/selfishness.
This is a really tough nut to crack… Even if you were personally fine with a shelter nearby, it’ll affect things like property values since most people wouldn’t be fine with it. Couple that with the likely increase in things like theft and vandalism it’s really hard to get people on board to live near a shelter when they know there’ll be an increased burden placed upon them. I don’t think it’s fair to demonize people who aren’t willing to take that burden on themselves.
In my city the shelters are located mostly away from residential areas which does help somewhat, but if you know anyone who lives within approx 10 blocks of a shelter they will absolutely notice the difference from before the shelter was put in.
You’re unfortunately very correct. Housing aimed at the homeless (living on the street type homeless) increases crime and trash in the area. I sympathize with people who buy a house and then have a transitional housing project built near them because they bought their house without expecting that change. However, it has to go somewhere.
It’s a problem here in Seattle that a lot of these homeless services get placed in districts which have a lot of minorities or are lower income in general. It’s not fair–extremely classist–and these services should be spread out and include the wealthier, whiter neighborhoods as well.
Blaming NYMBYs for protecting the value stored in their homes is not productive. This, like homelessness, is just a necessary outcome of real estate markets.
Homes are not shelter and safety for human beings, they’re an investment for the rich; reservoir of wealth for the middle class; and (an often unattainable) dream for the poor. This is why landlords are parasites, NYMBYs are jerks, and people live unhoused. Blaming it on individual choices and ignoring the systemic incentives is the same individualist bullshit that got us here.
This is so true for the housing crisis. Conservative NIMBYs will be like “deregulation good!” and “free market good!”, but then they religiously show up to any and all city hall meetings to rant and rave about how we need to use heavy-handed regulations to protect “historic” parking lots and the “neighborhood character”.
“I want less regulation on my investments and less black people in my neighborhood!”
Fewer* mein führer
NIMBYs unfortunately don’t come just in red flavor…
I used to live in a pretty liberal area and when the topic of a homeless shelter came out, the same people who campaigned for it suddenly were against it because it was down the street from them.
“I said I wanted to help the poor, not see them!”
Same thing happens here in Seattle and the surrounding suburbs pretty regularly.
“House the homeless! Housing should be a right! Take my tax money!”
[new shelter, tiny home village, or other transitional housing project gets planned]
“No, not like that!”
Yep, Portland is a perfect example of liberal NIMBYs.
Same here in Seattle. Most people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and vote for increased taxes to address the housing shortage and need for transitional services for homeless people, but then that NIMBYism wins out when a project is proposed in their area.
Its why i say politically, fixing homelessness is a lose lose situation
Who else is losing? Nimbys can fuck right off if the loser in that situation is the NIMBY because a homeless person got a “win.”I don’t give a flying fuck, a rats ass, or whatever other colorful saying there is that someone’s neighborhood loses “character” or home value (it’s a necessity not a fucking investment, even though we made it one.) If the end result is we fix homelessness I say they can deal with it, humans are great at adapting just ask the homeless.Edit: I’ll leave it as it’s still an important thought, but I misread “politically.” Yeah a politician will want to fix the problem and then the voters will vote them out because of their personal greed/selfishness.
The NIMBYs lose and the politicians lose because they get voted out by said angry NIMBYs.
The people who most need the help win.
This is a really tough nut to crack… Even if you were personally fine with a shelter nearby, it’ll affect things like property values since most people wouldn’t be fine with it. Couple that with the likely increase in things like theft and vandalism it’s really hard to get people on board to live near a shelter when they know there’ll be an increased burden placed upon them. I don’t think it’s fair to demonize people who aren’t willing to take that burden on themselves.
In my city the shelters are located mostly away from residential areas which does help somewhat, but if you know anyone who lives within approx 10 blocks of a shelter they will absolutely notice the difference from before the shelter was put in.
You’re unfortunately very correct. Housing aimed at the homeless (living on the street type homeless) increases crime and trash in the area. I sympathize with people who buy a house and then have a transitional housing project built near them because they bought their house without expecting that change. However, it has to go somewhere.
It’s a problem here in Seattle that a lot of these homeless services get placed in districts which have a lot of minorities or are lower income in general. It’s not fair–extremely classist–and these services should be spread out and include the wealthier, whiter neighborhoods as well.
Tuff.
Blaming NYMBYs for protecting the value stored in their homes is not productive. This, like homelessness, is just a necessary outcome of real estate markets.
Homes are not shelter and safety for human beings, they’re an investment for the rich; reservoir of wealth for the middle class; and (an often unattainable) dream for the poor. This is why landlords are parasites, NYMBYs are jerks, and people live unhoused. Blaming it on individual choices and ignoring the systemic incentives is the same individualist bullshit that got us here.
Don’t hate the player, hate the game.
Can I hate the people who actively prop it up?
Land has rights!*
*Landowners
After “historic” I expected a lot of things like houses, trees, churches, etc, but parking lots wasn’t one of them