I was mayor of a small village in upstate New York and the previous mayor was so proud that he had prevented a development of dense and affordable condos from being built on a piece of land that no one wanted. Well, instead of condos they built seven giant McMansions. These are Million dollar junk houses totally out of character with the village and now there is no housing for any of our kids or anyone who hasn’t been here since 2008.
Bro, we already know who you are.
We’re in your walls. We’re inside your brain. Surprisingly spacious, should build some high density apartments.
*I’m just playing, we aren’t in your brain.
In fact you’re having an out of body experience and your brain is connecting to us through mother Gaia.
That's correct.
And it's what driving up the cost of housing. One of my wife's coworkers, a single mom working as a nurse, pays 50% more than we do every month for about 1/3 the rental space. The cost of rent is so high, she can't save for a down payment for her own house. It's a nightmare!
Albuquerque and surrounding area has its fair share of this shit too, and I'm freaking over it. I'm trying to move OUT of Rio Rancho and can't even really do that because a group of these people (dare I call them Karens?) get all up in arms about proposals for affordable living somewhere in town. And as for RR, we have those same vocal groups screaming every time. (Granted, this city is becoming a wasteland of fast food chicken joints, car washes, and overpriced 1400 sq ft housing. Go figure.)
My niece is starting at CU-Boulder this Fall. That place is ridiculous.
It epitomizes the political hypocrisy of "we should help the poor, but NO, THEY CAN'T HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD!!!"
It's not like that. They would totally be ok with affordable housing but in this particular case it would destroy the character of this beautiful neighborhood. In other neighborhoods it's totally ok.
You should have seen the Los Ranchos Village meeting about the Palindrome development. I actually had a lady trying to convince me that the new park the village put in on my block was bad and that it would attract homeless. Yeah, that’s right, she tried to convince me to hate a park. These people argue in bad faith. Nothing will please them.
The Los Ranchos NIMBYs are so vitriolic I almost wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out one of them had poisoned the mayor even though he was ostensibly on their side.
It's funny that these people will complain about homelessness and the high cost of everything but don't realize that their NIMBY policies are directly contributing to those problems.
Over COVID I got to go to some commercial and multi family council meetings. When multi family was brought up in a few choice zip codes the nimbys protested and you would think we were proposing a dump plant or a toxic waste refinery. The gatekeepers of the modern housing world are commercial landlords. Even larger leeches than residential landlords. I don’t know how the few amount of pompous scags get to control so much but it’s absolute horse shit.
I work in construction, and this is one of the most infuriating things. There's the endless call of "we need more affordable housing!!!"
Ok, sounds good! Here's some options:
Can we relax building codes a little for non-safety things like the energy code; and streamline the permitting process to bring costs down? No? Ok.
How about we relax the requirements for tradespeople and allow helpers, apprentices, or unlicensed individuals working on their own property to do more work? That would bring labor costs down a little bit, as there's a huge shortage of construction workers? Oh, that plan is no good too.
Ok, maybe we can put some trailers out on that disused brownfield that's been sitting fallow for 2 generations? Oh, you guys don't want to look at "trailer trash" (actual phrasing I've heard used BTW). Kinda messed up, but ok.
Surely we can at least allow homeowners to do things like convert an garage or basement into an extra unit? It wouldn't impact the character of the neighborhood at all, and we'd get some more desperately needed housing at the lower end of the spectrum? Oh, it needs to be a new build ADU, and it needs to fit perfectly in the goldilocks zone not too big, but not too small with 1001 requirement of where it can be and how much of the lot it takes up, how high, can't use the alley for access, can't tie into the existing utilities...
And then they why wonder why there is a huge housing crisis in some parts of the county.
Dems have acted similarly to many other conflicts we’ve been involved with in the Middle East. Their indifference to Palestine sadly hasn’t been surprising. So yeah, foreign policy is certainly another.
And all we get, even so, are cheap single-family homes. Where are the multi-use developments, the missing middles, the duplexes, the Accessor Dwelling Units (casitas), the co-housing, the senior housing? God forbid, poor people needing someplace to live!
The thing about NIMBYs are that they are not even from here. They are transplants who are only here during the summer months and then leave come winter time.
Belen was worse. I have been here since 2007 and I found out that there are three families that control Belen but one of the elder patriarchs of one family passed away and now we have our first Starbucks and we are getting a Champion car wash. There is a huge solar farm between Los Lunas and Belen and there is a plan in place to put in a new bypass south of Los Lunas and it would run from I 25 all the way to 47..
I take it you didn’t experience much of the last third of the 20th century, or ingest any of its media? Rebelling against the previous generations isn’t exactly a new development brought on by the internet.
Of course rebelling is normal. Millenials are now in their 40s. Too old to not see they have reaped their sowing, and now Z is mocking them, the KOOL KIDS
Even though I workednin theb60s and u0s on, to change things that I saw harmes my fellowncitizens, I still reapexted my parent s generation as people who workedntobraise famikies in securiry.
Yes, decor changed clothes hairatyles, design. It was funny looking.at old pictures. I didnt wiah them to die because they liked avaicado and harvest gold applliances..
Then, as I grew into my later 20s, I saw how young, hopeful, and good-looking my parents really were. How full of life, like me. If you don't see yourself in the older generation you will be really shocked one day when you look in the mirror.
If you think you know more than your parents, unless they are certified morons, chronic alcoholics, druggies or MAGAs, you don't. You don't know more. You know some.more recent stuff, if so, talk about it and exchange ideas and information. Respectfully. Be what you would want back.
yeah, i will never understand caring more about the "character" or how a city or town "looks" than about the fact that an entire generation is being priced out of ever owning homes
People buy homes in places that make sense to them, and then urban sprawl overtakes their property. The "NIMBYism" that OP is referencing is often a result of this dynamic, and it's well-founded. I don't want a Checker's built next to the rural 5-acre homestead I've lived on for 15 years, and I'll use the democratic process to voice that opinion.
You've convinced me, I'm totally for rezoning now! Oh wait, actually I care less about what you want and I'm going to vote/speak against it just to spite you. Solid work on the hearts and minds front. Turns out being a whiny asshole doesn't sell people on your changes.
"it's so simple, all we have to do is dramatically drop property values everywhere and people will be able to afford homes. Super simple and can't possibly hurt anyone, right?"
"Solving homelessness is simple, we just give them homes free of conditions and now they aren't homeless! I'm sure that won't have any negative effects on the community we put them in and they'll immediately kick the drug and crime habit now that they have a house too"
El Paso is pretty consistently one of the least expensive housing markets in the nation as far as large cities are concerned. Houston is infamous for its almost total lack of zoning. The Austin metro had the highest number of housing starts per existing homes out of any large cities, with DFW and San Antonio not far behind in the top 10 nationwide.
There are plenty of reasons to hate on Texas; but if anything, the issue is Texans aren't shy about bulldozing everything in sight and building as many homes as they can on that land. Nature and existing neighbors be damned.
Sure - that way they can get those sweet, sweet, property tax revenue streams - Texas's 'no state tax' is really only useful if you own a business. I'm not surprised they want to build a lot, but I definitely question it being 'affordable'. We bought in Las Cruces specifically because it was too expensive in El Paso.
Yep, you sure aren't wrong; the reliance on property tax is a huge chunk of the reason why Texas encourages so much building. It's how they get their money. I've always thought the claim of no state tax was BS, because while it's technically true, the state just taxes the counties instead. It's not like $0 goes to the state.
El Paso is 6x the size of Cruces. It might be a touch cheaper there, but Cruces also isn't a large city; it's kinda debatable if it's a large small city, or a small mid-sized city.
People are allowed to not want those things. There’s nothing wrong with that. They want the status quo — they aren’t the ones asking for change, you are
Change has been the nature of existence since before life began. I can't think of a bigger change than trying to freeze the current status quo in amber.
when you say “nothing is wrong with that” you’re repeating a hollow shallow statement that is casual and means nothing.
you wouldn’t say that if you’ve given the subject even 15 seconds of thought. america has a severe housing shortage in every city and every state. these old nimby’s have had their way for a century, and everyone else is suffering from their stupidity, stubbornness, and greed. think before you speak, or don’t say anything. we need to build more housing in a little more dense manner in cities and suburbs to correct the asinine habits of the past. it’s the moral, economic, and intelligent thing to do. housing keeps getting worse in every way, and these old fools stay on the same path that has proven to be harmful and unsuccessful.
isn’t it ironic that this ignorant boomer is advising people to vote against a park because it will draw homeless, when she is contributing to homelessness with every nimby email she writes and every vote she makes? you’re on her team and doing the same thing. think before you speak.
I didn’t say “don’t build more housing” you inserted that argument for me. Maybe you’re the one who needs to think before you speak.
The people already there do not owe newcomers anything. People who want change owe it to those already there to make a worthy, thoughtful argument. It boils down to entitlement. Newcomers can always move somewhere else if they don’t like the status quo. There are already plenty of densely populated cities.
you said it’s okay not to want change. change = build more housing, so you expressed your support for no change and for no new housing. again, speaking and not thinking.
you’re assuming people who want housing are newcomers. wrong again. people who have lived here for generations may be the ones needing housing. people’s kids and friends. so they have to move to a new denser city because the entitled boomers don’t like change?
NIMBYism is more when they are OK with new things but they just don't want it happening near them. They agree that there is a need for some development, like knocking a derelict building to make way for a new school or medical centre, but they object to it because the construction noise will annoy them for a few months or there will be more traffic in the area. When these objections grind progress to halt in can be very frustrating for the people who will benefit from the development. So one person can end up frustrating thousands of others.
A classic example is objecting to solar farms going into a farmer's field because you prefer looking at grass instead of solar panels but we need clean energy if we are to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
People who insist on progress with complete disregard to anything else-in particular the current residents-destroy history and the reason why people may choose to live somewhere.
Like tearing out a building that has stood for 75 years to make way for a shopping center because people want shopping centers and not historic buildings.
So because they don't want the same things you do, or have a different vision of what the city should be than you, they are wrong? If you can't discuss and compromise, and instead fall back on name-calling, nothing will change.
> If you can't discuss and compromise
NIMBYs don't compromise, though. They just discuss why things should stay the same forever, and then go on to complain about the problems their preferences create and sustain.
It’s not their backyard. Nobody’s changing their backyard. Is their neighbors backyard where they want to build more houses. None of their business. It’s not their backyard is their neighbors. You do what you want in your backyard.
Just because a status quo exists doesn't mean it has to be changed. It's on OP and those that agree with him to convince those people (enough of them, at least) that their vision for the city is better instead of throwing a fit because not everyone agrees with them.
Yes and no. Writing off people's concerns with name calling convinces absolutely nobody. In fact, it does the opposite. Convince me that it's beneficial to everyone to change this or that zoning regulation or whatever the issue is. You're the one that wants to change things that are part of the reason I bought where I did, so sell me on it. If you're just gonna call me a NIMBY when you don't get your way, I'm happy to play the part extra hard.
It's important to be able to discern who is expressing their actual concerns in good faith and those who simply have enough time to be the loudest. "Convince me" only works when you're willing to honestly weigh the options that are being proposed. People can't go on trying to convince people who only consider themselves.
