Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.”
> Ha ha, my dude, the two kinds of land use restrictions are the same thing. He might not be a hypocrite per se but it’s meant to illuminate that his position boils down to “I’ve got mine.”
Your parent didn't say "those two cases are different," but rather "it's OK to be right about one thing and wrong on another." That someone has a blind spot for matters that affect him directly doesn't mean he's wrong about the matter that doesn't affect him directly (though of course it also doesn't mean he's right).
This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY. Millions of Californians are, no big deal. It's a valid opinion. But does it harm his credibility about political and economic matters? Yes, acutely in this case. There are costs to being a NIMBY, even if it's all about looking out for #1!
> This isn't complicated. Matt Stoller, a guy I've never heard of and do not know personally, is a NIMBY.
Except, that isn't true. Arguing that the YIMBY explanation of our housing supply problems is incomplete doesn't make you a NIMBY. Your uniformed commentary also adds nothing to the discussion. Next time please take the time of read the opinions of someone before arguing on the internet about what they are.
