Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ceeyell t1_j63zy9k wrote

Reply to comment by mp0295 in NY attorney general weighs in: Harlem truck depot could be illegal by ctnutmegger

In NYC the councilmember for their district has an unusually high amount of sway over local projects like this. It’s the main reason why there’s so much NIMBY bullshit happening in NYC over the past decade+

67

Rottimer t1_j65ob6m wrote

High amount of sway - not complete sway. He would have to jump through more hoops.

0

RW3Bro t1_j64j3n6 wrote

The ULURP exists because of the damage that Robert Moses’ development did to the city, and he wasn’t solely concerned with profit. You’re off your rocker if you think giving land use powers to developers (whose only incentive is to make profit) or an agency in their pocket would result in anything besides the little people getting crushed by those with access to serious capital.

−20

pton12 t1_j64jlz7 wrote

We don’t want another Moses destroying neighborhoods, but we’ve clearly swung too far in the other direction. We need thousands of housing units and NIMBYism is making it that much harder to correct.

31

RW3Bro t1_j64l036 wrote

I have absolutely no faith that removing the ULURP and offloading the power to a city agency wouldn’t result in immediate and irreversible regulatory capture.

−7

pton12 t1_j64n3di wrote

I mean, you could just remove the veto and have the whole council just vote on it. I don’t think we need to assign veto power to a regulatory agency.

18

D14DFF0B t1_j66awt2 wrote

I don't think the council should vote on every project. Set (hopefully liberal) zoning rules and let the market fix the problem.

2

pton12 t1_j66ces5 wrote

Sure, whatever the mechanism, just remove the local veto.

3

RW3Bro t1_j64v92y wrote

I don’t see how that amounts to anything but a rubber stamp for developers. A councilperson is obviously only accountable to the people who live in their district. They have zero incentive to care about the will of the people who live outside it.

−10

ngroot t1_j64yrer wrote

> I don’t see how that amounts to anything but a rubber stamp for developers.

If the city council votes on it, they have an incentive to not do something that most people in the city hate.

9

InfernalTest t1_j64n1zb wrote

not for nothing but if ppl have a home and its value will be impacted negatively by some aspect of development its bullshit to insist that ppl should just accept that situation.

−12

pton12 t1_j64neqe wrote

Sure, and that’s why they have representation and hearings. But we are in a borough/city/state/country together. At some point, we need to think collectively to solve collective problems, and this soft veto just completely messes that up in too many instances.

11

InfernalTest t1_j64o1jp wrote

well if the people who she represents dont seem to think that way.... and theres no indication that they do

again its kind of hypocritical for people from OUTSIDE of the neighborhood she represents to insist they know better whats good than what she/ community wants and declare its NIMBYISM ....

someone from outside making decisions about infrastructure and saying " too bad this is how it is its for everyones benefit " that is the very epitome of why Robert Moses was a dick....

−8

pton12 t1_j64qf13 wrote

It isn’t though, because in representative democracy, there’s not a perfect reflection of community wishes and how the representative acts. I doubt local people prefer zero affordable housing units to 300.

There’s also a big gulf between Robert Moses running roughshod over everything and this level on NIMBYism. The fact is, as a society, we need things (whether sanitation, affordable housing, etc.) and they need to go somewhere. People often don’t want them nearby, but if everyone gets their wish, the society doesn’t get anything. This isn’t about an individual development, per se, but the idea that a single council member can stop much needed development in this instance or others, the whole city be damned.

10

InfernalTest t1_j64vrsi wrote

ok but its not like the developer CANT develop somewhere else...so there is a reason he wants to develop there and in order to do so it means a trade ....

and its not NIMBYISM to make a demand for what you want for your neighborhood and the needs of its constituents - just because youd prefer " some" over nothing doesnt mean that that standard is good for the neigborhood she represents ...

−5

Empty_Economist t1_j658ug7 wrote

The whole problem is thinking of homes as things to have value and not commodities that naturally depreciate like your car.

6

InfernalTest t1_j65h5gf wrote

uhhh a home ISNT a commodity - its supposed to be an asset and increase in value...... - its not supposed to be anything like a car....

−2

Empty_Economist t1_j65hdql wrote

That kind of thinking is literally the problem and why we're in the midst of a housing affordability crisis.

11

D14DFF0B t1_j66arp3 wrote

Homes are depreciating assets with a shitton of wear items. Land is what tends to appreciate.

4