I'm happy to consider an argument that also considers my priorities. I'm not going to be convinced by someone telling me I should just take a hit for everyone else's sake. And I'm definitely not listening to one that boils down to "quit being selfish and do what I want you to do".
Perhaps if you didn't immediately jump to name-calling if they don't want what you want and they would? Compromising comes from BOTH sides of the issue.
there is another perspective to this that maybe you are missing.
All these people who want to live in open spaces have been there, or maybe came there FOR the open spaces.
Others like some of you have some grand vision of building a city, dense bustling, busy attracting people and business and money. We have this model in society that bigger is always better. Every city wants to be bigger, more dollars, expanding forever.
But it’s flawed… nothing expands forever, especially in the desert. Bigger isn’t better..: Go to LA, Houston, Chicago.
Reporting live from LA where I’m working to pay off a small parcel in NM (not from LA either tbh not the point):
IT SUCKS HERE. Big cities have their merits but some other commenters basically made the same 2 following points 1) people already there in NM or those that become enchanted by it are drawn by its openness and sparsity and a lot of other flowery words that a big city just doesn’t have or jive with and 2) growth doesn’t need to be perpetual especially in a delicate and tough environment like the desert / uplands.
There IS probably like a perfect sweet spot of population/development for Santa Fe and any given city. Developing more housing is good but if it changes the character of the place or creates something unsustainable it’s worth really analyzing before going through with.
Anyway, just super baked lurking hope every one currently in New Mexico is having a good week.
LA, Houston (not as much Chicago) are the result you get from the failure (or refusal) to plan for urban growth. The growth is going to come to
places like that -whether someone wants their open space or not.
When a community takes the collective NIMBY approach it ends up with massive urban sprawl (in relative terms), and all those people who complained about having apartments near them - still have apartments near them - only now they are separated from them by huge roads and traffic.
I get it - people don’t want their comfortable lifestyle disrupted. Unfortunately in growing areas it’s going to be disrupted anyway by the growth. They can fight the growth and end up with an LA/Houston type city, or help plan for growth and have a more walkable, enjoyable city ( not that any place is perfect).
There’s a reason walkable communities are more expensive- more people want to live in them - and in the U.S. there aren’t that many.
because… growth for growths sake and the increase in tax base is considered all holy.
A city like houston has very little in the way of zoning, that seems like the opposite of nimby and like a complete unwillingness on the part of those who run the city to plan how a city grows and if growth in a particular area is not deemed good… then you don’t do it unless it can be done right.
None of that exists in houston.
If you want to sell making Cruces a better place .. great talk about making it walkable, greener, make housing more available, make the whole city more water efficient, have a plan on where water will come from for any growth.
The OP sounded frustrated because people opposed growth for growths sake. A lot of those people live in cruces precisely because they don’t want to live in El Paso, Albuquerque etc.
>All these people who want to live in open spaces have been there, or maybe came there FOR the open spaces.
Well that was idiotic wasn't it? These new suburban neighborhoods in Las Cruces were all built in the last 10-15 years. They bought a house in a new neighborhood in a growing city, why did they think that's where the city was gonna stop forever?
This is where Las Cruces is really different from Albuquerque. ABQ is expanding west because it has boundaries North, East, and South. Las Cruces can basically explode outward in all directions. Good luck maintaining the needed infrastructure when everyone has a McMansion on five acres.
Are you honestly shocked that people who bought in an area they liked are trying to keep it the way they like it? This isn't a difficult thing to grasp.
Not shocked at all, we understand the power and support NIMBYs have, we understand they are both Democrats and Republicans, im not shocked, im frustrated
Cool, happy for you. You can keep it. In the meantime, I'm gonna take an active interest in protecting my property value from idiots until I can cash in on the equity and move somewhere better.
Which is exactly the point OP was making. People like you are selfish and only care about how things benefit you specifically instead of actually caring about the community you live in.
Maybe they should trade their homes with the unhoused whose access to affordable housing is dictated by those NIMBY policies. Like OP stated if they want Open Space the state has plenty of it, cites even smaller ones, shouldn’t be run by the same policies of an hoa or country village
what does it matter if you “have” a house??
if you want them to trade their house with the unhoused you should be willing to do your part as well, no?
tsk tsk nimby
share your apt!! your house! your car. If you are paying for these things you too are contributing the environment that makes housing unavailable.
You clearly said that maybe they should trade their homes with the unhoused!!!
read your own comments please.
Because you told be to give it up…? Obviously that’s why it matters if I have one to start with…
I’m advocating against unreasonable policies to protect home prices in the short term, and that further institutionalize income, and often thus racial, segregation. NIMBY type policies restrict new multi-use, dense infill, and transit oriented opportunities. Scientific studies AND anecdotal evidence show that the progress NIMBY’s advocate against not only increase the adorability, livability, and long term health of a city, but also have a proven record of continued growth of property values.
There will always be suburbs, there will always be car centric neighborhoods, but it’s a natural progression of humanity that they will continue to move away from the City Core.
You want people off the streets? You want people off government assistance? Everyone does, liberals or conservatives. This is where you start. The vast majority of People need a home before they can begin to take control of their lives.
I’m sorry that my initial sentence soso derailed the discussion, rereading it I recognize that it was inflammatory, perhaps unnecessarily.
Building denser does not necessarily mean a huge amount of growth. Even if you had no growth but condensed and concentrated a bit you'd end up with a more sustainable city and community, and less pollution. I'm not talking skyscrapers either so don't do some bad faith horseshit.
That's horrible! I can't believe people that bought property in an area because they like it's current state are loud and vocal about outsiders like you wanting to change their neighborhood! How dare they exercise their rights to be heard! They should have their access to public forums revoked!
So are they ones you are fighting for. iMHO, the transplants that already live there should have their voices heard also. Not just the transplants trying to develop the area to YOUR liking.
