Liberal cities and NIMBYism

[antinimby]

In the U.S., seems like the most liberal cities are also the most NIMBY. On one hand, they preach openness to acceptance of all people, refugees, illegals, sanctuary cities and all but on the other, these cities are very resistant to growth, especially in their own neighborhoods, with some of the strictest and most restrictive zoning anywhere, mainly to keep people out.

Where do they think all these newcomers that they want to allow in to live? Oh, that's right. Anywhere is fine, except their backyard.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by antinimby

In the U.S., seems like the most liberal cities are also the most NIMBY. On one hand, they preach openness to acceptance of all people, refugees, illegals, sanctuary cities and all but on the other, these cities are very resistant to growth, especially in their own neighborhoods, with some of the strictest and most restrictive zoning anywhere, mainly to keep people out.

Where do they think all these newcomers that they want to allow in to live? Oh, that's right. Anywhere is fine, except their backyard.

it's a class issue, it's not liberal vs conservative neighborhoods. i know of pre-war conservative neighborhoods that bitch about nearby higher density business district development.

it does seem that upper class liberal neighborhoods tend to be in more urban areas where there is a higher development pressure. but i don't think nimbyism has anything to do with being liberal, at all.

i do think that america likes to play pretend about class, and we will throw anything under the bus before we engage it.

[antinimby]

So higher class liberals are fine with a big ass building going up on their block as long as it caters to their class?

That's not what we're seeing.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by antinimby

So higher class liberals are fine with a big ass building going up on their block as long as it caters to their class?

That's not what we're seeing.

i'm generalizing, but what i'm saying is that upper class people generally have the wealth + power to act on their desires to keep their neighborhoods left as they found them when they bought in.

i don't think it matters if they ever voted for bush or goldwater or nixon or lenin or obama or whatever the fuck.

[Ant131531]

Conservatives can be NIMBYs as well, but they don't live in cities where high levels of (re)development occur. Let it be known that an apartment was being built across the street from their suburban subdivision and they'd have fits.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Conservatives can be NIMBYs as well, but they don't live in cities where high levels of (re)development occur. Let it be known that an apartment was being built across the street from their suburban subdivision and they'd have fits.

Both sides have their hypocrites. Conservatives claim to support markets but balk at them when it comes to land use and liberals claim to love the poor but immiserate and exclude them with high housing costs.

When given the option NIMBYism is too powerful a personal incentive for homeowners not to engage in, which is why we shouldn't give it to them in the first place.

[antinimby]

Originally Posted by Ant131531

Conservatives can be NIMBYs as well, but they don't live in cities where high levels of (re)development occur. Let it be known that an apartment was being built across the street from their suburban subdivision and they'd have fits.

Conservatives are not the ones out there spouting off about accepting illegals and refugees, the liberals are.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Conservatives are not the ones out there spouting off about accepting illegals and refugees, the liberals are.

maybe not but they are always spouting off about "getting government out of the way" and "economic growth" and are often heavily NIMBY.

your point about liberals is silly tho, the reason to defeat NIMBYs isn't to house undocumented immigrants and refugees, it is lower housing costs and make life easier/less commuting for everyone

and many liberals (and conservatives) do directly help/donate/house refugees

[mthd]

it's not really a liberal / conservative issue.

people with lots of money, and with a lot of their net worth in real estate, tend to be opposed to new development. i think you'll find the same thing in the expensive neighborhoods of san francisco, berkeley, los angeles, houston, etc. new york city proper is perhaps a bit of an exception in that there's a kind of agreement that part of what makes it great, and valuable, is the high density and activity that that brings.

otherwise, it's i have mine and don't particularly want anyone else to have theirs....

[RCDC]

Not sure what the OS is going with all those broad generalizations of political posturing.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

it's a class issue, it's not liberal vs conservative neighborhoods. i know of pre-war conservative neighborhoods that bitch about nearby higher density business district development.

Yeah this.

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

liberals claim to love the poor but immiserate and exclude them with high housing costs..

An example:
https://dhcd.dc.gov/service/affordable-dwelling-units

Which conservatives complain is interfering with the "free market".

EDIT: I am interested in the OP providing data which led to the broad assertions made.

[Doady]

So the most liberal cities see less growth, less development, and less immigrants and refugees moving in than the conservative cities (suburbs?). Right...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by antinimby

Conservatives are not the ones out there spouting off about accepting illegals and refugees, the liberals are.

Pre-Trump, conservatives too accepted refugees. Even Mike Pence, a few months ago, claimed he supported refugees. Many conservatives are Christians, and its a pretty non-Christian thing to have a blanket opposition to saving lives from war-torn regions.

I have never heard of any liberal supporting illegal immigration. That makes no sense, and is a totally Trumpian talking point. Liberals, speaking generally, support some sort of path towards legalization for law-abiding residents. I have never heard anyone call for open borders and total non-regulation of immigration.

[10023]

Cities have NIMBYs, because there is a history worth protecting, and cities are liberal.

But conservative suburbs also have codified NIMBYism in the form of minimum lot sizes, prohibitions against multi-family housing, parking requirements and other measures intended to prevent densification and demographic shift.

[maru2501]

these aren't real Christians

[mrsmartman]

I'm sure those "liberal cities" are the most expensive.

[eschaton]

Where conservative enclaves exist within urban areas, they are pretty NIMBY as well. For example, Charleston, SC south of Broad Street is plenty urban (even has some rowhouses) rich, and Republican-leaning. It's certainly a NIMBY area as well. Lots of southern cities have urban-ish, historic neighborhoods near downtown which are wealthy, white, and fairly Republican as well.

Regardless, in my experience is people do not in any way connect their stated ideology on the national level with how they act in local elections. Conservative towns, for example, often have no problem with high property taxes to fund top-notch schools. And liberal towns have no issue setting up exclusionary zoning to stop lower-income people from moving in.

[Don't Be That Guy]

Any city, neighborhood, street, block, etc. with high homeownership rates is prone to be filled with NIMBYs. The personal politics of the people living there have nothing to do with it. The wealthy to middle classes will object to development in order to preserve their investment. While the motivations of the middle to lower middle classes is often based on a resistance to change and preservation of affordability.