Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

i.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 95 posts

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#31

Post by refurb »

edoloughlin wrote: post #7
guylhem wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow that's luck - just when I was browsing around I found the perfect analysis on overcoming bias : senior voters and their healtcare - paid for by the majority, but since seniors vote more, they favour the candidate serving their interest - at the expanse of the majority http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/09/us-politics-of-medicin... Very interesting indeed- it seems to be the simplest pitfall of democracy : when th…

> senior voters and their healtcare - paid for by the majority, but since seniors vote more, they favour the candidate serving their interest - at the expanse of the majority It's difficult to see how this is at the expense of the majority since it's not exclusive: the majority will eventually become members of the beneficial group. I.e., why not have a policy that benefits the elderly since most of us will one day b…

You have to remember that the incentive is to create a benefit for today's group, whether or not it is sustainable in the long run.

If I were a senior, I could vote in benefits that today would benefit me, but create enough budget pressure that later groups would receive benefits that are worse than what I receive now.

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#32

Post by dkasper »

michaelochurch wrote: post #29

High house prices are a moral and economic disaster, as the post-2008 recession has shown us. The problem at the root of NIMBY is that real estate prices and behaviors have a few positive-feedback loops: 1. Because real estate "always goes up", and because Americans are delusional in general and seem to have a housing fetish, people have the deluded belief that they aren't paying for housing but investing in somethin…

>> Housing should be worth about $100-125 per square-foot, with about a 50-100% premium for top locations (urban areas) due to increased construction costs and reduced transportation costs (proximity to desirable places)

How'd you arrive at this number? Citation needed?

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#33

Post by jcampbell1 »

dkasper wrote: post #32
michaelochurch wrote: post #29

High house prices are a moral and economic disaster, as the post-2008 recession has shown us. The problem at the root of NIMBY is that real estate prices and behaviors have a few positive-feedback loops: 1. Because real estate "always goes up", and because Americans are delusional in general and seem to have a housing fetish, people have the deluded belief that they aren't paying for housing but investing in somethin…

>> Housing should be worth about $100-125 per square-foot, with about a 50-100% premium for top locations (urban areas) due to increased construction costs and reduced transportation costs (proximity to desirable places) How'd you arrive at this number? Citation needed?

$100-125/sqft is roughly new construction cost for suburban housing in the US.

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#34

Post by jamieb »

natrius wrote: post #25
ff0066mote wrote: post #17

I read the whole article, but stopped taking it seriously at: "a vicious collection of roadblocks" I think it's fine for people to desire quieter neighborhoods in this era of high population density. I don't think that the people in all of those examples were pursuing change for the financial gain.

Roadblocks make one part of a neighborhood quieter at the expense of another part. They also make traffic worse, which increases wasted time and pollution. If enough of those policies get implemented, people will find it too hard to get to downtown Palo Alto, and the shops that make it attractive to live there in the first place will suffer. Policymaking based on parochial interests without regard to the effect those…

On the other hand, I live at the bottom of a hill, 100ft from a traffic light. A new development opened up at the top of the hill, and now SUVs barrel down the hill at >50mph, see the green light, and accelerate. The speed limit is 25mph.

So when I hear about communities in Palo Alto "viscously" blocking traffic, I wonder if perhaps they are simply attempting to return traffic levels that were present when they bought their houses to raise their children.

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#35

Post by luser001 »

I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my road which has official speed limit of 25 mph.

Instead of spending money policing main streets, I support draconian camera-driven enforcement on side streets.

Make unmarked google-maps-like cars with high quality cameras and software. Park it on streets and watch for traffic. Send tickets remotely to speeders (equivalent to running a red light). Split revenue with the city.

Hmm, maybe I should run this by my city council. :)

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#36

Post by TDL »

luser001 wrote: post #35

I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my road which has official speed limit of 25 mph. Instead of spending money policing main streets, I support draconian camera-driven enforcement on side streets. Make unmarked google-maps-like cars with high quality cameras and software. Park it on streets and watch for traffic. Send tickets remotely to speeders (equivalent to running a red lig…

Speed bumps are great up until you need an ambulance or fire truck to get to you quickly.

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#38

Post by stuaxo »

TDL wrote: post #36
luser001 wrote: post #35

I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my road which has official speed limit of 25 mph. Instead of spending money policing main streets, I support draconian camera-driven enforcement on side streets. Make unmarked google-maps-like cars with high quality cameras and software. Park it on streets and watch for traffic. Send tickets remotely to speeders (equivalent to running a red lig…

Speed bumps are great up until you need an ambulance or fire truck to get to you quickly.

Here (UK) we have speed bumps that are narrow - cars hit the bump, buses ambulances and trucks hit the bump ... though cars in the US are pretty big, so not sure this would work.

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#39

Post by gammarator »

lnanek2 wrote: post #28
ff0066mote wrote: post #17

I read the whole article, but stopped taking it seriously at: "a vicious collection of roadblocks" I think it's fine for people to desire quieter neighborhoods in this era of high population density. I don't think that the people in all of those examples were pursuing change for the financial gain.

I know I run into them a lot trying to drive around Berkeley. It's a huge pain in the ass to cars trying to navigate through. Obviously home owners must love them, though. "How would you like if we blocked off your road to traffic so it becomes a quiet cul-de-sac?" "Yes, please!" Forget about hurting everyone else coming through.

"It's a huge pain in the ass to cars trying to navigate through."

And therefore it's a real pleasure to bike, walk, or take transit.

Having moved away from Berkeley to a city that prioritizes car travel above all else, I find I choose now to drive two blocks rather than walk because it's just unpleasant to get buzzed by cars doing 50 in a 35 on residential streets.

Re: Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs

#40

Post by [deleted] »

lnanek2 wrote: post #28
ff0066mote wrote: post #17

I read the whole article, but stopped taking it seriously at: "a vicious collection of roadblocks" I think it's fine for people to desire quieter neighborhoods in this era of high population density. I don't think that the people in all of those examples were pursuing change for the financial gain.

I know I run into them a lot trying to drive around Berkeley. It's a huge pain in the ass to cars trying to navigate through. Obviously home owners must love them, though. "How would you like if we blocked off your road to traffic so it becomes a quiet cul-de-sac?" "Yes, please!" Forget about hurting everyone else coming through.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN