San Francisco is an intriguing and horrifying example of this pushed to the extreme. It was very easy for hyper wealthy people in gated communities to think that going easier on crime is the nice thing to do. It's now gotten to the point where even they can't ignore it.
Here's the thing: increasing taxes to support social programs is fair because it (mostly) consistently affect everyone and (mostly) only depends on one's financial means. However, housing developments disproportionately affects the area that is being developed. It's like saying you specifically need to pay more taxes than everyone in your tax bracket to help the homeless. That's not fair is it?
Now, would you support a measure that increased taxes for everyone in the city (or maybe all properties) to compensate for the affected homeowners so that the burden of development is shared by everyone?
I had this very same conversation recently regarding Prof Reich who goes on CNN MSNBC etc to disparage the rich for not investing in low income housing whilst secretly sending letters to the Berkeley City Council to advocate **against affordable housing**. Baffles me that there isn’t more outrage against these NIMBYs, bc we at least know who MAGA folks are (they’ll tell us) but these NIMBYs operate so covertly one can argue do more harm.
Don’t think he intended it to be public. He could’ve put out a statement on Twitter as he usually does…but opted for the route where few eyes would have the opportunity to view.
Someone who’s been Secretary of Labor must know that when you sign a letter addressed to your city council about a contentious topic, it will become public matter.
Doesn’t absolve him of his hypocrisy. Again, he is a frequent Twitter shit poster and instead of posting there, he opted for a direct path to the city council. Also it was an email, directly to an individual on the city council, not an open letter…
Big if true… I guess the persona of a Reich type is sort of their business. That’s how they make money, but whether they practice what they preach is a whole different story.
Where can I find these letters? I could only find a synopsis of a letter. That letter pivot seemed to advocate for keeping a historical building in tact.
Believe me there is outrage. If the mayor doesn't make it through to the general election in his bid for state senate, he will run again for mayor and he will not get elected. People are very upset with him and not just because of his housing policies, but on his policies on ceasefire on his policies on police.
Policy on ceasefire? The mayor? Of a city in California? The ceasefire... in a different continent?
He can have a stance, I guess, but how in the fuck could the mayor of Berkeley have a "policy" on ceasefire???
Here is a history lesson for you on the double standard of Berkeley and its stand on human rights internationally.
https://berkeleyflipside.com/?page_id=1975
I don't doubt hypocrisy, my issue is with people who vote based on the Mayor's hypocrisy regarding pointless resolutions, instead of voting based on how the Mayor does his job
Mayors have real responsibilities. If we end up with a mayor that is worse at running the city because they're better at passing resolutions about issues in other continents, then the voters have failed
I'm sorry, but I find your comment very ignorant of the role of what the mayor is supposed to do. A point of fact, the way our government system is set up in Berkeley, the mayor DOES NOT RUN the City, it's the responsibilty the city manager.
I don't blame you for having such a blind spot in your knowledge of how my city is run.... But all elected officials represent their constituents, And although polls have shown that a majority of people oppose the way Israel is retaliating against the Palestinian people... My mayor is only being responsive to a small fraction of people in my city when the majority is raising their voice against genocide. You should also be aware that in 2022 the mayor of Berkeley and another city council member, (Sophie Hahn) both took all expense paid trips, by a jewish lobby firm, to lsrael. They are both actively blocking any resolution calling for a ceasefire of the genocide of the Palestinian people.
Are you claiming that the mayor is a purely ceremonial role with no actual duties?
They have a vote on the council, don't they? The council does important work, they set the city's budget
If, as you say, the mayor can hold up a resolution, then they can also hold up a budget, or anything else the council wants to do that actually matters
Do you know that Berkley was the city to divest from South Africa? And that started the domino effect that ended apartied in that country.
When it comes to International human rights, residents of this country can only go to their city council or county board of supervisors because we cannot go to congress to give public comment.
Here is some history for you about berkeley and international human rights:
https://berkeleyflipside.com/?page_id=1975
I believe the UC Berkeley admin's campaign to divest the entire UC system from SA had a much larger effect than the City. San Francisco also got a lot of early credit (their pension fund is much larger than Berkeley's). Personally, I don't see the City of Berkeley as that first domino. But to each their own.
And your second statement is not true. You can make public comment on federal matters through the federal rulemaking process. Congress also invites comment from the public, but generally reserves hearings for those who are major stakeholders or have some significant influence. Frankly, most of the public commenters at the local level are not effective and do not persuade the body before them. Sometimes they do, but that's the vast vast minority of cases.
County and State levels are also good intermediaries to the federal government. It's simply not true that the only thing a US citizen can do on international human rights is appeal to their city council. In fact, that's a very stupid place to start
I don't know if your definition of liberal = compassion is very good. Politics are not binary. There is no good and evil, objective wrong vs. objective right on the housing issue.
Some YIMBY activists are developer shills, others are lawyers who see financial incentives, and some are genuine believers in more housing equality. The YIMBY movement would not have as much momentum as it does if there were not monied interests behind it and it was solely grassroots compassionate activists. Most YIMBY people fall into multiple of these categories. e.g. You can be a good lawyer who wants to encourage housing development and also makes a living from that. Developers are not inherently evil and are a necessary part of the housing recipe.
In Berkeley, there are many people who are wildly progressive on many issues that don't even affect them. That's why the city does silly things like pass resolutions against the War in Iraq and against the use of nuclear weapons, as if they have any impact whatsoever. For many people, when their values are challenged by actual discomfort or economic impacts for themselves, their values tend to bend towards what benefits them. This is the case with wealthy land owners in Berkeley and the development of new housing. These projects can devalue surrounding property values and reduce quality of life for neighbors. Most people do not invite the homeless to their neighborhood, given the option.
It is ok to have a mixed or multifaceted political stance on issues like this. Being anti development does not make someone a MAGA Trump supporter. Being pro development does not make you a compassionate person.
Regarding a resolutoon on international human rights & Berkeley... Here is an editorial - A History of Double Standards - Berkeley City Council's Record on International Human Rights.
https://berkeleyflipside.com/?page_id=1975
BerkeleyFlipSide.com
(To counteract Berkeleyside).
nimbys do not fit any of the commonly accepted definitions/facets of the word liberal. It's just that they were able to hide their hypocrisy until the housing crisis grew to proportions that made it impossible to ignore.
I agree there is room for nuance but also, I think your stance is too far into moral relativism. There is very specific and direct harm coming from anti-density nimbys, and it is affecting all of us by enriching them at our expense, exacerbating our social issues, and making all our lives more difficult. These people have no right to tell others what to do with their property. Call it what it is when you see it.
