“This neighborhood was built on certain principles, and it’s extremely important to maintain those principles and also not say them out loud where they could be used in court”

This McSweeney’s satire of NIMBYs is as vicious as it outta be:

When I heard our town was considering legalizing (gulp) duplex apartments to allow more housing, I was devastated. I’m not against people having homes, but building more housing here would ruin the beautiful character of this neighborhood, which is mostly systematic racism, but it’s also not admitting it’s systematic racism.

Allowing more housing would radically disrupt what this town is, a quaint little neighborhood of half a million people located in one of the most desirable locations in the country. It’s a perfect place. I haven’t changed since 1974, so why should my neighborhood?

This neighborhood was built on certain principles, and it’s extremely important to maintain those principles and also not say them out loud where they could be used in court.

I’ve lived on this same street for thirty-six years, so I think I have a good view of the world. There is nothing wrong with drawing a big red line in the sand or on the nicer side of the highway.

We have all the good folks we need in this neighborhood. It’s not wrong to want a certain “type” of person who has a set of “morals” and is a “contributing” resident, and it’s not like it’s illegal to say these things (I consulted my attorney).

Why do people have to be so pushy about changing my way of life? Can’t these people go somewhere else and stop getting angry when I call them “these people?”

If certain types of characters really want to change things, they should do it the right way. Show up to a Community Board Meeting on the third Tuesday of semi-alternating months at 3:16 PM EST (Estonian Standard Time) and simply wait four and a half hours to make a two-minute statement. It’s that easy. I’ve been doing it for three decades, and I think things are going great.

Inject it straight into my veins!

Leftism and NIMBYism (and related concepts like LOCAL CONTROL and incredibly broad “preservationist” vetoes that are defensible in theory and in practice tend to be used to protect Burger Kings built during the Carter administration from being replaced with multifamily housing) is a circle that just can’t be squared, and using the word “developers” cannot get you around the indefensibility of considering the property values and arbitrary aesthetic preferences of incumbent homeowners as the only meaningful interest.