Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
Yeah, but people are stupid. They do not understand or accept that more development is a solution, rather than the problem. So that involvement you seek turns into a forum for anti-growth NIMBY sentiment. Also, people are selfish. So for every one person you claim is worried about the loss of their neighborhood, they have two neighbors who are thrilled to death to be able to sell out at a ginormous profit. Which also creates perverse incentives - by opposing growth, they can increase their own property values until they sell (for 30 seconds of their lives, at the closing table, they are pro-development). So the result is two camps of people - one stupid and naive, the other selfish, but BOTH opposed to development.
|
I completely agree with this (and yours and Cirrus' earlier points on the topic as well). I feel like adding as well, that these parties also do not have any direct incentive to think about larger/competing questions - like keeping various sectors of the economy strong, long term affordability beyond their own neighborhood, infrastructure requirements, the funding of city services, environmental issues suburban sprawl and climate change, and many other competing issues and interests. Instead, they can advocate selfishly for narrow personal interests (which usually boils down to "I don't want any change to my lifestyle or neighborhood").
This is the classic problem with direct-democracy, and the reason I'm quite skeptical of the newly popular "let the neighbors decide" anti-development movement. While representative governments are certainly still far from perfect, there is a reason these decisions are better made in a forum where multiple interests must be considered, and where the correct answer isn't always what is desired or comfortable for everyone.
Threaded Mode