Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pton12 t1_j64neqe wrote

Sure, and that’s why they have representation and hearings. But we are in a borough/city/state/country together. At some point, we need to think collectively to solve collective problems, and this soft veto just completely messes that up in too many instances.

11

InfernalTest t1_j64o1jp wrote

well if the people who she represents dont seem to think that way.... and theres no indication that they do

again its kind of hypocritical for people from OUTSIDE of the neighborhood she represents to insist they know better whats good than what she/ community wants and declare its NIMBYISM ....

someone from outside making decisions about infrastructure and saying " too bad this is how it is its for everyones benefit " that is the very epitome of why Robert Moses was a dick....

−8

pton12 t1_j64qf13 wrote

It isn’t though, because in representative democracy, there’s not a perfect reflection of community wishes and how the representative acts. I doubt local people prefer zero affordable housing units to 300.

There’s also a big gulf between Robert Moses running roughshod over everything and this level on NIMBYism. The fact is, as a society, we need things (whether sanitation, affordable housing, etc.) and they need to go somewhere. People often don’t want them nearby, but if everyone gets their wish, the society doesn’t get anything. This isn’t about an individual development, per se, but the idea that a single council member can stop much needed development in this instance or others, the whole city be damned.

10

InfernalTest t1_j64vrsi wrote

ok but its not like the developer CANT develop somewhere else...so there is a reason he wants to develop there and in order to do so it means a trade ....

and its not NIMBYISM to make a demand for what you want for your neighborhood and the needs of its constituents - just because youd prefer " some" over nothing doesnt mean that that standard is good for the neigborhood she represents ...

−5