.
Austin land-use regulations lawyer Chris Bradford (at his new blog, Club NIMBY) builds his own central thesis around the idea that NIMBYs seek to monopolize “access to neighborhood amenities”:
“In the absence of zoning restrictions on the number of housing units in a neighborhood, neighborhood amenities would be a public good. Zoning converts neighborhood amenities from a public good (a partially non-rivalrous, non-excludable good) into a ‘club’ good (a partially non-rivalrous, excludable good). Because ‘club’ membership is bundled with home ownership, zoning causes the value of neighborhood amenities to be capitalized into home prices.
“NIMBYism can be thought of as the practice of objecting to development in order to protect the value of ‘club’ membership.
Or it could be thought of as the practice of objecting to development. I recall fondly the person who objected strenuously to every aspect of a development, only to end their tirade with the immortal words “well, everyone was saying yes so I thought at least one person should say no, just in case.”
Hmm, privatizing public goods. Very interesting hypothesis. In a related vein, sort of like how streets and street parking are considered “theirs” rather than “ours” in sfr ‘hoods.
The city has created and continues to support “theirs” with residents only parking restrictions near popular destinations and a bylaw prohibiting >3hr parking except by residents with enforcement based almost entirely on complaints from said residents.
Where it’s left as “ours” you find unofficial park-and-ride lots springing up. I’m personally familiar with the area around Nanaimo Station and the residential streets in Point Grey near the B-Line stop. Both fill with cars on regular work/school days and remain parked solid far in excess of the 3 hour limit.
NIMBYism is complex and comes from many different sources, some driven by the unrealistic goals the last few generations have been raised on. We’ve been told that we should expect to own a home with a yard on a quiet street. This despite the fact that we’ve also been told that we can and should drive everywhere. Thus the sprawling suburb with its oxymoronic designs that force everyone to enter and exit using a motor vehicle, but which twist and turn and come to dead ends in order to make sure that the only motor vehicles that enter are those that “belong” there.
It’s going to be hard to reset expectations. The often contradictory posts seen on this site are proof that even those who advocate change are often unwilling to have it affect them.
Yes neighbourhood amenities become part of land valuation. Walkable inner suburbs that manage low traffic counts by offering viable alternatives rather than labyrinthian street systems have seen prices skyrocket.
The problem of too many people wanting to join a particular “club” needs to be addressed by opening more clubs. Far too few neighbourhoods offer much in the way of amenities or walkability. Adding more uses will, in most cases, mean adding more people as well. Fortunately this means that an area can gain amenities and desirability while simultaneously increasing housing supply. Unfortunately most people automatically think development equals more traffic, noise, etc. whereas my experience is that walkability completely offsets the addition of more people and destinations.