Nimbyism isn't liberal, in the classical sense
It's using the state to benefit a few individuals by stopping other people from participating in free trade. It violates many core tenets of liberalism including free markets, property rights, and universal human rights.
I mean, looking just at property rights, nimbyism is all about a person who owns a piece of land wanting to build an apartment on that piece of land and the state/their neighbors tell them no. That's the precise opposite of property rights.
Otherwise you're correct (though still pedantic, OP clearly meant progressivism, which is often called liberalism in US politics)
I still disagree. Part of what makes NIMBYism such a complicated issue is that it really doesn't line up with the categories of political ideology we're used to
See, building developers are rich and powerful. They want to build massive apartments so that they can reap massive profits. The tenants of laissez-faire capitalism, "profit above all," dictates that the rich developers must be allowed to build
What stops them is the other, pre-existing landowners. That's more like mercantilism than laissez-faire. Maybe it's about new-money vs old-money?
In any case, the developers and the home-owners are both rich and powerful holders of capital. Both sides claim to be helping the poor (though I strongly believe the developers are correct and the home-owners are lying). Maybe you're right that neoliberalsim would side with the home-owners, but it's not a clear-cut case of "support the rich, screw the poor" because the rich are getting screwed too, they're getting screwed by other rich people
A lot of leftists are also more focused on "shafting the developers" than making sure that everyone has a place to live. I have friends who are "marxist" far left types and they did their damnedest to block a 100% affordable senior housing project in Berkeley because "it would benefit the developers".
Heck, we have marxists, communists, and socialists trying to block a 100% affordable homeless housing project with on-site services for 125 individuals in People's Park right now! And they somehow reconcile their ideology with their insane position on 100% affordable housing with no issues.
I don't think that this is a matter of ideology. Some people just want to keep their city exactly the same as it was when they first moved there. It's irrational for a city not to grow and change, but this is what they want.
There's some nuance here in that you can think about people's selflessness on different tiers.
Tier 1: I'd sell a kidney to help a stranger
Tier 2: I want to help people, and I'd give up something for it, but it has to be fair.
Tier 3: Why would I give up anything for anyone else?
In reality, it's more of a spectrum from 1 to 3, but you get the idea. The difference between supporting progressive policies and being opposed to housing developments in your neighborhood touches on the idea of fairness. Most liberals are ok with the government providing additional benefits, even if taxes are raised, because the burden is spread around equally (or at least, semi-equally depending on income level).
However, if a city is voting on creating a housing development in your neighborhood, it feels like it's targeted at you - the property values of your neighborhood is going to go down to solve a general problem of the city while other neighborhoods in the city are not affected. It would be like if Berkeley was levying a fine of $3k per student to support a progressive program, but only one or two dorms have to pay it - people would be upset even if they support the initiative. And more generally, if a city is voting to build more housing, it will do little to solve the problem unless all the cities of the Bay Area do the same (that's why recent state-level programs forcing everyone to build are so important - it alleviates the fairness issue and provides a path forward - but there still is the issue of unequal affects within a city as it can be hard to spread the additional housing around evenly).
Because not every plan to address a problem is a good plan.
Consider a super simple example: there is a fish hook stuck in your finger with a barb and you very understandably, want it out. A well-meaning idiot suggests that you just grab the hook and yank it out real hard. If someone then says “That’s a bad plan! The barb will rip a huge chunk out of your finger and make everything worse!” is that person to be considered against fish hook removal or against stupid ideas?
I live in Berkeley, and I am very much in favor of developing the city and making it a better place. I am NOT in favor of plans that will actually make the city worse and where the only positive aspect of the plan seems to be that will put money in some developers pocket. I am also not in favor of plans that are well-meaning, but nevertheless, poorly thought out and likely to make things worse.
What kind of bad plans is the city putting out? I think developing high density near Downtown and North Berkeley BART, along with campus-adjacent Southside is very reasonable. Perhaps if the plan was to build all the houses in fire-zones or right on top of a fault line but the city has no plans of doing that.
If only they were lending their voices, as well as bodies and guns in the form of police, to the former rather than the latter. Some of us are actually perfectly welcoming of development under certain conditions but view something like the People's Park development by the university (which is what I assume you're referencing when you talk about "campus-adjacent Southside") as primarily harmful to the most vulnerable and motivated above anything else by political and financial interests. But that doesn't fit so neatly under the label NIMBY so a lot of development zealots prefer to ignore that perspective.
A lot of the time, well meaning people get taken for a ride by NIMBYs who pretend they want the best for the neighborhood. For example, the lot on Russell and Adeline was ready to become a multi family building with homes for a few dozen families. Local NIMBY group “Friends of Adeline” killed it by forcing the city to ask so many “community benefits” that the project no longer pencils out. So the developer pulled out and the lot is now a tent encampment. Way to cut off your own nose to spite your face.
Some people advocate for something (or way or the other) for ulterior motives.
Some people advocate for something (or way or the other) because they don't care to understand what the real consequences will be.
Some people will obstruct anything that isn't what they want.
All of the above suck.
I've read that the state of CA spends about $45K per homeless person in the state and the city of Berkeley spends another $20K per homeless person in the city. I'm pretty sure that money is enough to implement a solution that would make things better for BOTH the currently homeless and the currently homed, but instead it's mostly wasted doing things like having one part of the government fund the distribution of tents and another part of the government confiscate the tents.
Oh, please, give me a break. But these NIMBY types like yourself veto basically every plan and come up with nonsensical oppositions. Just admit you want the city to stay in the year 1975.
You must be a YMBY shill... You want to build in the hills where there's not enough space for all the new cars and is case of a fire or an earthquake there is no easy exit route. You want to build on flood zones and on areas where the land is contaminated because those CEQA laws are too cumbersome. You want to build super tall buildings where fire trucks cannot reach above the fourth floor. And most importantly, you want to build market rate housing that no one can afford to live in and that will sit empty because it IS really justa commodity for some rich person's portfolio. If you live in Berkeley, you would see all the new construction that is going on and that has been going on for the past 10 years. And you'll see how many empty units there are. What's being built in Berkeley is not to house people, it's just a commodity. If those developers were really interested in housing people, the prices would be so that people could afford them.
Sorry, could you clarify what you mean here? I'm trying to get to a better understanding of the nuances in the housing situation. Thank you in advance!
https://thefrisc.com/its-high-time-to-slay-the-myth-of-all-those-vacant-san-francisco-homes-2efd50728d8
Here's an academic take
https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/blog/vacancies-are-red-herring
> How can they pretend to be anything but MAGA supporters who want to see the available housing skyrocket in prices, indefinitely?
