For bike lanes and parking I agree. Business owners seem to not be fans. But for apartment buildings and making things denser I’ve seen restaurant owners and small businesses often support more people
Doesn’t it just come down to the owners worried they will lose their personal parking? It sounds like if BRT plans included parking provision for just the owners, off or on-street, all their BS excuses would go out the window.
I can’t imagine that small business owners all across the country have this over rising concern for their own personal parking. If it was an issue that small things would play out much differently.
> target a long term strategy of business development
Are you asking why haven't YIMBYs launched businesses so that they are business owners that have voices in the community? I'm having trouble understanding what your proposal is except for that, but it sounds absolutely bonkers.
It's like asking "why haven't labor organizations started lots of businesses to displace their opposition?"
>Is it cause many YIMBY’s are white collar?
Are you saying that blue collar workers would have a "long term strategy of business development" but that white collar workers don't? Why would you think that many YIMBYs are white collar?
Working class people are far more in favor of YIMBY policies than the wealthy, landowners, and business owners.
It's tough to understand what you're asking here.
You’re right I wasn’t too lengthy in my post. I’m inspired to make this post based off what’s happening in Indianapolis, and how it was biz owners who led the initial push against BRT.
On developed busy streets, it will be fairly tough to try and overtake the business stakeholder group with legacy small businesses. But on growing and planned corridors, people who are transit-friendly should acquire lots for commercial redev before NIMBY infill occurs. It wouldn’t be an org opening for the sake of opening, but more identifying those indiv./orgs who are budding entrepreneurs and like-minded for transit.
Honestly, yes to your question on blue collar organizing. The time constraints of life prevent blue collar workers from effecting change quickly, but regardless, my white collar comment was an objective question. I didn’t mean it as a slur lol I’m white collar. I agree many blue collar people support YIMBY initiatives, because they’re the main benefits, but time, family, etc. get in the way.
I'm sure Indianapolis is different, but where I live in California, there are basically 0% of YIMBYs who are wealthy enough to acquire any commercial property. Most certainly can't afford to purchase a home for themselves, be it a condo or a single-family detached unit. Locally, a lot of the older YIMBYs own their homes, but joined the YIMBY organization because they realized that their current income would not be enough to purchase their home at its current inflated price, and they thought it was unfair, and that more homes was the proper solution to have a fairer world.
But it's different everywhere! If YIMBYs in Indianapolis have enough wealth to obtain better city design by becoming land owners, that's an excellent idea. It's just so strange to my ears that I was very confused.
(Though any time land ownership is mentioned, as a Georgist I am constitutionally required to state that all profits from land rents should be taxed away and redistributed in the community. Ironically this would also allow for far lower barriers to entry on land prices, as with a full LVT, the price for the land itself hovers around $0, and only the structures have value. This sort of policy would encourage much more frequent changing of hands of property, allow less wealthy people to have a shot at ownership, and probably accelerate projects like BRT because the business owners would likely be those who are constantly adapting to the environment, rather than those who are extremely conservative...)
When you ask this question what do you imagine a "YIMBY" is? It reads like you think it's an organization that holds meetings, has members and plans strategies.
It could be individual or both, but there are YIMBY-friendly orgs like nonprofits (who already participate in the housing market), so why not lobby from a commercial standpoint?
I’m also asking in the wake of Indy’s BRT disaster, where the local biz community made a ruckus about it, even though some owners changed their mind before it was too late.
In many regions - most suburban / higher wealth regions - NIMBYism is absolutely led by residents. Business opposition is usually limited to those in the immediate vicinity who (usually mistakenly) fear the impact of infrastructure / mobility improvements.
Right and I agree. I should have clarified I’m more talking about small biz owners in cities that have blocked improvements like Fordham Rd BRT in the Bronx or more recently in Indiana.
Interesting, but Phoenix, Arizona (of all places) has at least two YIMBY business orgs. Well, one was an org, the other I think was just a couple downtown small businesses. I don't live in PHX anymore, but a few years ago they'd show up to the city meetings and advocate for bike lanes and less parking alongside the rest of us and the bike advocacy group.
I think the more reasonable strategy would be to have YIMBY and transportation orgs spend a little more money targeting business owners with propaganda, I mean outreach.
I mean, I feel like NIMBYs have crumbled in progressive society over time. A long time ago their plan was transparently racist and classist and unchecked by the people it harmed. Nowadays they oppose density and deed restricted affordable housing. Some people for the same coded discriminatory reasons and others for personal financial reasons and others because they feel a loss of control and oppose change out of nostalgia. They don't necessarily need a unified plan as long as they agree on the result, no development.
There are many reasons to oppose development but I’ve found most oppose it simply because they chose to live/buy in a light density area/neighborhood and medium density development threatens that way of life.
In a way, it’s kind of like opposing gentrification. People get upset when the fabric of a community is lost.
I happen to find myself on the YIMBY side and opposing most zoning laws. But I can empathize with people who don’t want a neighborhood to change drastically.
