I think there’s an important distinction some people here aren’t making: there are three groups that are criticizing Downtown South. These groups are NOT one and the same, so I think it’s simplistic and careless to have one opinion when there are 3 very different games being played at the same time.
True NIMBYs = critics who just personally don't want new developments
These are the people I think most people think of when we talk about NIMBYs. But remember: this shit’s more complicated than that.
Maybe there is a reason to think people in the “Leftist-ish” group are being manipulated by activists in this group, like @Kevin suggested:
…but I don’t think that’s a reason to group the two together. If anything, that plays right into the hands of “True NIMBY” activists.
This is tempting for the “Leftist-ish” people to do (and also for us to think about) because, as @NoRaAintAllBad put it:
That is exactly why I think every DTS critic should NOT be considered strictly anti-DTS. Just because it’s easy to imagine, that doesn’t mean it reflects what people are actually saying and feeling. If you actually listen to what OneWake representatives are saying, some of them just sound opposed to DTS no matter what, but others sound much more complex and nuanced.
Leftist-ish = people who want the city to aggressively protect people in poverty
I’d modify what @evan.j.bost wrote, and summarize these people’s goals as this:
I call this group “Leftist-ish” because I don’t think everyone in this group has tactics that align with their ideologies. Some commentators in OneWake’s inaugural meeting, for example, just want affordable housing somehow. They don’t seem to care how it happens (maybe market-based ways like tax incentives are just fine) as long as their rents don’t increase.
That’s probably true, and I agree that’s why DTS should eventually happen. But there’s this cool article/podcast from investigative journalists at The Correspondent that looks at how, by saying just that, you can perpetuate the exact problems you want to solve.
Maybe? I can see it going either way, and it’s an interesting thought experiment. I’m not sure if it’s a helpful conversation to have here and now, though.
I agree. But at the same time, people are not robots; we’re emotional creatures that see and understand the world based on our experiences and ideas. It’s naive to think that people are truly objective -especially when you have thoughts that get personal.
Environmentalists = people with technical, engineering/design-related concerns
I haven’t heard a single person (here or elsewhere) say “noooo we shouldn’t create a district that can withstand floods” or “I don’t care if we pollute the water or wreck up where helpless animals live”. I just threw in this 3rd category for completeness.
This does make it easy for people in the other 2 categories to use this line of thought as a weapon, though. Again, that’s why I think it’s important to list this as a separate line of criticism.
Because of how this issue is such a dumpster fire, @daviddonovan, I personally agree that
is the question we should be asking. But it sounds like so many people (both on this website, at OneWake, other activists etc.) don’t agree on where we are as a city today -so it doesn’t sound like a productive conversation is even possible 