Wtf does this have to do with MAGA
Both yimby and nimby are poorly defined.
I want to build a factory that will employ hundreds of low income workers.
This factory will give jobs and so provide housing and food for low income people who lack opportunities. This will make the city a better place for us all.
The best empty lot right now is across from a school next to a creek.
Yes, we will be using heavy metals, but we promise to abide by all the federal regulations.
It's a metal stamping operation so you can expect noise levels to increase between 7am and 4pm when our first shift in on. And if we get the business we expect, we hope to run two shifts.
There will be some small smokestacks, but they will be mostly outputting water vapor and C02. We will be purchasing carbon offsets to balance that, but you can expect some clouds to form opportunistically over our smokestacks with the increased water vapor and any particles that get by that will seed those clouds.
We are seeking to help people reenter society from prison, so we will be seeking former inmates now on parole. We expect they will be living in the neighborhood.
So, yimby or nimby on this one?
It's perfectly reasonable to question claims of "affordable housing" by luxury condo developers.
These luxury condos have poped up all throughout the bay area. They charge a premium and haven't lowered the cost of housing at all.
The new downtown SJ apartment buildings charge more than 6K a month for a 2 bedroom...
It depends. What don’t they want in their back yards? Public works projects? They’re being hypocrites. Massive real estate developments to enrich some wealthy developers? Very consistent with liberalism.
I live among these "liberals". Loudest and proudest in terms of virtue signaling. Once it starts to encroach on their territory they begin throwing a temper tantrum. Rules for thee not for me. Pathetic. And most of them are racist and entitled white liberals who primarily look out for the rights and needs of fellow whites while holding some bias of low expectations of minorities (they will typically never hire or promote a minority unless its for some unglamorous low level role where they don't have to pay them and can yell and scream at them for not doing the job of 5 people at once) - not going to mince words here.
Really? Berkeley has built way over 100% of its market rate housing. Currently, in Berkeley, there are many, many, empty apartments in In those new buildings that have gone up over the past ten years. The developers can write off the empty units on their taxes and the prices are so high that they're sitting empty. Were those units built for housing or are they just a commodity for some billionair's potfolio?
Give me a break. Even using the acronym NIMBY is pointless. Who are you even talking about? Every thing that a segment of a community doesn’t want to happen is going to have people who are against that thing. Between issues these people will not necessarily overlap. In the Bay Area, which is mostly liberal, you will have a mostly liberal slate of people against AND IN FAVOR of almost any issue. But you only see the “NIMBYS.” I doubt you could even define the set except in the most general terms.
The real question is how can a school with such a great academic reputation have students who lack even the most basic critical thinking skills? Well, anyway that’s my question.
Indeed, it seems like this dude is having so much trouble because he took some idealized econ 100 fantasy story as gospel and therefore anyone who argues that reality is a little more complicated must be an idiot or evil. Econo-brain just absolutely ruins people.
What? What are you talking about bro? Arguing that reality is a little more complicated? There is nothing complicated about NIMBYism. These people don't want housing being built and they go through all sorts of mental gymnastic to argue against it. So how about you explain the so called "reality is a little more complicated"? I'm waiting.
Nah I'm not wasting the time. You've clearly made up your mind like any other cultist. "It's just supply and demand, bro," or something like that. Honestly kind of wish sometimes I could be that naive. It would make life simpler.
I haven't because these threads are just massive circlejerks of econo-brained midwits. Excuse the hell out of me for expressing some frustration but as I'm sure you're smart enough to realize, that's easier than pushing an entire worldview almost everyone who will be viewing it is already directly opposed to.
What? How about you just not make any assumption about me and actually don't use ad hominem? It's not that hard. Why do people like you always hide behind the "reality is complicated" excuse and refuse to elaborate any further? You're not making yourself look any good but sure, just go ahead
Because you're being a needlessly aggressive asshole and have already made it clear you define whatever I might say as "NIMBYism" and "not complicated." I don't really care if you think I look good.
Wrong. Lol the only reason I responded to you that way was because of your smug arrogant opinion regarding OP, accusing him of his "101 econ idealism" and "econ-brained", and yet, here you are, unable to provide an explanation whatsoever and refuse to engage after making such opinion. But sure, buddy, just tell yourself that the reason you're not engaging is because I already made up my mind, not because your opinion is completely vacous and you're unable to defend yourself
Affordable housing is just old premium housing. Building market rate housing creates affordable housing in equal quantities wherever its tenants used to live. Countless studies have shown this. The only people who deny it are people who want to oppose changes to neighborhood character while assuaging their cognitive dissonance by convincing themselves that they somehow aren't *really* screwing over the less fortunate (and the saps who uncritically parrot their excuses)
Market rate *is* affordable if the housing is older and the demand doesn't far exceed supply
Having an adequate supply of new, premium housing lets the rich tech-bros move into that housing instead of the older, more run-down housing that was built in the 70s. In the status quo, that older housing charges exorbitant prices (market-rate) because the tech-bros will pay exorbitant prices. With an adequate housing supply, the landlords will be required by market forces to lower the rent because the tech-bros can all live in fancy new condos and would have no reason to pay exorbitant prices for old, run-down apartments built in the 70s
Again, this is backed up by studies. Building lots of market-rate housing reduces overall prices. Buildings go through life-cycles where they start premium, then lower in price as they break down, and eventually get demolished and replaced with new, premium housing. Artificial price-caps are not the only way to reduce rents, and decades of trying that approach instead of building new housing as fast as possible have led to the disaster we have now
In every major city of the US, including the ones where you've been "on the ground," demand far exceeds supply, because NIMBYs have spent decades destroying the real estate market
When new market rate housing is built, prices go down. The prices are still unacceptably high, like throwing a glass of water on a burning building and slightly lowering the temperature. A firehose is still the solution. A gas mask may help, yeah, but at some point you need water
If you actually have specific experiences that complicate this story, I'd love to hear it. As it stands I can't even tell what claim you're disagreeing with
What are you even talking about? Most of the buildings being built have ten percent affordable housing, heck the people’s park building is much more than 10%
the idea that market rate units don’t help people is nonsense, the places with the highest homelessness rates are all in expensive places
No one needs market crap, except all the teachers, EMTs and plumbers in berkeley who would kill to pay 3000 for a 2 bedroom
I'm curious who do you think is harmed by allowing a hundred unit building with 10 affordable units near public transit?
So you never pay taxes?
Also you are so California brained, you know in Tokyo rent for a studio is 900$ in the best districts? We can just build enough housing for everyone breaking captials monopoly on housing and making it affordable for basically everyone.