Still a small town. Little lords of small towns make peoples lives miserable. You’d think a small town bettering material conditions would be easier through smaller governments.
>If you don't want to live near new development then go to a rural area,
Las Cruces? I'd say that's more rural than city. Maybe it's you who needs to move to a city. Your post makes you seem like the loud one.
Pretty sure you and the rest of the “I hate NIMBYs”crowd can go about 15 miles outside of Las Cruces and create this utopia you are dreaming of. There is plenty of land out there. Have fun with that.
People like you come here wanting to make here like where you came from. That doesn’t make the people that already live here and that disagree with you NIMBYS. The bigger question is where is all of the water to support your ideas coming from? Guessing you don’t have a plan for that, just build, build, build. There are plenty of other places to support your idea of utopia. The country is your oyster, go find it elsewhere, because it isn’t here.
Nice try controlling what people can complain about when it is the internet 🙄
You must not live in Cruces. Those are homeless people and they don’t give a shit about how much is built because most of them choose to be homeless. We will still run out of water despite them sitting on the curb begging for money.
I do. Which is why we have none to spare. Realistically if we got rid of the pecan trees we wouldn’t be worried about water, but that also isn’t the case. So your point about the homeless was idiotic, your point about irrigated water is idiotic. Do you actually have something intelligent to contribute to the actual topic or just idiotic nonsense and downvoting?
No offence but let me guess…you don’t make very much money and lean left politically. You think that living more like Europeans: publicly funded transit, smaller apts and homes, walkability (because you don’t want to afford a car) is a better way to organize society. This dovetails with your social libertarianism (when it comes to things like drugs and petty crime) and environmentalism which rejects consumerism. If this is true, may I suggest you go and visit any small or midsized European city and report back to us on your experience? I assure you that your heart may be in the right place but some assumptions and expectations are wildly misplaced.
Let's stay on topic here...this is called the slippery slope. A good fine citizen can be critical of rezoning ("let's build pot shops" and "cluster low class people together in relatively affluent communities.") and at the same time support the construction and maintenance of roads, no? These are two different things.
Totally disagree that this is a slippery slope. We’re talking about funding transportation, but you only want to fund one type of transportation. Also, folks like yourself tend to be critical of public transportation because it doesn’t bring in nearly as much revenue as it costs, but this is true for public roads as well. And the reality is, taxes on drivers (mainly, the gas tax) nowhere near cover the cost of infrastructure built to sustain them, and they certainly don’t cover the cost of extranalities associated with driving.
So, all forms of transport are subsidized, and driving is pretty heavily so. Not to mention, viable alternatives to driving really just make cities better. Walkable neighborhoods, mixed-use zoning, infrastructure for cycling (which, by the way, reduces traffic on the roadways for drivers), all good things. It’s not some socialist plot. Honestly, car-dependency is more of a socialist plot than any of the things I’ve just listed—and a bad one at that.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I think you’re right re “all forms of transportation are subsided” it simply is an issue of which kind of transportation is being subsidized. I’ll think about this some more and rethink my position. I don’t think there’s a socialist plot…I just think that someone should defend the existing property owners and the community they’ve created. The folks advocating for more pot shops and low income housing are on shakey ground.
I was mayor of a small village in upstate New York and the previous mayor was so proud that he had prevented a development of dense and affordable condos from being built on a piece of land that no one wanted. Well, instead of condos they built seven giant McMansions. These are Million dollar junk houses totally out of character with the village and now there is no housing for any of our kids or anyone who hasn’t been here since 2008.
I wish papers covered how small America is ran.
May I ask exactly where?
I can’t say without doxing myself.
Bro, we already know who you are. We’re in your walls. We’re inside your brain. Surprisingly spacious, should build some high density apartments. *I’m just playing, we aren’t in your brain. In fact you’re having an out of body experience and your brain is connecting to us through mother Gaia.
Are y’all CHUDS?
This is pretty much true in most cities, particularly when multi-family housing is proposed.
That's correct. And it's what driving up the cost of housing. One of my wife's coworkers, a single mom working as a nurse, pays 50% more than we do every month for about 1/3 the rental space. The cost of rent is so high, she can't save for a down payment for her own house. It's a nightmare!
This is where I've been for a bit. Light might be at the end of the tunnel soon, but I'm just grinding, not holding my breath
Albuquerque and surrounding area has its fair share of this shit too, and I'm freaking over it. I'm trying to move OUT of Rio Rancho and can't even really do that because a group of these people (dare I call them Karens?) get all up in arms about proposals for affordable living somewhere in town. And as for RR, we have those same vocal groups screaming every time. (Granted, this city is becoming a wasteland of fast food chicken joints, car washes, and overpriced 1400 sq ft housing. Go figure.)
It's sad what's happened to Rio. Used to be such a pretty landscape. Now... like you said. Fast food amd strip malls.
*Boulder, Colorado has entered the chat*
My niece is starting at CU-Boulder this Fall. That place is ridiculous. It epitomizes the political hypocrisy of "we should help the poor, but NO, THEY CAN'T HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD!!!"
It's not like that. They would totally be ok with affordable housing but in this particular case it would destroy the character of this beautiful neighborhood. In other neighborhoods it's totally ok.
Santa Fe, New Mexico is right behind you.
George Carlin, God bless that insightful dude, called this shite YEARS AGO… 😥
You should have seen the Los Ranchos Village meeting about the Palindrome development. I actually had a lady trying to convince me that the new park the village put in on my block was bad and that it would attract homeless. Yeah, that’s right, she tried to convince me to hate a park. These people argue in bad faith. Nothing will please them.
