> Sadly, NIBMYism was created to give more voice and democracy to everyone.

NIMBYism wasn't created, it's a naturally emergent property of a rational actor. Then the government poured fuel on the fire with subsidized housing loans, and quantitative easing more generally.

But NIMBYism exists because most people have been conditioned over the past decades that they will make a lot of money from their primary residence. And this is what needs to die.

I see this sentiment a lot, but it doesn't match what I've seen. One of my friends recently bought a relatively expensive house in South Texas and then a bit later plans arose to build an apartment complex nearby (maybe a few hundred units - I forget the details). He rallied his neighbors to talk to their city council and the project was cancelled.

I talked to him about it a bit and mentioned that it was almost textbook NIMBYism and he agreed. The thing is that at no point was home value ever part of his thinking - he bought this house at a bit of a premium to live in the neighborhood that had larger lots, relatively older, professional families, and quiet nights (his old house was near a college campus and had lots of renters who liked to party it up on all nights of the week).

He just wanted to keep his quiet, low-traffic neighborhood. He'd be happy if his house never increased in value since he plans on living there indefinitely and all an increase in price means to him is more in wealth/property taxes.

He is not the only one I've talked to who thinks this way.

I don't know about where you live; but, here in Texas, NIMBYism is an outgrowth of redlining, whose stated purpose was anti-Semitic & anti-nonwhite: it was literally rooted in antidemocratic ideals.

What makes you say that NIMBYism stems from redlining? I've always assumed that NIMBY feelings naturally occur in any society because people dislike change. Under that theory, NIMBY has always existed and always will among those content with their lives. Redlining is a particularly toxic outgrowth of NIMBYism, as I understand it -- a lot of rich property owners saying "no" to folks who don't look just like them living in their neighborhood.

I don't think NIMBYism is inherently undemocratic: in most cases, it has to work through (semi) democratic means, like elected officials.

NIMBYism has an impact on democratic representation sometimes through gerrymandering, though. Maybe that's the connection you're talking about?

Right; no; here's a fully interactive map of the roots of NIMBYism in segregation, from Berkeley:

https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/06/21/how-american-racism-is-...

My wife is actively involved in redistricting litigation, in Texas, and core root of it is from pro-segregation redlining in the early-to-mid 20th century; the intent is disenfranchisement. The set of laws, covenants, HOAs, and attitudes (NIMBY) towards the construction of suburbs is entirely rooted in segregation. That was one of their literal selling points. To this day, there are home purchase covenants restricting Jews and Colored Persons — it's super unfunny when the real estate agent laughs and asks "you're not Jewish, are you? There's this weird, unenforceable provision..."; and, then, you still have to get a Judge to strike the restriction.

True enough, as far as that goes.

But other communities, a long way physically and culturally from Berkley have the same problem.

Here in Aotearoa we have just bought in a law that allows housing intensification, as a right, in three of our largest cities. (The local councils are screaming blue murder in at least one of those). This is because of nimbyism and a chronic housing shortage.

Watch this space. See how it goes.