(Replying here even though it says “Comment via: facebook” because I prefer the LW platform and I don’t know most of JK’s Facebook friends. If that’s frowned upon, please let me know.)
From this post, it’s not clear who you are arguing against. (I checked your Facebook post and most people there seem to agree with you.) But my guess is that a lot of the reasons people give in public for their opposition to housing are not their actual reasons. Here’s a paper that suggests what the real reasons may be for many: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF.
Abstract: An owner-occupied home is an unusual asset because it cannot be diversified among locations and because it is the only sizable asset that most owners possess. Among the uninsured risks of homeownership is devaluation by nearby changes in land use. Opponents of land-use change are called NIMBYs (“Not In My Back Yard”). This article submits that NIMBYism is a rational response to the uninsured risks of homeownership. It explores to the possibilities and drawbacks of providing an insurance market to cover such risks. It concludes that some progress is being made towards developing such markets.
I am pretty sure Jeff doesn’t want people to only comment on FB, the last sentence appears to be an artifact of how crossposting with LW works. On his website the post actually says:
Not really sure how to best fix this. I’ve been wanting to figure out how to properly propagate edits from RSS feeds, but I haven’t gotten around to that.
I’d love it if edits in the RSS feed propagated to posts; when have typo fixes I need to do them in both places.
Don’t want to clobber any changes made through the LW UI though. Maybe something like refreshing the post from RSS on changes, but only if there aren’t local edits? Automatically merging when there’s no conflict would be spiffy, but probably not worth it.
Though “pull in RSS updates” isn’t the best fix for the problem that my posts here currently end with “Comment via: facebook”. I could make a LW-specific RSS feed that didn’t include that note. This would also let me filter out “Update” entries, which don’t make sense here either.
This doesn’t contradict Wei’s point, since he does include:
my guess is that a lot of the reasons people give in public for their opposition to housing are not their actual reasons.
And in fact, those two facebook posts (and most NIMBYism) can be read in the “uninsured risk” light—even if they don’t own land, they face risk of loss of life-quality if their now-comfortable spaces change very much.
Do you have a better approach to an ITT for those opposed to development?
Reading people’s comments, it’s very common for people opposing allowing market rate housing to object because they think it will make the area more expensive.
There’s probably (at least) something to that idea. I imagine commercial construction is similarly constrained as residential. It’s pretty common to hear that commercial rents are high in the places where residential rents are too.
(Replying here even though it says “Comment via: facebook” because I prefer the LW platform and I don’t know most of JK’s Facebook friends. If that’s frowned upon, please let me know.)
From this post, it’s not clear who you are arguing against. (I checked your Facebook post and most people there seem to agree with you.) But my guess is that a lot of the reasons people give in public for their opposition to housing are not their actual reasons. Here’s a paper that suggests what the real reasons may be for many: https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF.
Abstract: An owner-occupied home is an unusual asset because it cannot be diversified among locations and because it is the only sizable asset that most owners possess. Among the uninsured risks of homeownership is devaluation by nearby changes in land use. Opponents of land-use change are called NIMBYs (“Not In My Back Yard”). This article submits that NIMBYism is a rational response to the uninsured risks of homeownership. It explores to the possibilities and drawbacks of providing an insurance market to cover such risks. It concludes that some progress is being made towards developing such markets.
I am pretty sure Jeff doesn’t want people to only comment on FB, the last sentence appears to be an artifact of how crossposting with LW works. On his website the post actually says:
My guess is the current flow for Jeff is:
Post to his blog
Go to LessWrong, grab the link from the crosspost
Edit the post on his blog to include a link to LW
Not really sure how to best fix this. I’ve been wanting to figure out how to properly propagate edits from RSS feeds, but I haven’t gotten around to that.
Yup, that’s my flow!
I’d love it if edits in the RSS feed propagated to posts; when have typo fixes I need to do them in both places.
Don’t want to clobber any changes made through the LW UI though. Maybe something like refreshing the post from RSS on changes, but only if there aren’t local edits? Automatically merging when there’s no conflict would be spiffy, but probably not worth it.
Though “pull in RSS updates” isn’t the best fix for the problem that my posts here currently end with “Comment via: facebook”. I could make a LW-specific RSS feed that didn’t include that note. This would also let me filter out “Update” entries, which don’t make sense here either.
Well, in that case at least it would say “Comment via facebook, LW”, which is a bit less confusing.
Example threads: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DavisSquare/permalink/10158024607669396/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/DavisSquare/permalink/10157968820824396/ (but please no one go jump in on them because you saw them linked here; don’t want to brigade)
It really doesn’t seem to me like they’re worried about decreasing property values?
This doesn’t contradict Wei’s point, since he does include:
And in fact, those two facebook posts (and most NIMBYism) can be read in the “uninsured risk” light—even if they don’t own land, they face risk of loss of life-quality if their now-comfortable spaces change very much.
Do you have a better approach to an ITT for those opposed to development?
Reading people’s comments, it’s very common for people opposing allowing market rate housing to object because they think it will make the area more expensive.
There’s probably (at least) something to that idea. I imagine commercial construction is similarly constrained as residential. It’s pretty common to hear that commercial rents are high in the places where residential rents are too.