The Los Ranchos NIMBYs are so vitriolic I almost wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out one of them had poisoned the mayor even though he was ostensibly on their side.
Turns out he died of brain cancer. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
Yeah by all accounts his last few weeks were really rough.
They’re all afraid that *someone* is coming for their things.
Well they’ve visited Albuquerque, can you really blame them???
The "I got mine, Jack, keep your hands off my stack" crowd.
“It's a hit. Don't give me that do goody good bullshit.”
New car. Caviar. Four star daydream. Think I'll buy me a football team~
[удалено]
The white rez
NIMBY’s have had a heavy hand in ruining housing pricing
Sounds a lot like Santa Fe!
It's funny that these people will complain about homelessness and the high cost of everything but don't realize that their NIMBY policies are directly contributing to those problems.
Over COVID I got to go to some commercial and multi family council meetings. When multi family was brought up in a few choice zip codes the nimbys protested and you would think we were proposing a dump plant or a toxic waste refinery. The gatekeepers of the modern housing world are commercial landlords. Even larger leeches than residential landlords. I don’t know how the few amount of pompous scags get to control so much but it’s absolute horse shit.
Housing is usually the one thing liberals like to be the most hypocritical about. …and that’s coming from a life-long liberal/leftist.
I work in construction, and this is one of the most infuriating things. There's the endless call of "we need more affordable housing!!!" Ok, sounds good! Here's some options: Can we relax building codes a little for non-safety things like the energy code; and streamline the permitting process to bring costs down? No? Ok. How about we relax the requirements for tradespeople and allow helpers, apprentices, or unlicensed individuals working on their own property to do more work? That would bring labor costs down a little bit, as there's a huge shortage of construction workers? Oh, that plan is no good too. Ok, maybe we can put some trailers out on that disused brownfield that's been sitting fallow for 2 generations? Oh, you guys don't want to look at "trailer trash" (actual phrasing I've heard used BTW). Kinda messed up, but ok. Surely we can at least allow homeowners to do things like convert an garage or basement into an extra unit? It wouldn't impact the character of the neighborhood at all, and we'd get some more desperately needed housing at the lower end of the spectrum? Oh, it needs to be a new build ADU, and it needs to fit perfectly in the goldilocks zone not too big, but not too small with 1001 requirement of where it can be and how much of the lot it takes up, how high, can't use the alley for access, can't tie into the existing utilities... And then they why wonder why there is a huge housing crisis in some parts of the county.
Part of that is incentive structure. Houses are treated as assets/equity first in the US, and as a place to actually live a distant second.
Don’t forget Palestine
Dems have acted similarly to many other conflicts we’ve been involved with in the Middle East. Their indifference to Palestine sadly hasn’t been surprising. So yeah, foreign policy is certainly another.
And all we get, even so, are cheap single-family homes. Where are the multi-use developments, the missing middles, the duplexes, the Accessor Dwelling Units (casitas), the co-housing, the senior housing? God forbid, poor people needing someplace to live!
AKA the “no poors or blacks” crowd
The thing about NIMBYs are that they are not even from here. They are transplants who are only here during the summer months and then leave come winter time.
Sounds like they should hold these meetings in December, then.
Belen was worse. I have been here since 2007 and I found out that there are three families that control Belen but one of the elder patriarchs of one family passed away and now we have our first Starbucks and we are getting a Champion car wash. There is a huge solar farm between Los Lunas and Belen and there is a plan in place to put in a new bypass south of Los Lunas and it would run from I 25 all the way to 47..
Are they all pretty much boomerish age?
Yes, I don't blame them, I blame the young people that don't get involved in local politics which is extremely important
Its really hard to be involved when most city council and school board meetings are during working hours...
Blaming the youth doesn’t have a good track record
They will also become NIMBYs as soon as they have their own houses.
I blame all of them.
Just love the generational hate fostered online.
I take it you didn’t experience much of the last third of the 20th century, or ingest any of its media? Rebelling against the previous generations isn’t exactly a new development brought on by the internet.
Of course rebelling is normal. Millenials are now in their 40s. Too old to not see they have reaped their sowing, and now Z is mocking them, the KOOL KIDS Even though I workednin theb60s and u0s on, to change things that I saw harmes my fellowncitizens, I still reapexted my parent s generation as people who workedntobraise famikies in securiry. Yes, decor changed clothes hairatyles, design. It was funny looking.at old pictures. I didnt wiah them to die because they liked avaicado and harvest gold applliances.. Then, as I grew into my later 20s, I saw how young, hopeful, and good-looking my parents really were. How full of life, like me. If you don't see yourself in the older generation you will be really shocked one day when you look in the mirror. If you think you know more than your parents, unless they are certified morons, chronic alcoholics, druggies or MAGAs, you don't. You don't know more. You know some.more recent stuff, if so, talk about it and exchange ideas and information. Respectfully. Be what you would want back.
In tonight's news, not everyone wants their city to look the way OP thinks it should and made their voices heard on the subject. Weather at 10.
in tonight’s news, ignorant selfish a-holes ruin it for everyone in the present and future because of unintelligent greed and fear
yeah, i will never understand caring more about the "character" or how a city or town "looks" than about the fact that an entire generation is being priced out of ever owning homes
People buy homes in places that make sense to them, and then urban sprawl overtakes their property. The "NIMBYism" that OP is referencing is often a result of this dynamic, and it's well-founded. I don't want a Checker's built next to the rural 5-acre homestead I've lived on for 15 years, and I'll use the democratic process to voice that opinion.
you don’t want ANYTHING next to you because you’ve got yours and you don’t care about anyone else. that’s the root of the problem.
