I think you are largely spot-on with this, but because I think Yglesias is an insufferable wiener I will just say that he moved into the historic district fully prepared to leverage it for status and the eventual sales premium it will add when his listing emphasizes that very historic district status he is lamenting when that is what a historic district status confers.
I find him more congenial than you do (I actually had a few beers with him once circa 2004), but wouldn't disagree with this. Of course, I'm not sure he would deny it, either...
The most peaceful one is to get everyone to agree "this person is a crank" and ignore him/her. Literally. He/she gets no votes, no say, no time to speak.
If they complain to the police their formal rights are being ignored - or to a lawyer, the community says "this person is a crank" and both the police and the lawyer refuse to engage with that person too.
Let's have a referendum. If someone is classified as a crank by their community, they lose all ability to influence local decision making.
That won't deal with NIMBYism. There, the supporters of the status quo are numerous enough to be a genuine power bloc and a commitment to a strict democracy means they get to block things. They are truly representing a meaningful segment of the people. But cranks are usually asocial assholes no one likes. It's only our renouncement of violence and commitment to local democracy that allows them to impede us thus.
Most of the cases I was thinking of when writing this (which is, in some ways, a 1500-word subtweet) don't involve LONE cranks, but rather small but extremely vocal groups of cranks, who are good at representing themselves as a part of a larger whole when, in fact, a significant majority are indifferent at best to their position, and often oppose it, though not as vehemently.
Fair enough but the same applies. Basically, groups less than 10% are pretty powerless if the remaining 90% even weakly coordinate.
We’re lacking a coordination tool because, while we all can point and identify cranks, there’s not, like, an objective definition and it’s a matter of “I know it when I see it”.
That’s that feeling we need to legitimize and empower.
I think you are largely spot-on with this, but because I think Yglesias is an insufferable wiener I will just say that he moved into the historic district fully prepared to leverage it for status and the eventual sales premium it will add when his listing emphasizes that very historic district status he is lamenting when that is what a historic district status confers.
I find him more congenial than you do (I actually had a few beers with him once circa 2004), but wouldn't disagree with this. Of course, I'm not sure he would deny it, either...
Create a strong presumption that the petitioner can do as they wish with their property unless overridden by some costly to the over riders process
There are several solutions I can think of.
The most peaceful one is to get everyone to agree "this person is a crank" and ignore him/her. Literally. He/she gets no votes, no say, no time to speak.
If they complain to the police their formal rights are being ignored - or to a lawyer, the community says "this person is a crank" and both the police and the lawyer refuse to engage with that person too.
Let's have a referendum. If someone is classified as a crank by their community, they lose all ability to influence local decision making.
That won't deal with NIMBYism. There, the supporters of the status quo are numerous enough to be a genuine power bloc and a commitment to a strict democracy means they get to block things. They are truly representing a meaningful segment of the people. But cranks are usually asocial assholes no one likes. It's only our renouncement of violence and commitment to local democracy that allows them to impede us thus.
Most of the cases I was thinking of when writing this (which is, in some ways, a 1500-word subtweet) don't involve LONE cranks, but rather small but extremely vocal groups of cranks, who are good at representing themselves as a part of a larger whole when, in fact, a significant majority are indifferent at best to their position, and often oppose it, though not as vehemently.
Fair enough but the same applies. Basically, groups less than 10% are pretty powerless if the remaining 90% even weakly coordinate.
We’re lacking a coordination tool because, while we all can point and identify cranks, there’s not, like, an objective definition and it’s a matter of “I know it when I see it”.
That’s that feeling we need to legitimize and empower.