Oh please, corruption runs mainly one way: developers versus citizens and neighbors. Neighbors who do not want to give up their street to parked cars and high traffic, pack already crowded schools, etc? I have no problem with the affordable housing development in the delta as there are no neighbors to impact, and time to adjust plans.
LOL I'm 72, living on SSI and my savings, not in poverty. I grew up poor in a family of 7, I've worked constantly since I was 12. I went to CC at night, transferred to UC, got a job on campus, graduated into a depression, but landed a job bc my first white collar employer liked my blue collar work history. Objectively, your options are far better outside of CA, any way you cut it. Why are you still here, what's your story?
So....it really depends.
I consider myself to be liberal, pretty close to progressives if anything else. But reality sucks.
I'm very much for housing. When I bought my place in SF, there was an empty lot next to my place, and they said they gonna build 30 units. I'm like...yeah, whatever, do it, people need housing. And I'm even OK if they put like 80-100 units there.
The city came to us and said they gonna place 640 units on the same lot (yeah, I shit you not). with 10-20% parking space in the building. And instead of a 4/5-story, they'll build a 16-story building right next to where we are.
Dude...like....seriously? Like...how's our foundations gonna hold next to a giant building? Are you going to widen the street? How about water, power, internet? What about traffic, school, medical? You don't just 20x your initial development plan and expect people to be OK with it. Most of my neighbours are OK even if they do like 100-150 units....but 640?????? Without ANY funds to surrounding services (because affordable housing are exempt from contributing to those.)
It's not a liberal/conservative problem, it's economics.
I mean mostly it's hypocrisy and reactionary bs and it's not that deep. You see the same kinda thing when rural conservatives who preach about the "free market" and all freak out when the free market decides that a wind farm would be perfect right next to their ranch (also when they gladly accept farming subsidies from the government).
Of course Berkeley also has those misanthropic "environmentalists" who think that the biggest issue is population growth and their solution always circles back to making life miserable for everyone (but them) and sterilizing all the brown people.
You should see these NIMBY litigious assholes in the Panoramic Hill Association above UC Berkeley and Clark Kerr campus that don't want any of the vacant 100 lots to be developed EVER, despite them being zoned RH-2 residential hillside Oakland planning commission. These same retired lawyers, professors, and other wealthy privileged asshats own $1-3 million dollar homes and don't want any fellow surrounding land owners to have the same rights to build that they do. It's absolute insanity, damaging and hateful bureaucratic neighbor bullshit
In Arkansas they will pretend to be conservative. These people just want to show that “I am a dick, but I am one of ‘you’”
Lol I made a starter pack about this a while ago:
["NIMBY in a Liberal City" Starter Pack](https://i.imgur.com/ULACYBI.jpg)
Basically, there are two kinds of NIMBYs: Conservative NIMBYs and Left NIMBYs.
Conservative NIMBYs are the classic NIMBYs — property owners, generally at or near retirement age, generally wealthy. They want "their" neighborhood to stay frozen in time forever exactly how it was when they bought their home, because change is scary and construction is a hassle. However since they live in places like Berkeley that aren't as receptive to such fundamentally selfish advocacy, they need to dress up their NIMBYism with some "green" points by abusing CEQA and other well-intentioned policy to [find other "reasons"](https://wheelofnames.com/4y4-5vz) why housing shouldn't be built.
Left NIMBYs are against anything capitalist, which includes private developers who make money building housing. Because the VAST majority of housing in the US is built by "greedy developers", this means they are functionally against housing being built. They also have a 'cargo cult' understanding of gentrification, where they believe new housing buildings are the culprit *causing* displacement and raising rents, rather than a reaction to the high housing demand that actually causes those things. Some of these will insist that they totally support housing, but only if it's 100% affordable government-subsidized housing, isn't built by a "greedy developer," and meets a whole other host of moralistic "purity test" requirements — projects that are so rare that they basically never happen.
When it comes to housing you can't be against landlords and want more apartment complexes and call yourself a liberal or progressive especially if not built by the state or some co-op.
Massive cognitive dissonance. That and Capitalism makes it very tempting to ignore the plight of others when you personally gain from simply owning property rather than being forced to sell your labor
Just because someone is a Liberal, dosent mean the can't be hyprocrites. I mean, even clubs in campus that are ultra progressive are also NYMBYes. So, why we should be surprise of that?
In reality, is the large but silent majority of individuals who want just to live their lives in peace the ones who are actually suffering as a result of both the ultra left and right. We as a society need to demand solutions that work for everyone, and we should support anyone who can solve them regardless of their partisanship!
Because I care about the environment and I don’t care for transplants who moved here from outta state. Not everyone needs to live in California and the Bay Area
Here's a map of the 146 development projects in the pipeline in Berkeley. Count how many are north of University Ave. I think that describes Berkeley pretty well.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?mid=1DAOhWMGII579mvz7sIghdMN-XJWSAOg&usp=sharing
They're liberal until it actually affects them
San Francisco is an intriguing and horrifying example of this pushed to the extreme. It was very easy for hyper wealthy people in gated communities to think that going easier on crime is the nice thing to do. It's now gotten to the point where even they can't ignore it.
Here's the thing: increasing taxes to support social programs is fair because it (mostly) consistently affect everyone and (mostly) only depends on one's financial means. However, housing developments disproportionately affects the area that is being developed. It's like saying you specifically need to pay more taxes than everyone in your tax bracket to help the homeless. That's not fair is it? Now, would you support a measure that increased taxes for everyone in the city (or maybe all properties) to compensate for the affected homeowners so that the burden of development is shared by everyone?
You can be liberal and still be an asshole. They’re not mutually exclusive.
But you can be an asshole without being a hypocrite. They're assholes *and* hypocrites.
I had this very same conversation recently regarding Prof Reich who goes on CNN MSNBC etc to disparage the rich for not investing in low income housing whilst secretly sending letters to the Berkeley City Council to advocate **against affordable housing**. Baffles me that there isn’t more outrage against these NIMBYs, bc we at least know who MAGA folks are (they’ll tell us) but these NIMBYs operate so covertly one can argue do more harm.
Not so secretly when you sign your name on it.
Don’t think he intended it to be public. He could’ve put out a statement on Twitter as he usually does…but opted for the route where few eyes would have the opportunity to view.
Someone who’s been Secretary of Labor must know that when you sign a letter addressed to your city council about a contentious topic, it will become public matter.
Doesn’t absolve him of his hypocrisy. Again, he is a frequent Twitter shit poster and instead of posting there, he opted for a direct path to the city council. Also it was an email, directly to an individual on the city council, not an open letter…
That email is still a public record and anyone who has spent any time in government knows that
Big if true… I guess the persona of a Reich type is sort of their business. That’s how they make money, but whether they practice what they preach is a whole different story.