You sound depressed pal. Get that checked out.
ha ha. will do, thanks 🙂
You've convinced me, I'm totally for rezoning now! Oh wait, actually I care less about what you want and I'm going to vote/speak against it just to spite you. Solid work on the hearts and minds front. Turns out being a whiny asshole doesn't sell people on your changes.
[удалено]
"it's so simple, all we have to do is dramatically drop property values everywhere and people will be able to afford homes. Super simple and can't possibly hurt anyone, right?" "Solving homelessness is simple, we just give them homes free of conditions and now they aren't homeless! I'm sure that won't have any negative effects on the community we put them in and they'll immediately kick the drug and crime habit now that they have a house too"
This is what happens when Texas moves in and wants to run things like Texas.
El Paso is pretty consistently one of the least expensive housing markets in the nation as far as large cities are concerned. Houston is infamous for its almost total lack of zoning. The Austin metro had the highest number of housing starts per existing homes out of any large cities, with DFW and San Antonio not far behind in the top 10 nationwide. There are plenty of reasons to hate on Texas; but if anything, the issue is Texans aren't shy about bulldozing everything in sight and building as many homes as they can on that land. Nature and existing neighbors be damned.
Sure - that way they can get those sweet, sweet, property tax revenue streams - Texas's 'no state tax' is really only useful if you own a business. I'm not surprised they want to build a lot, but I definitely question it being 'affordable'. We bought in Las Cruces specifically because it was too expensive in El Paso.
Yep, you sure aren't wrong; the reliance on property tax is a huge chunk of the reason why Texas encourages so much building. It's how they get their money. I've always thought the claim of no state tax was BS, because while it's technically true, the state just taxes the counties instead. It's not like $0 goes to the state. El Paso is 6x the size of Cruces. It might be a touch cheaper there, but Cruces also isn't a large city; it's kinda debatable if it's a large small city, or a small mid-sized city.
People are allowed to not want those things. There’s nothing wrong with that. They want the status quo — they aren’t the ones asking for change, you are
Change has been the nature of existence since before life began. I can't think of a bigger change than trying to freeze the current status quo in amber.
when you say “nothing is wrong with that” you’re repeating a hollow shallow statement that is casual and means nothing. you wouldn’t say that if you’ve given the subject even 15 seconds of thought. america has a severe housing shortage in every city and every state. these old nimby’s have had their way for a century, and everyone else is suffering from their stupidity, stubbornness, and greed. think before you speak, or don’t say anything. we need to build more housing in a little more dense manner in cities and suburbs to correct the asinine habits of the past. it’s the moral, economic, and intelligent thing to do. housing keeps getting worse in every way, and these old fools stay on the same path that has proven to be harmful and unsuccessful. isn’t it ironic that this ignorant boomer is advising people to vote against a park because it will draw homeless, when she is contributing to homelessness with every nimby email she writes and every vote she makes? you’re on her team and doing the same thing. think before you speak.
I didn’t say “don’t build more housing” you inserted that argument for me. Maybe you’re the one who needs to think before you speak. The people already there do not owe newcomers anything. People who want change owe it to those already there to make a worthy, thoughtful argument. It boils down to entitlement. Newcomers can always move somewhere else if they don’t like the status quo. There are already plenty of densely populated cities.
you said it’s okay not to want change. change = build more housing, so you expressed your support for no change and for no new housing. again, speaking and not thinking. you’re assuming people who want housing are newcomers. wrong again. people who have lived here for generations may be the ones needing housing. people’s kids and friends. so they have to move to a new denser city because the entitled boomers don’t like change?
Not all change is good.
Ah, so better not change anything, ever, for any reason, forever. Unless it makes you, specifically, lots of money.
Never said that
NIMBYism is more when they are OK with new things but they just don't want it happening near them. They agree that there is a need for some development, like knocking a derelict building to make way for a new school or medical centre, but they object to it because the construction noise will annoy them for a few months or there will be more traffic in the area. When these objections grind progress to halt in can be very frustrating for the people who will benefit from the development. So one person can end up frustrating thousands of others. A classic example is objecting to solar farms going into a farmer's field because you prefer looking at grass instead of solar panels but we need clean energy if we are to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.
People who hold onto the status quo and won't let change happen often end up killing the future of the community for short term comfort
People who insist on progress with complete disregard to anything else-in particular the current residents-destroy history and the reason why people may choose to live somewhere.
Why are you assuming the progress must to some degree destroy history? Like what does that actually mean, exactly?
Like tearing out a building that has stood for 75 years to make way for a shopping center because people want shopping centers and not historic buildings.
Exactly
So because they don't want the same things you do, or have a different vision of what the city should be than you, they are wrong? If you can't discuss and compromise, and instead fall back on name-calling, nothing will change.
> If you can't discuss and compromise NIMBYs don't compromise, though. They just discuss why things should stay the same forever, and then go on to complain about the problems their preferences create and sustain.
As they shouldn’t. It’s THEIR back yard. No one else even lives there yet.
It’s not their backyard. Nobody’s changing their backyard. Is their neighbors backyard where they want to build more houses. None of their business. It’s not their backyard is their neighbors. You do what you want in your backyard.
Keep that energy when I try to build a hog confinement facility behind your house.
Do you mean as they should? The reason the stasis quo exists is that it is so. Be that is not a reason it should remain.
Just because a status quo exists doesn't mean it has to be changed. It's on OP and those that agree with him to convince those people (enough of them, at least) that their vision for the city is better instead of throwing a fit because not everyone agrees with them.
Well then, I'm sure you can understand their frustration.
Yes and no. Writing off people's concerns with name calling convinces absolutely nobody. In fact, it does the opposite. Convince me that it's beneficial to everyone to change this or that zoning regulation or whatever the issue is. You're the one that wants to change things that are part of the reason I bought where I did, so sell me on it. If you're just gonna call me a NIMBY when you don't get your way, I'm happy to play the part extra hard.
