I think one of the things that get lost in the NIMBY/YIMBY debate is that saying yes to new development can/should enable a process to engage and collaborate on what that development changes and retains. Laws exist to support this but after knock-diw ,-drag-out fights, are often ignored or only followed in the most shallow way. Working in stakeholder collaborations around intense environmental and social issues for much of my career, I learned that when you assume and pursue positive collaboration you can develop solutions that no one brought to the process oruginally. Having a facilitated process where people actually share their hopes and needs, instead of their hardened positions, can bring people together to uncover shared values and build in ways that satisfy many apparently competing desires. So it's not just 'YIMBY and let developers do whatever they want' - it's accepting that change is a constant and enabling real dialogue and collaboration. The cost of establishing/supporting this kind of process is unlikely to exceed the cost and negative impacts of prolonged adversarial battle. By beginning with openness to existing community needs developers could show good faith, and in many cases probably end up with a more attractive and less extractive project. Unfortunately many/most developers give minimal lip.service to such efforts and instead focus on the highest margin possible- another in the endless sequence of processes that hyper capitalism has enshittified...and one that drives opponents into counterproductive "don't change anything" positions...
That's how we overcame the NIMBYs here. I told a story about that in the last edition of my newsletter, The Practice of Community.
My only comment is that people will understand most developers better if they realize that they are not pursuing the highest margin. At least those who plan to operate in one place over any length of time are pursuing the safest - least risk - margin. That is why they keep building strip malls and larger lot homes where they can. Less risk with an adequate ROI. And that is also why you can often get them to collaborate if the community is willing.
I also wanted to thank Addison for giving us a precis of Matthew Crawford. I've thought about putting why we drive on my to-read list, but now I have a pretty good idea of what I'd see. The shop class book sounds better, but its probably not going on the list either.
Men DO need to deal with "stuff" and our inclination to personify it (although my ex gives her cars names and I don't). I grew up blue collar and have watched both the better and the worse sides of that relationship with material reality (and acknowledge that I share both sides).
Not to be philosophical, but I think its a reaction to dualism. Your quotation from Crawford made me think of a book I am reading right now. Christine Rosen's The Extinction of Experience. I recommend it.
Interesting comment. It's interesting to think about detached consumerism vs my idea of mechanical literacy, but not letting that become an idol so to speak.
I think one of the things that get lost in the NIMBY/YIMBY debate is that saying yes to new development can/should enable a process to engage and collaborate on what that development changes and retains. Laws exist to support this but after knock-diw ,-drag-out fights, are often ignored or only followed in the most shallow way. Working in stakeholder collaborations around intense environmental and social issues for much of my career, I learned that when you assume and pursue positive collaboration you can develop solutions that no one brought to the process oruginally. Having a facilitated process where people actually share their hopes and needs, instead of their hardened positions, can bring people together to uncover shared values and build in ways that satisfy many apparently competing desires. So it's not just 'YIMBY and let developers do whatever they want' - it's accepting that change is a constant and enabling real dialogue and collaboration. The cost of establishing/supporting this kind of process is unlikely to exceed the cost and negative impacts of prolonged adversarial battle. By beginning with openness to existing community needs developers could show good faith, and in many cases probably end up with a more attractive and less extractive project. Unfortunately many/most developers give minimal lip.service to such efforts and instead focus on the highest margin possible- another in the endless sequence of processes that hyper capitalism has enshittified...and one that drives opponents into counterproductive "don't change anything" positions...
That's how we overcame the NIMBYs here. I told a story about that in the last edition of my newsletter, The Practice of Community.
My only comment is that people will understand most developers better if they realize that they are not pursuing the highest margin. At least those who plan to operate in one place over any length of time are pursuing the safest - least risk - margin. That is why they keep building strip malls and larger lot homes where they can. Less risk with an adequate ROI. And that is also why you can often get them to collaborate if the community is willing.
Yes. This is a great and important observation. Thank you for the comment.
I also wanted to thank Addison for giving us a precis of Matthew Crawford. I've thought about putting why we drive on my to-read list, but now I have a pretty good idea of what I'd see. The shop class book sounds better, but its probably not going on the list either.
Men DO need to deal with "stuff" and our inclination to personify it (although my ex gives her cars names and I don't). I grew up blue collar and have watched both the better and the worse sides of that relationship with material reality (and acknowledge that I share both sides).
Not to be philosophical, but I think its a reaction to dualism. Your quotation from Crawford made me think of a book I am reading right now. Christine Rosen's The Extinction of Experience. I recommend it.
Interesting comment. It's interesting to think about detached consumerism vs my idea of mechanical literacy, but not letting that become an idol so to speak.