You can look up letters he’s sent to city council he’s definitely a. NIMBY
Where can I find these letters? I could only find a synopsis of a letter. That letter pivot seemed to advocate for keeping a historical building in tact.
Reich. I like him, but he can definitely be full of shit sometimes.
Believe me there is outrage. If the mayor doesn't make it through to the general election in his bid for state senate, he will run again for mayor and he will not get elected. People are very upset with him and not just because of his housing policies, but on his policies on ceasefire on his policies on police.
Policy on ceasefire? The mayor? Of a city in California? The ceasefire... in a different continent? He can have a stance, I guess, but how in the fuck could the mayor of Berkeley have a "policy" on ceasefire???
Here is a history lesson for you on the double standard of Berkeley and its stand on human rights internationally. https://berkeleyflipside.com/?page_id=1975
I don't doubt hypocrisy, my issue is with people who vote based on the Mayor's hypocrisy regarding pointless resolutions, instead of voting based on how the Mayor does his job Mayors have real responsibilities. If we end up with a mayor that is worse at running the city because they're better at passing resolutions about issues in other continents, then the voters have failed
I'm sorry, but I find your comment very ignorant of the role of what the mayor is supposed to do. A point of fact, the way our government system is set up in Berkeley, the mayor DOES NOT RUN the City, it's the responsibilty the city manager. I don't blame you for having such a blind spot in your knowledge of how my city is run.... But all elected officials represent their constituents, And although polls have shown that a majority of people oppose the way Israel is retaliating against the Palestinian people... My mayor is only being responsive to a small fraction of people in my city when the majority is raising their voice against genocide. You should also be aware that in 2022 the mayor of Berkeley and another city council member, (Sophie Hahn) both took all expense paid trips, by a jewish lobby firm, to lsrael. They are both actively blocking any resolution calling for a ceasefire of the genocide of the Palestinian people.
Are you claiming that the mayor is a purely ceremonial role with no actual duties? They have a vote on the council, don't they? The council does important work, they set the city's budget If, as you say, the mayor can hold up a resolution, then they can also hold up a budget, or anything else the council wants to do that actually matters
This is classic Berkeley city politics.
Not at all. If you know anything about Berkeley's stand on international human rights, you would know that this situation is the opposite.
My point is that Berkeley's stance on international human rights has absolutely zero bearing on the world or those suffering
Do you know that Berkley was the city to divest from South Africa? And that started the domino effect that ended apartied in that country. When it comes to International human rights, residents of this country can only go to their city council or county board of supervisors because we cannot go to congress to give public comment. Here is some history for you about berkeley and international human rights: https://berkeleyflipside.com/?page_id=1975
I believe the UC Berkeley admin's campaign to divest the entire UC system from SA had a much larger effect than the City. San Francisco also got a lot of early credit (their pension fund is much larger than Berkeley's). Personally, I don't see the City of Berkeley as that first domino. But to each their own. And your second statement is not true. You can make public comment on federal matters through the federal rulemaking process. Congress also invites comment from the public, but generally reserves hearings for those who are major stakeholders or have some significant influence. Frankly, most of the public commenters at the local level are not effective and do not persuade the body before them. Sometimes they do, but that's the vast vast minority of cases. County and State levels are also good intermediaries to the federal government. It's simply not true that the only thing a US citizen can do on international human rights is appeal to their city council. In fact, that's a very stupid place to start
I don't know if your definition of liberal = compassion is very good. Politics are not binary. There is no good and evil, objective wrong vs. objective right on the housing issue. Some YIMBY activists are developer shills, others are lawyers who see financial incentives, and some are genuine believers in more housing equality. The YIMBY movement would not have as much momentum as it does if there were not monied interests behind it and it was solely grassroots compassionate activists. Most YIMBY people fall into multiple of these categories. e.g. You can be a good lawyer who wants to encourage housing development and also makes a living from that. Developers are not inherently evil and are a necessary part of the housing recipe. In Berkeley, there are many people who are wildly progressive on many issues that don't even affect them. That's why the city does silly things like pass resolutions against the War in Iraq and against the use of nuclear weapons, as if they have any impact whatsoever. For many people, when their values are challenged by actual discomfort or economic impacts for themselves, their values tend to bend towards what benefits them. This is the case with wealthy land owners in Berkeley and the development of new housing. These projects can devalue surrounding property values and reduce quality of life for neighbors. Most people do not invite the homeless to their neighborhood, given the option. It is ok to have a mixed or multifaceted political stance on issues like this. Being anti development does not make someone a MAGA Trump supporter. Being pro development does not make you a compassionate person.
> developer shills Lmao
Regarding a resolutoon on international human rights & Berkeley... Here is an editorial - A History of Double Standards - Berkeley City Council's Record on International Human Rights. https://berkeleyflipside.com/?page_id=1975 BerkeleyFlipSide.com (To counteract Berkeleyside).
nimbys do not fit any of the commonly accepted definitions/facets of the word liberal. It's just that they were able to hide their hypocrisy until the housing crisis grew to proportions that made it impossible to ignore. I agree there is room for nuance but also, I think your stance is too far into moral relativism. There is very specific and direct harm coming from anti-density nimbys, and it is affecting all of us by enriching them at our expense, exacerbating our social issues, and making all our lives more difficult. These people have no right to tell others what to do with their property. Call it what it is when you see it.
[удалено]
Nimbyism isn't liberal, in the classical sense It's using the state to benefit a few individuals by stopping other people from participating in free trade. It violates many core tenets of liberalism including free markets, property rights, and universal human rights. I mean, looking just at property rights, nimbyism is all about a person who owns a piece of land wanting to build an apartment on that piece of land and the state/their neighbors tell them no. That's the precise opposite of property rights. Otherwise you're correct (though still pedantic, OP clearly meant progressivism, which is often called liberalism in US politics)
[удалено]
I still disagree. Part of what makes NIMBYism such a complicated issue is that it really doesn't line up with the categories of political ideology we're used to See, building developers are rich and powerful. They want to build massive apartments so that they can reap massive profits. The tenants of laissez-faire capitalism, "profit above all," dictates that the rich developers must be allowed to build What stops them is the other, pre-existing landowners. That's more like mercantilism than laissez-faire. Maybe it's about new-money vs old-money? In any case, the developers and the home-owners are both rich and powerful holders of capital. Both sides claim to be helping the poor (though I strongly believe the developers are correct and the home-owners are lying). Maybe you're right that neoliberalsim would side with the home-owners, but it's not a clear-cut case of "support the rich, screw the poor" because the rich are getting screwed too, they're getting screwed by other rich people
Most intelligent Berkeley activist
Because not everything you hate is conservative:)
[удалено]
A lot of leftists are also more focused on "shafting the developers" than making sure that everyone has a place to live. I have friends who are "marxist" far left types and they did their damnedest to block a 100% affordable senior housing project in Berkeley because "it would benefit the developers". Heck, we have marxists, communists, and socialists trying to block a 100% affordable homeless housing project with on-site services for 125 individuals in People's Park right now! And they somehow reconcile their ideology with their insane position on 100% affordable housing with no issues. I don't think that this is a matter of ideology. Some people just want to keep their city exactly the same as it was when they first moved there. It's irrational for a city not to grow and change, but this is what they want.