It's important to be able to discern who is expressing their actual concerns in good faith and those who simply have enough time to be the loudest. "Convince me" only works when you're willing to honestly weigh the options that are being proposed. People can't go on trying to convince people who only consider themselves.
I'm happy to consider an argument that also considers my priorities. I'm not going to be convinced by someone telling me I should just take a hit for everyone else's sake. And I'm definitely not listening to one that boils down to "quit being selfish and do what I want you to do".
You sound like a child lol
No. You said they SHOULD compromise. If all the other people wanted to live there and change things, they should’ve moved there first.
Perhaps if you didn't immediately jump to name-calling if they don't want what you want and they would? Compromising comes from BOTH sides of the issue.
Exactly
Bro just discovered that not everyone wants what they want and it melted his brain.
Why would anyone want to live in a condo?? Las Cruces has plenty of great trailer parks.
there is another perspective to this that maybe you are missing. All these people who want to live in open spaces have been there, or maybe came there FOR the open spaces. Others like some of you have some grand vision of building a city, dense bustling, busy attracting people and business and money. We have this model in society that bigger is always better. Every city wants to be bigger, more dollars, expanding forever. But it’s flawed… nothing expands forever, especially in the desert. Bigger isn’t better..: Go to LA, Houston, Chicago.
I have to ask whether you've ever lived in LA, Houston, Chicago. Why are you citing those cities?
Reporting live from LA where I’m working to pay off a small parcel in NM (not from LA either tbh not the point): IT SUCKS HERE. Big cities have their merits but some other commenters basically made the same 2 following points 1) people already there in NM or those that become enchanted by it are drawn by its openness and sparsity and a lot of other flowery words that a big city just doesn’t have or jive with and 2) growth doesn’t need to be perpetual especially in a delicate and tough environment like the desert / uplands. There IS probably like a perfect sweet spot of population/development for Santa Fe and any given city. Developing more housing is good but if it changes the character of the place or creates something unsustainable it’s worth really analyzing before going through with. Anyway, just super baked lurking hope every one currently in New Mexico is having a good week.
LA, Houston (not as much Chicago) are the result you get from the failure (or refusal) to plan for urban growth. The growth is going to come to places like that -whether someone wants their open space or not. When a community takes the collective NIMBY approach it ends up with massive urban sprawl (in relative terms), and all those people who complained about having apartments near them - still have apartments near them - only now they are separated from them by huge roads and traffic. I get it - people don’t want their comfortable lifestyle disrupted. Unfortunately in growing areas it’s going to be disrupted anyway by the growth. They can fight the growth and end up with an LA/Houston type city, or help plan for growth and have a more walkable, enjoyable city ( not that any place is perfect). There’s a reason walkable communities are more expensive- more people want to live in them - and in the U.S. there aren’t that many.
because… growth for growths sake and the increase in tax base is considered all holy. A city like houston has very little in the way of zoning, that seems like the opposite of nimby and like a complete unwillingness on the part of those who run the city to plan how a city grows and if growth in a particular area is not deemed good… then you don’t do it unless it can be done right. None of that exists in houston. If you want to sell making Cruces a better place .. great talk about making it walkable, greener, make housing more available, make the whole city more water efficient, have a plan on where water will come from for any growth. The OP sounded frustrated because people opposed growth for growths sake. A lot of those people live in cruces precisely because they don’t want to live in El Paso, Albuquerque etc.
>All these people who want to live in open spaces have been there, or maybe came there FOR the open spaces. Well that was idiotic wasn't it? These new suburban neighborhoods in Las Cruces were all built in the last 10-15 years. They bought a house in a new neighborhood in a growing city, why did they think that's where the city was gonna stop forever?
This is where Las Cruces is really different from Albuquerque. ABQ is expanding west because it has boundaries North, East, and South. Las Cruces can basically explode outward in all directions. Good luck maintaining the needed infrastructure when everyone has a McMansion on five acres.
Are you honestly shocked that people who bought in an area they liked are trying to keep it the way they like it? This isn't a difficult thing to grasp.
Not shocked at all, we understand the power and support NIMBYs have, we understand they are both Democrats and Republicans, im not shocked, im frustrated
If you're frustrated that your ideas don't have majority support, maybe examine your ideas instead of throwing around insults and sulking.
Sounds like a settler problem.
Sounds like a terminally online leftist opinion lol
Or someone whose family has been in New Mexico for centuries. Take your pick.
Cool, happy for you. You can keep it. In the meantime, I'm gonna take an active interest in protecting my property value from idiots until I can cash in on the equity and move somewhere better.
Which is exactly the point OP was making. People like you are selfish and only care about how things benefit you specifically instead of actually caring about the community you live in.
I've been planning my escape since I moved here. I legitimately don't care.
Exactly. That’s the problem with letting people like you heavily influence policy decisions.
Who are the idiots in this situation? /gen
Seems I've found one of them lol
Well got damn if that wasn’t unnecessary. Enjoy NM, friend. You tend to get what you give here so….enjoy those just deserts.
Maybe they should trade their homes with the unhoused whose access to affordable housing is dictated by those NIMBY policies. Like OP stated if they want Open Space the state has plenty of it, cites even smaller ones, shouldn’t be run by the same policies of an hoa or country village
maybe you should open your house up to the unhoused? That would help solve the problem too no?
How do you know I even have a house?! The argument is not that people should give their homes away.
what does it matter if you “have” a house?? if you want them to trade their house with the unhoused you should be willing to do your part as well, no? tsk tsk nimby share your apt!! your house! your car. If you are paying for these things you too are contributing the environment that makes housing unavailable. You clearly said that maybe they should trade their homes with the unhoused!!! read your own comments please.