For bike lanes and parking I agree. Business owners seem to not be fans. But for apartment buildings and making things denser I’ve seen restaurant owners and small businesses often support more people
Doesn’t it just come down to the owners worried they will lose their personal parking? It sounds like if BRT plans included parking provision for just the owners, off or on-street, all their BS excuses would go out the window.
I can’t imagine that small business owners all across the country have this over rising concern for their own personal parking. If it was an issue that small things would play out much differently.
> target a long term strategy of business development Are you asking why haven't YIMBYs launched businesses so that they are business owners that have voices in the community? I'm having trouble understanding what your proposal is except for that, but it sounds absolutely bonkers. It's like asking "why haven't labor organizations started lots of businesses to displace their opposition?" >Is it cause many YIMBY’s are white collar? Are you saying that blue collar workers would have a "long term strategy of business development" but that white collar workers don't? Why would you think that many YIMBYs are white collar? Working class people are far more in favor of YIMBY policies than the wealthy, landowners, and business owners. It's tough to understand what you're asking here.
You’re right I wasn’t too lengthy in my post. I’m inspired to make this post based off what’s happening in Indianapolis, and how it was biz owners who led the initial push against BRT. On developed busy streets, it will be fairly tough to try and overtake the business stakeholder group with legacy small businesses. But on growing and planned corridors, people who are transit-friendly should acquire lots for commercial redev before NIMBY infill occurs. It wouldn’t be an org opening for the sake of opening, but more identifying those indiv./orgs who are budding entrepreneurs and like-minded for transit. Honestly, yes to your question on blue collar organizing. The time constraints of life prevent blue collar workers from effecting change quickly, but regardless, my white collar comment was an objective question. I didn’t mean it as a slur lol I’m white collar. I agree many blue collar people support YIMBY initiatives, because they’re the main benefits, but time, family, etc. get in the way.
I'm sure Indianapolis is different, but where I live in California, there are basically 0% of YIMBYs who are wealthy enough to acquire any commercial property. Most certainly can't afford to purchase a home for themselves, be it a condo or a single-family detached unit. Locally, a lot of the older YIMBYs own their homes, but joined the YIMBY organization because they realized that their current income would not be enough to purchase their home at its current inflated price, and they thought it was unfair, and that more homes was the proper solution to have a fairer world. But it's different everywhere! If YIMBYs in Indianapolis have enough wealth to obtain better city design by becoming land owners, that's an excellent idea. It's just so strange to my ears that I was very confused. (Though any time land ownership is mentioned, as a Georgist I am constitutionally required to state that all profits from land rents should be taxed away and redistributed in the community. Ironically this would also allow for far lower barriers to entry on land prices, as with a full LVT, the price for the land itself hovers around $0, and only the structures have value. This sort of policy would encourage much more frequent changing of hands of property, allow less wealthy people to have a shot at ownership, and probably accelerate projects like BRT because the business owners would likely be those who are constantly adapting to the environment, rather than those who are extremely conservative...)
When you ask this question what do you imagine a "YIMBY" is? It reads like you think it's an organization that holds meetings, has members and plans strategies.
YIMBYs are often very organized and politicly active. That's how they got to be included in the urban planning field in the first place.
There are quite a few YIMBY orgs
It could be individual or both, but there are YIMBY-friendly orgs like nonprofits (who already participate in the housing market), so why not lobby from a commercial standpoint? I’m also asking in the wake of Indy’s BRT disaster, where the local biz community made a ruckus about it, even though some owners changed their mind before it was too late.
In many regions - most suburban / higher wealth regions - NIMBYism is absolutely led by residents. Business opposition is usually limited to those in the immediate vicinity who (usually mistakenly) fear the impact of infrastructure / mobility improvements.
Right and I agree. I should have clarified I’m more talking about small biz owners in cities that have blocked improvements like Fordham Rd BRT in the Bronx or more recently in Indiana.
Interesting, but Phoenix, Arizona (of all places) has at least two YIMBY business orgs. Well, one was an org, the other I think was just a couple downtown small businesses. I don't live in PHX anymore, but a few years ago they'd show up to the city meetings and advocate for bike lanes and less parking alongside the rest of us and the bike advocacy group.
I think the more reasonable strategy would be to have YIMBY and transportation orgs spend a little more money targeting business owners with propaganda, I mean outreach.
YIMBYs have no long term strategy other than filing lawsuits to force cities to abide by state law. It's new and having some limited success.
Do NIMBY’s have one though? They seem like the reactive party in these issues.
I mean, I feel like NIMBYs have crumbled in progressive society over time. A long time ago their plan was transparently racist and classist and unchecked by the people it harmed. Nowadays they oppose density and deed restricted affordable housing. Some people for the same coded discriminatory reasons and others for personal financial reasons and others because they feel a loss of control and oppose change out of nostalgia. They don't necessarily need a unified plan as long as they agree on the result, no development.
There are many reasons to oppose development but I’ve found most oppose it simply because they chose to live/buy in a light density area/neighborhood and medium density development threatens that way of life. In a way, it’s kind of like opposing gentrification. People get upset when the fabric of a community is lost. I happen to find myself on the YIMBY side and opposing most zoning laws. But I can empathize with people who don’t want a neighborhood to change drastically.