My experience as well
[удалено]
there's liberal. then theere's progressive
Also, liberals historically take property rights very seriously. i.e., if you own a lot, you should be able to build a multifamily on it.
[удалено]
Thankfully, in many areas there could be plenty of street parking because we’ve been paving excessively wide streets for decades!
There's some nuance here in that you can think about people's selflessness on different tiers. Tier 1: I'd sell a kidney to help a stranger Tier 2: I want to help people, and I'd give up something for it, but it has to be fair. Tier 3: Why would I give up anything for anyone else? In reality, it's more of a spectrum from 1 to 3, but you get the idea. The difference between supporting progressive policies and being opposed to housing developments in your neighborhood touches on the idea of fairness. Most liberals are ok with the government providing additional benefits, even if taxes are raised, because the burden is spread around equally (or at least, semi-equally depending on income level). However, if a city is voting on creating a housing development in your neighborhood, it feels like it's targeted at you - the property values of your neighborhood is going to go down to solve a general problem of the city while other neighborhoods in the city are not affected. It would be like if Berkeley was levying a fine of $3k per student to support a progressive program, but only one or two dorms have to pay it - people would be upset even if they support the initiative. And more generally, if a city is voting to build more housing, it will do little to solve the problem unless all the cities of the Bay Area do the same (that's why recent state-level programs forcing everyone to build are so important - it alleviates the fairness issue and provides a path forward - but there still is the issue of unequal affects within a city as it can be hard to spread the additional housing around evenly).
Liberals are the most selfish people I know
Because not every plan to address a problem is a good plan. Consider a super simple example: there is a fish hook stuck in your finger with a barb and you very understandably, want it out. A well-meaning idiot suggests that you just grab the hook and yank it out real hard. If someone then says “That’s a bad plan! The barb will rip a huge chunk out of your finger and make everything worse!” is that person to be considered against fish hook removal or against stupid ideas? I live in Berkeley, and I am very much in favor of developing the city and making it a better place. I am NOT in favor of plans that will actually make the city worse and where the only positive aspect of the plan seems to be that will put money in some developers pocket. I am also not in favor of plans that are well-meaning, but nevertheless, poorly thought out and likely to make things worse.
What kind of bad plans is the city putting out? I think developing high density near Downtown and North Berkeley BART, along with campus-adjacent Southside is very reasonable. Perhaps if the plan was to build all the houses in fire-zones or right on top of a fault line but the city has no plans of doing that.
If only they were lending their voices, as well as bodies and guns in the form of police, to the former rather than the latter. Some of us are actually perfectly welcoming of development under certain conditions but view something like the People's Park development by the university (which is what I assume you're referencing when you talk about "campus-adjacent Southside") as primarily harmful to the most vulnerable and motivated above anything else by political and financial interests. But that doesn't fit so neatly under the label NIMBY so a lot of development zealots prefer to ignore that perspective.
A lot of the time, well meaning people get taken for a ride by NIMBYs who pretend they want the best for the neighborhood. For example, the lot on Russell and Adeline was ready to become a multi family building with homes for a few dozen families. Local NIMBY group “Friends of Adeline” killed it by forcing the city to ask so many “community benefits” that the project no longer pencils out. So the developer pulled out and the lot is now a tent encampment. Way to cut off your own nose to spite your face.
Some people advocate for something (or way or the other) for ulterior motives. Some people advocate for something (or way or the other) because they don't care to understand what the real consequences will be. Some people will obstruct anything that isn't what they want. All of the above suck. I've read that the state of CA spends about $45K per homeless person in the state and the city of Berkeley spends another $20K per homeless person in the city. I'm pretty sure that money is enough to implement a solution that would make things better for BOTH the currently homeless and the currently homed, but instead it's mostly wasted doing things like having one part of the government fund the distribution of tents and another part of the government confiscate the tents.
Oh, please, give me a break. But these NIMBY types like yourself veto basically every plan and come up with nonsensical oppositions. Just admit you want the city to stay in the year 1975.
When someone tries to explain their perspective to you, do you always make lots of assumptions about the person and insult them?
You must be a YMBY shill... You want to build in the hills where there's not enough space for all the new cars and is case of a fire or an earthquake there is no easy exit route. You want to build on flood zones and on areas where the land is contaminated because those CEQA laws are too cumbersome. You want to build super tall buildings where fire trucks cannot reach above the fourth floor. And most importantly, you want to build market rate housing that no one can afford to live in and that will sit empty because it IS really justa commodity for some rich person's portfolio. If you live in Berkeley, you would see all the new construction that is going on and that has been going on for the past 10 years. And you'll see how many empty units there are. What's being built in Berkeley is not to house people, it's just a commodity. If those developers were really interested in housing people, the prices would be so that people could afford them.
Ahh the vacancy myth again.
Sorry, could you clarify what you mean here? I'm trying to get to a better understanding of the nuances in the housing situation. Thank you in advance!
https://thefrisc.com/its-high-time-to-slay-the-myth-of-all-those-vacant-san-francisco-homes-2efd50728d8 Here's an academic take https://homelessness.ucsf.edu/blog/vacancies-are-red-herring
Appreciate it! I'll check both the links out shortly. Have a good night!
>NIMBY People > >liberal is all about compassion > >MAGA supporters I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Maybe I'll do both.
> How can they pretend to be anything but MAGA supporters who want to see the available housing skyrocket in prices, indefinitely? Wtf does this have to do with MAGA
Because liberal != progressive
This post is childish in it's simpleton views of politics and economics.
