The areas of this argument that stands out to me as the biggest loci for disagreements are best summarized in the following sections:
care more about maintaining a specific aesthetic vibe of their neighborhood than they do about the increased quality of public services generated by having a larger tax base
and
Plus, I think whether the area is “nice” or not is mostly a matter of taste.
First, there’s the “aesthetic” point. You’ve said here that you don’t consider crime concerns to be aesthetic preferences. Yet when you’re talking about the character of a neighborhood, you focus on aesthetic concerns. I think ignoring how front of mind the crime concern is to NIMBYs and even YIMBY skeptics is going to do nothing but hurt your odds in convincing anyone.
The assumption in the statement of “increased quality of public services generated by having a larger tax base” is that as population grows and the tax base grows, public services will get better. That is a very large assumption, and one you’re certainly going to need to prove.
Lastly on “nice” being mostly a matter of taste, I think that’s partly true but there are certainly things everyone would agree on being nice. Not having trash littering the streets is nice. Being able to walk around safely at night without fear is nice. There is such a thing as universally preferred “niceness” in neighborhoods.
I’d encourage you to keep in mind that when pitching plans, the ideas behind them simply exist in the world of theory. They have to be executed in reality. When you advocate a position to someone, you should be able to anticipate their worries, and lay out specific and concrete steps to address them. I have seen this in particular with YIMBYs there is a tendency to, as @Said Achmiz pointed out, trivialize concerns (or just ignore them completely as I’m pointing out with the crime).
When it comes to plans, the messenger (or the party who will be trusted with the execution of a plan) and their capabilities are often equally or more important to the message itself.
I’d encourage you to keep in mind that when pitching plans, the ideas behind them simply exist in the world of theory. They have to be executed in reality. When you advocate a position to someone, you should be able to anticipate their worries, and lay out specific and concrete steps to address them. I have seen this in particular with YIMBYs there is a tendency to, as @Said Achmiz pointed out, trivialize concerns (or just ignore them completely as I’m pointing out with the crime).
I appreciate your comment, and I certainly agree with this part. For purposes of time, I will not spend too much additional time illustrating the specific evidence I trust that speaks to the change in the prevalence of crime in upzoned neighborhoods and the way quality of public services changes when the tax base grows, but it’s perhaps unsurprising that I view both topics as providing support for the YIMBY position, as opposed to the reverse.
And while I acknowledge the importance of proper messaging that acknowledges the concerns residents may have, I also believe there are No Universally Compelling Arguments for YIMBYism. Ultimately, somebody with the beliefs and preferences of Said Achmiz should not, from his perspective, support YIMBYs, and should instead oppose them whenever they try to change his neighborhood. I view this fact as inevitable, and the NIMBYs who feel this way as political opponents.
The areas of this argument that stands out to me as the biggest loci for disagreements are best summarized in the following sections:
and
First, there’s the “aesthetic” point. You’ve said here that you don’t consider crime concerns to be aesthetic preferences. Yet when you’re talking about the character of a neighborhood, you focus on aesthetic concerns. I think ignoring how front of mind the crime concern is to NIMBYs and even YIMBY skeptics is going to do nothing but hurt your odds in convincing anyone.
The assumption in the statement of “increased quality of public services generated by having a larger tax base” is that as population grows and the tax base grows, public services will get better. That is a very large assumption, and one you’re certainly going to need to prove.
Lastly on “nice” being mostly a matter of taste, I think that’s partly true but there are certainly things everyone would agree on being nice. Not having trash littering the streets is nice. Being able to walk around safely at night without fear is nice. There is such a thing as universally preferred “niceness” in neighborhoods.
I’d encourage you to keep in mind that when pitching plans, the ideas behind them simply exist in the world of theory. They have to be executed in reality. When you advocate a position to someone, you should be able to anticipate their worries, and lay out specific and concrete steps to address them. I have seen this in particular with YIMBYs there is a tendency to, as @Said Achmiz pointed out, trivialize concerns (or just ignore them completely as I’m pointing out with the crime).
When it comes to plans, the messenger (or the party who will be trusted with the execution of a plan) and their capabilities are often equally or more important to the message itself.
I appreciate your comment, and I certainly agree with this part. For purposes of time, I will not spend too much additional time illustrating the specific evidence I trust that speaks to the change in the prevalence of crime in upzoned neighborhoods and the way quality of public services changes when the tax base grows, but it’s perhaps unsurprising that I view both topics as providing support for the YIMBY position, as opposed to the reverse.
And while I acknowledge the importance of proper messaging that acknowledges the concerns residents may have, I also believe there are No Universally Compelling Arguments for YIMBYism. Ultimately, somebody with the beliefs and preferences of Said Achmiz should not, from his perspective, support YIMBYs, and should instead oppose them whenever they try to change his neighborhood. I view this fact as inevitable, and the NIMBYs who feel this way as political opponents.