It’s just like… why?! I can’t wrap my head around it. There’s no downside to being able to top off on milk and eggs by taking a leisurely stroll on a sunny Saturday morning. That sounds downright idyllic.

People would rather stay marooned in the middle of an endless desert of houses with essentials being a 30-45m drive away.

California gave birth to anti-SLAPP torts for a reason I guess.[1] Then you can have a mini-litigation about litigation, which would prove the NIMBY wrong for their “complaint” or the state bar wrong for failing to screen frivolous or malicious use of their processes.

For some reason this article brought home to me that these NIMBYs are expressing hostility to neighbors, community and to the idea that people should have a place to live. I wonder if they realize or even consider the implications of their positions.

[1] https://www.sfbar.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/anti-slapp....

Do lawyers still really believe they can just throw some legal jargon at laypeople and we will just get confused and back down? Like not only do we have every single law and legal precedent on a device in our pocket, we also have AI's that can instantly answer questions. I am sure shit like that might have worked before 2010 when you would have to scramble to figure out if what they were saying was true or not, but it just seems antiquated to attempt it nowadays.

In that sense, it makes little sense to approve large amounts of office space without considering the housing capacity needed to support it. If the jobs-to-housing ratio grows too high, the costs are pushed onto workers and surrounding areas rather than being addressed directly.

This problem is compounded by limited public transit and inadequate road infrastructure. Framing the issue solely as NIMBY opposition misses the structural imbalance at the core of the problem.

Instead of treating symptoms or assigning blame, governments should focus on correcting the underlying mismatch between employment growth and housing supply.

My best bet now may be to move to orbit like S.R. Hadden. But it'll have to be high orbit, away from the satellite constellations.

Don't worry, there are sooo many free speech absolutists that will come out of the woodwork to protect this dastardly attempt to stifle speech through abuse of legal procedures.

No? Where did all those absolutists go?

This seems entirely reasonable to me, and I'm grateful that a group like this exists.

But I'm a YIMBY, so of course. If lobbyists were influencing my municipality from afar on the basis of laws that I disagreed with, I can imagine feeling frustrated, conspiratorial, or disenfranchised.

Maintaining a consistent commitment to liberal democracy, the legal system and due process is one of life's great challenges!

If he tries to incorprate as "Yimby Law" he may hit a roadblock in some areas. Secretaries of State regulate business entity names and often bar or scrutinize words that imply a regulated profession (e.g., “bank,” “trust,” sometimes “law”) if you are not licensed or not forming the appropriate kind of professional corporation.

However he's free to send a letter, just not incorporate a business called "Yimby Law". He should change it to "Yimby Citizens Group" or "Yimby Institute" or something.

This sounds suspiciously similar to what happened to Chuck Marohn from StrongTowns.

Also, I just dislike activism in general, which seems like it generally is trying to force people to do things they don't want to do through passing laws. I get that there is sometimes a need raise attention. But generally it seems like activists are very one-sided, agenda/ideologically driven. It also feels like they are trying to find meaning in activism (yeah, we forced other people to do what we think is Right), instead of healthier, more traditional forms of meaning.

there's no such right, never been. Just because one has a right to speak, doesn't make it an obligation for others to listen

Why? Should be outed

If society wants to put dumpster so badly, compensate to those who (practically) lose their house. Let everyone pay, that's fair. Picking "haha this will be the loser this time" is not.

It's easy to be YIMBY when you don't own anything.

In any sane world, being open and welcoming is a pretty rad posture to have. But in a capitalist world? Naive and stupid.

The situation is more complex. The forces about housing right now are incredibly destructive. Rich people want to make more money by building expensive homes. In this case NIMBY is the correct solution. In other cases Rich People want to prevent affordable housing. In this case YIMBY is the correct solution. But blindly applying these terms provides a cover for a complicated situation. We have cults of personality, and now we have cults of Jargonism. Neither helps us.

Being outraged because lawyers don't want you to speak is great. The issues legal and housing issues are far more complex and important.

The nationalization of every policy on earth needs to stop.

Edit to be more explicit: are the people that sent/asked to send the 2 letters to the City Council residents of Rancho Palos Verdes?