Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

InfernalTest t1_j64n1zb wrote

Reply to comment by pton12 in NY attorney general weighs in: Harlem truck depot could be illegal by ctnutmegger

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