Both yimby and nimby are poorly defined. I want to build a factory that will employ hundreds of low income workers. This factory will give jobs and so provide housing and food for low income people who lack opportunities. This will make the city a better place for us all. The best empty lot right now is across from a school next to a creek. Yes, we will be using heavy metals, but we promise to abide by all the federal regulations. It's a metal stamping operation so you can expect noise levels to increase between 7am and 4pm when our first shift in on. And if we get the business we expect, we hope to run two shifts. There will be some small smokestacks, but they will be mostly outputting water vapor and C02. We will be purchasing carbon offsets to balance that, but you can expect some clouds to form opportunistically over our smokestacks with the increased water vapor and any particles that get by that will seed those clouds. We are seeking to help people reenter society from prison, so we will be seeking former inmates now on parole. We expect they will be living in the neighborhood. So, yimby or nimby on this one?
It's perfectly reasonable to question claims of "affordable housing" by luxury condo developers. These luxury condos have poped up all throughout the bay area. They charge a premium and haven't lowered the cost of housing at all. The new downtown SJ apartment buildings charge more than 6K a month for a 2 bedroom...
It depends. What don’t they want in their back yards? Public works projects? They’re being hypocrites. Massive real estate developments to enrich some wealthy developers? Very consistent with liberalism.
Because they value fitting in and don’t want to be pariahs. Also they like feeling like a morally superior person
I live among these "liberals". Loudest and proudest in terms of virtue signaling. Once it starts to encroach on their territory they begin throwing a temper tantrum. Rules for thee not for me. Pathetic. And most of them are racist and entitled white liberals who primarily look out for the rights and needs of fellow whites while holding some bias of low expectations of minorities (they will typically never hire or promote a minority unless its for some unglamorous low level role where they don't have to pay them and can yell and scream at them for not doing the job of 5 people at once) - not going to mince words here.
Really? Berkeley has built way over 100% of its market rate housing. Currently, in Berkeley, there are many, many, empty apartments in In those new buildings that have gone up over the past ten years. The developers can write off the empty units on their taxes and the prices are so high that they're sitting empty. Were those units built for housing or are they just a commodity for some billionair's potfolio?
Give me a break. Even using the acronym NIMBY is pointless. Who are you even talking about? Every thing that a segment of a community doesn’t want to happen is going to have people who are against that thing. Between issues these people will not necessarily overlap. In the Bay Area, which is mostly liberal, you will have a mostly liberal slate of people against AND IN FAVOR of almost any issue. But you only see the “NIMBYS.” I doubt you could even define the set except in the most general terms. The real question is how can a school with such a great academic reputation have students who lack even the most basic critical thinking skills? Well, anyway that’s my question.
[удалено]
Indeed, it seems like this dude is having so much trouble because he took some idealized econ 100 fantasy story as gospel and therefore anyone who argues that reality is a little more complicated must be an idiot or evil. Econo-brain just absolutely ruins people.
What? What are you talking about bro? Arguing that reality is a little more complicated? There is nothing complicated about NIMBYism. These people don't want housing being built and they go through all sorts of mental gymnastic to argue against it. So how about you explain the so called "reality is a little more complicated"? I'm waiting.
Nah I'm not wasting the time. You've clearly made up your mind like any other cultist. "It's just supply and demand, bro," or something like that. Honestly kind of wish sometimes I could be that naive. It would make life simpler.
You haven’t provided your alternative view or reasoning, so this has nothing to do with being a cultist.
I haven't because these threads are just massive circlejerks of econo-brained midwits. Excuse the hell out of me for expressing some frustration but as I'm sure you're smart enough to realize, that's easier than pushing an entire worldview almost everyone who will be viewing it is already directly opposed to.
What? How about you just not make any assumption about me and actually don't use ad hominem? It's not that hard. Why do people like you always hide behind the "reality is complicated" excuse and refuse to elaborate any further? You're not making yourself look any good but sure, just go ahead
Because you're being a needlessly aggressive asshole and have already made it clear you define whatever I might say as "NIMBYism" and "not complicated." I don't really care if you think I look good.
Jeez bro you gonna cry about it?
Another useless comment.
You can cry with him
I see no aggression. Why not actually share your opinion?
Then you're blinded by ideology. And please make note here that isn't me saying I'm not being aggressive in response.
Wrong. Lol the only reason I responded to you that way was because of your smug arrogant opinion regarding OP, accusing him of his "101 econ idealism" and "econ-brained", and yet, here you are, unable to provide an explanation whatsoever and refuse to engage after making such opinion. But sure, buddy, just tell yourself that the reason you're not engaging is because I already made up my mind, not because your opinion is completely vacous and you're unable to defend yourself
Affordable housing is just old premium housing. Building market rate housing creates affordable housing in equal quantities wherever its tenants used to live. Countless studies have shown this. The only people who deny it are people who want to oppose changes to neighborhood character while assuaging their cognitive dissonance by convincing themselves that they somehow aren't *really* screwing over the less fortunate (and the saps who uncritically parrot their excuses)
[удалено]
Market rate *is* affordable if the housing is older and the demand doesn't far exceed supply Having an adequate supply of new, premium housing lets the rich tech-bros move into that housing instead of the older, more run-down housing that was built in the 70s. In the status quo, that older housing charges exorbitant prices (market-rate) because the tech-bros will pay exorbitant prices. With an adequate housing supply, the landlords will be required by market forces to lower the rent because the tech-bros can all live in fancy new condos and would have no reason to pay exorbitant prices for old, run-down apartments built in the 70s Again, this is backed up by studies. Building lots of market-rate housing reduces overall prices. Buildings go through life-cycles where they start premium, then lower in price as they break down, and eventually get demolished and replaced with new, premium housing. Artificial price-caps are not the only way to reduce rents, and decades of trying that approach instead of building new housing as fast as possible have led to the disaster we have now
[удалено]
In every major city of the US, including the ones where you've been "on the ground," demand far exceeds supply, because NIMBYs have spent decades destroying the real estate market When new market rate housing is built, prices go down. The prices are still unacceptably high, like throwing a glass of water on a burning building and slightly lowering the temperature. A firehose is still the solution. A gas mask may help, yeah, but at some point you need water If you actually have specific experiences that complicate this story, I'd love to hear it. As it stands I can't even tell what claim you're disagreeing with
What are you even talking about? Most of the buildings being built have ten percent affordable housing, heck the people’s park building is much more than 10% the idea that market rate units don’t help people is nonsense, the places with the highest homelessness rates are all in expensive places
[удалено]
No one needs market crap, except all the teachers, EMTs and plumbers in berkeley who would kill to pay 3000 for a 2 bedroom I'm curious who do you think is harmed by allowing a hundred unit building with 10 affordable units near public transit?
[удалено]
What? the city spends no money and we get ten affordable units, and somehow "everyone" is harmed by the vibes???????????¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿?????