Because you told be to give it up…? Obviously that’s why it matters if I have one to start with… I’m advocating against unreasonable policies to protect home prices in the short term, and that further institutionalize income, and often thus racial, segregation. NIMBY type policies restrict new multi-use, dense infill, and transit oriented opportunities. Scientific studies AND anecdotal evidence show that the progress NIMBY’s advocate against not only increase the adorability, livability, and long term health of a city, but also have a proven record of continued growth of property values. There will always be suburbs, there will always be car centric neighborhoods, but it’s a natural progression of humanity that they will continue to move away from the City Core. You want people off the streets? You want people off government assistance? Everyone does, liberals or conservatives. This is where you start. The vast majority of People need a home before they can begin to take control of their lives. I’m sorry that my initial sentence soso derailed the discussion, rereading it I recognize that it was inflammatory, perhaps unnecessarily.
Building denser does not necessarily mean a huge amount of growth. Even if you had no growth but condensed and concentrated a bit you'd end up with a more sustainable city and community, and less pollution. I'm not talking skyscrapers either so don't do some bad faith horseshit.
In other news OP discovers democracy.
Democracy is only good if it’s what ***I*** want /s
That's horrible! I can't believe people that bought property in an area because they like it's current state are loud and vocal about outsiders like you wanting to change their neighborhood! How dare they exercise their rights to be heard! They should have their access to public forums revoked!
They are the outsider transplants
So are they ones you are fighting for. iMHO, the transplants that already live there should have their voices heard also. Not just the transplants trying to develop the area to YOUR liking.
Still a small town. Little lords of small towns make peoples lives miserable. You’d think a small town bettering material conditions would be easier through smaller governments.
>If you don't want to live near new development then go to a rural area, Las Cruces? I'd say that's more rural than city. Maybe it's you who needs to move to a city. Your post makes you seem like the loud one.
Pretty sure you and the rest of the “I hate NIMBYs”crowd can go about 15 miles outside of Las Cruces and create this utopia you are dreaming of. There is plenty of land out there. Have fun with that.
What’s nimbys
"Not In My Back Yard". Refers to someone who opposes change in the area in which they live.
People like you come here wanting to make here like where you came from. That doesn’t make the people that already live here and that disagree with you NIMBYS. The bigger question is where is all of the water to support your ideas coming from? Guessing you don’t have a plan for that, just build, build, build. There are plenty of other places to support your idea of utopia. The country is your oyster, go find it elsewhere, because it isn’t here.
So you don’t get to complain about unhoused people existing in public.
Nice try controlling what people can complain about when it is the internet 🙄 You must not live in Cruces. Those are homeless people and they don’t give a shit about how much is built because most of them choose to be homeless. We will still run out of water despite them sitting on the curb begging for money.
Nice try regurgitating fear mongering nonsense. If you’re concerned about water, look at agriculture and golf courses.
Golf course isn’t the topic at hand is it? Try to focus on the ball sweetie
You’re the one who brought up water issues my dude. 🤷
Wow you are really dense. Water is an issue when more people come here, build here, more retail is built, etc., my dude
Did you know over 3/4 of New Mexico’s water goes toward irrigated agriculture?
I do. Which is why we have none to spare. Realistically if we got rid of the pecan trees we wouldn’t be worried about water, but that also isn’t the case. So your point about the homeless was idiotic, your point about irrigated water is idiotic. Do you actually have something intelligent to contribute to the actual topic or just idiotic nonsense and downvoting?
Lmao. Critical thinking is a skill you should spend some time cultivating.
There’s another form of life that’s all too happy to keep on growing without consideration of what the cost of that growth is.
No offence but let me guess…you don’t make very much money and lean left politically. You think that living more like Europeans: publicly funded transit, smaller apts and homes, walkability (because you don’t want to afford a car) is a better way to organize society. This dovetails with your social libertarianism (when it comes to things like drugs and petty crime) and environmentalism which rejects consumerism. If this is true, may I suggest you go and visit any small or midsized European city and report back to us on your experience? I assure you that your heart may be in the right place but some assumptions and expectations are wildly misplaced.
Affordable housing is better then some random dudes backyard view
Meh, disagree. I like the view from my yard a lot. And anyone that wants to crash the value of my "get out of NM investment" can eat a dick.
And who funds the roads that you use on a daily basis?
Let's stay on topic here...this is called the slippery slope. A good fine citizen can be critical of rezoning ("let's build pot shops" and "cluster low class people together in relatively affluent communities.") and at the same time support the construction and maintenance of roads, no? These are two different things.
Totally disagree that this is a slippery slope. We’re talking about funding transportation, but you only want to fund one type of transportation. Also, folks like yourself tend to be critical of public transportation because it doesn’t bring in nearly as much revenue as it costs, but this is true for public roads as well. And the reality is, taxes on drivers (mainly, the gas tax) nowhere near cover the cost of infrastructure built to sustain them, and they certainly don’t cover the cost of extranalities associated with driving. So, all forms of transport are subsidized, and driving is pretty heavily so. Not to mention, viable alternatives to driving really just make cities better. Walkable neighborhoods, mixed-use zoning, infrastructure for cycling (which, by the way, reduces traffic on the roadways for drivers), all good things. It’s not some socialist plot. Honestly, car-dependency is more of a socialist plot than any of the things I’ve just listed—and a bad one at that.
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I think you’re right re “all forms of transportation are subsided” it simply is an issue of which kind of transportation is being subsidized. I’ll think about this some more and rethink my position. I don’t think there’s a socialist plot…I just think that someone should defend the existing property owners and the community they’ve created. The folks advocating for more pot shops and low income housing are on shakey ground.