As long as "local control" is enshrined in California law, and anybody anywhere can come and stop development in somebody else's yard, YIYBY is an important counter to the NIYBY that dominate these meetings.
It's important to remember that NIMBYs aren't actually protecting their back yard, they're restricting what others are doing in their fully-owned backyard. So if you're going to complain about YIYBYs, then the category of NIMBY doesn't really exist, it's just NIYBY.
> enthusiastically supporting development and/or sanctioned homeless camps
These things seem quite different from each other.
And zoning should be a city wide discussion. If a city doesn't zone for density near to heavy transit, the city is zoning irresponsibly and should no longer have local control, and the State should take over zoning.
> These things seem quite different from each other.
Two things that are often considered "undesirable" by the people living near them.
That's why there's room for skepticism when self-described YIMBYs actively root for other neighborhoods to take on these and other "undesirable" projects. In addition to demonstrating their public display of enlightened urbanism, it also happens to be in their interest to keep these projects out of their own neighborhood.
It's important to remember that NIMBYs aren't actually protecting their back yard, they're restricting what others are doing in their fully-owned backyard. So if you're going to complain about YIYBYs, then the category of NIMBY doesn't really exist, it's just NIYBY.
> enthusiastically supporting development and/or sanctioned homeless camps
These things seem quite different from each other.
And zoning should be a city wide discussion. If a city doesn't zone for density near to heavy transit, the city is zoning irresponsibly and should no longer have local control, and the State should take over zoning.