The term NIMBY seems to have been popularized to refer to people dogmatically refusing any change, doesn't seem to apply here, where the article describes a real nuisance:
This is textbook No True Scotsman.
They're all NIMBYs to varying degrees. I'd rather have delivery drones overhead than government surveyors looking to fine people because their sheds aren't setback far enough or insurers looking to misclassify shadows on roofs as overhanging limbs and whatnot. At least I potentially get something out of it that way.
So because people oppose some specific change that is causing documented problems for them, they're automatically anti-progress? It should be incumbent on Amazon to resolve the problems their neighbors are having with their drones.
Also I don't understand what "government surveyors" have to do with anything. Do you realize that satellite images of your roofline and property are detailed enough and cheap enough that people use them for roofing estimates?
Which would be fine if that's how it was but usually when this subject comes up it's because the government is being sloppy, fining first and asking questions later and rake in untold sums before they accidentally fine the guy who meticulously complied, knows he can prove it and has the time/resources to fight them and then makes the news.
There's a reason I lumped them in with insurance mis-identifying shadows and whatnot.
If the violations were truly meaningful or detrimental then the abutters would have narc'd.
This is textbook No True Scotsman.
They're all NIMBYs to varying degrees. I'd rather have delivery drones overhead than government surveyors looking to fine people because their sheds aren't setback far enough or insurers looking to misclassify shadows on roofs as overhanging limbs and whatnot. At least I potentially get something out of it that way.