Skip to main content

Diigo Home

The Bellows » NIMBYism - The Diigo Meta page

www.ryanavent.com/blog - Cached - Annotated View

Yule Heibel's personal annotations on this page

lampertina
Lampertina bookmarked on 2008-08-01 nimbyism urban_development density affordability the_bellows ryan_avent

Ryan Avent argues a perspective against NIMBYism here, which never occurred to me before: that "the biggest problem with public involvement and development is that some of the biggest beneficiaries of new development have no seat at the table–those who’ll be living at to-be-constructed residences. Even if you bring all neighborhood stakeholders in, educate them, and get their opinion (eliminating squeaky wheel bias), you’re still not getting the views of all interested parties." He continues as follows:

"However the planning process addresses public participation, policy should begin with a pro-density bias to reflect that fact that other things equal, developments will always be less dense than is socially optimal. That’s because the people who would like to be residents of an area but aren’t benefit from development but have no political say in the matter."

Got that? In ciites, you should plan for optimal density (because that's ecologically efficient, too), but the NIMBYs will argue against density, and they will make those who want to move into the neighbourhood pay the additional cost of keeping density *below* optimal levels. As Avent puts it, "we need to determine whether the burden is on current homeowners to pay for the right to exclude additional residents, or if the burden is on non-residents to pay for the right to live there. Current policy is de facto the latter."

  • the biggest problem with public involvement and development is that some of the biggest beneficiaries of new development have no seat at the table–those who’ll be living at to-be-constructed residences.
  • policy should begin with a pro-density bias to reflect that fact that other things equal, developments will always be less dense than is socially optimal.
  • Another way of looking at this is by asking who has the right to restrict entry to a neighborhood, and how far does that right extend. When thinking about theoretical negotiations over the terms of development, we need to determine whether the burden is on current homeowners to pay for the right to exclude additional residents, or if the burden is on non-residents to pay for the right to live there. Current policy is de facto the latter.
  • But the current system is hugely inefficient, because we’re not even trying to figure out who the actual losers are, what a reasonable estimation of their losses is, what the social gains are, and so on. As such, you have projects which might potentially generate huge social benefits and considerable private benefits–to neighborhood residents, as well–derailed because a handful of very loud people shout loudly. And this costs those loud people only the time to organize and shout.
    • lampertina
      Lampertina on 2008-08-01
      Oh god, how true! We see this time & time again with community associations "representing" the neighbourhoods here in Victoria.

This link has been bookmarked by 1 people . It was first bookmarked on 01 Aug 2008, by Yule Heibel.

  • 01 Aug 08
    lampertina
    Yule Heibel

    Ryan Avent argues a perspective against NIMBYism here, which never occurred to me before: that "the biggest problem with public involvement and development is that some of the biggest beneficiaries of new development have no seat at the table–those who’ll be living at to-be-constructed residences. Even if you bring all neighborhood stakeholders in, educate them, and get their opinion (eliminating squeaky wheel bias), you’re still not getting the views of all interested parties." He continues as follows:

    "However the planning process addresses public participation, policy should begin with a pro-density bias to reflect that fact that other things equal, developments will always be less dense than is socially optimal. That’s because the people who would like to be residents of an area but aren’t benefit from development but have no political say in the matter."

    Got that? In ciites, you should plan for optimal density (because that's ecologically efficient, too), but the NIMBYs will argue against density, and they will make those who want to move into the neighbourhood pay the additional cost of keeping density *below* optimal levels. As Avent puts it, "we need to determine whether the burden is on current homeowners to pay for the right to exclude additional residents, or if the burden is on non-residents to pay for the right to live there. Current policy is de facto the latter."

    nimbyism urban_development density affordability the_bellows ryan_avent

    • the biggest problem with public involvement and development is that some of the biggest beneficiaries of new development have no seat at the table–those who’ll be living at to-be-constructed residences.
    • policy should begin with a pro-density bias to reflect that fact that other things equal, developments will always be less dense than is socially optimal.
    • 2 more annotations...

Top Tags