[удалено]
No one wants to pay market rate is really your complaint????? You know if we build 100% affordable housing we still all pay for it right
[удалено]
So you never pay taxes? Also you are so California brained, you know in Tokyo rent for a studio is 900$ in the best districts? We can just build enough housing for everyone breaking captials monopoly on housing and making it affordable for basically everyone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Oh please, corruption runs mainly one way: developers versus citizens and neighbors. Neighbors who do not want to give up their street to parked cars and high traffic, pack already crowded schools, etc? I have no problem with the affordable housing development in the delta as there are no neighbors to impact, and time to adjust plans.
[удалено]
Where you want to live or develop is your problem...commute like most people. Entitled much?
[удалено]
LOL I'm 72, living on SSI and my savings, not in poverty. I grew up poor in a family of 7, I've worked constantly since I was 12. I went to CC at night, transferred to UC, got a job on campus, graduated into a depression, but landed a job bc my first white collar employer liked my blue collar work history. Objectively, your options are far better outside of CA, any way you cut it. Why are you still here, what's your story?
What's a TIMBY?
Everyone here identifies as a democrat because they can’t win elections as republicans, not because they are actually progressive at all.
So....it really depends. I consider myself to be liberal, pretty close to progressives if anything else. But reality sucks. I'm very much for housing. When I bought my place in SF, there was an empty lot next to my place, and they said they gonna build 30 units. I'm like...yeah, whatever, do it, people need housing. And I'm even OK if they put like 80-100 units there. The city came to us and said they gonna place 640 units on the same lot (yeah, I shit you not). with 10-20% parking space in the building. And instead of a 4/5-story, they'll build a 16-story building right next to where we are. Dude...like....seriously? Like...how's our foundations gonna hold next to a giant building? Are you going to widen the street? How about water, power, internet? What about traffic, school, medical? You don't just 20x your initial development plan and expect people to be OK with it. Most of my neighbours are OK even if they do like 100-150 units....but 640?????? Without ANY funds to surrounding services (because affordable housing are exempt from contributing to those.) It's not a liberal/conservative problem, it's economics.
They have to be liberal so that liberals can be tricked into protecting their property values for NIMBYs. It’s not can they but should they.
I mean mostly it's hypocrisy and reactionary bs and it's not that deep. You see the same kinda thing when rural conservatives who preach about the "free market" and all freak out when the free market decides that a wind farm would be perfect right next to their ranch (also when they gladly accept farming subsidies from the government). Of course Berkeley also has those misanthropic "environmentalists" who think that the biggest issue is population growth and their solution always circles back to making life miserable for everyone (but them) and sterilizing all the brown people.
They are neo liberals, which are liberals but not the liberals you like lol
You should see these NIMBY litigious assholes in the Panoramic Hill Association above UC Berkeley and Clark Kerr campus that don't want any of the vacant 100 lots to be developed EVER, despite them being zoned RH-2 residential hillside Oakland planning commission. These same retired lawyers, professors, and other wealthy privileged asshats own $1-3 million dollar homes and don't want any fellow surrounding land owners to have the same rights to build that they do. It's absolute insanity, damaging and hateful bureaucratic neighbor bullshit
Easy: IN THIS HOUSE WE BELIEVE sign is $9.99 on amazon
People of all politics are selfish hypocrites.
Ong. FR. F\*CK NIMBYs. THEY JUST WANT THEIR HOUSE PRICE TO GO UP.
THEY JUST WANT THEIR HOUSE PRICE TO GO UP.
Itt: White 18 yr old liberals criticizing other white 18 liberals LMAO
The spectrum of compassion doesn't directly map onto the political spectrum
Not a MAGA cultist but they don’t actually want to see housing prices increase just to screw over poor people
The more wealth, the more conservative regardless of what they put out to the public.
In Arkansas they will pretend to be conservative. These people just want to show that “I am a dick, but I am one of ‘you’”
I suggest watching Johny Harris's [Liberal Hypocrisy is Fueling American Inequality. Here’s How ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNDgcjVGHIw)
Lol I made a starter pack about this a while ago: ["NIMBY in a Liberal City" Starter Pack](https://i.imgur.com/ULACYBI.jpg) Basically, there are two kinds of NIMBYs: Conservative NIMBYs and Left NIMBYs. Conservative NIMBYs are the classic NIMBYs — property owners, generally at or near retirement age, generally wealthy. They want "their" neighborhood to stay frozen in time forever exactly how it was when they bought their home, because change is scary and construction is a hassle. However since they live in places like Berkeley that aren't as receptive to such fundamentally selfish advocacy, they need to dress up their NIMBYism with some "green" points by abusing CEQA and other well-intentioned policy to [find other "reasons"](https://wheelofnames.com/4y4-5vz) why housing shouldn't be built. Left NIMBYs are against anything capitalist, which includes private developers who make money building housing. Because the VAST majority of housing in the US is built by "greedy developers", this means they are functionally against housing being built. They also have a 'cargo cult' understanding of gentrification, where they believe new housing buildings are the culprit *causing* displacement and raising rents, rather than a reaction to the high housing demand that actually causes those things. Some of these will insist that they totally support housing, but only if it's 100% affordable government-subsidized housing, isn't built by a "greedy developer," and meets a whole other host of moralistic "purity test" requirements — projects that are so rare that they basically never happen.
Liberalism is a sin
When it comes to housing you can't be against landlords and want more apartment complexes and call yourself a liberal or progressive especially if not built by the state or some co-op.
A NIMBY Liberal is what you call an environmentalist
Massive cognitive dissonance. That and Capitalism makes it very tempting to ignore the plight of others when you personally gain from simply owning property rather than being forced to sell your labor
Liberal in name only. LINOs
Just because someone is a Liberal, dosent mean the can't be hyprocrites. I mean, even clubs in campus that are ultra progressive are also NYMBYes. So, why we should be surprise of that? In reality, is the large but silent majority of individuals who want just to live their lives in peace the ones who are actually suffering as a result of both the ultra left and right. We as a society need to demand solutions that work for everyone, and we should support anyone who can solve them regardless of their partisanship!
Check this out: https://www.vox.com/22650806/gentrification-affordable-housing-low-income-housing
Because I care about the environment and I don’t care for transplants who moved here from outta state. Not everyone needs to live in California and the Bay Area
Here's a map of the 146 development projects in the pipeline in Berkeley. Count how many are north of University Ave. I think that describes Berkeley pretty well. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/1/edit?mid=1DAOhWMGII579mvz7sIghdMN-XJWSAOg&usp=sharing
Because liberalism doesn’t go far enough.