>

This is completely untrue for the USA (this comment chain is talking about the USA - that's mostly what I'm talking about), look up anything to do with the Bay Area and San Francisco when it comes to the legendary NIMBYism in that area. They do things like preserve "historic" laundromats and parking lots to avoid building multi-hundred unit apartment complexes (and of course, a good 20% or more of those would always be relegated for affordable housing - this would do nothing but help the city and its residents.)
No idea about the Netherlands' specific issues, to be fair.
"Discriminatie op basis van godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht, of op welke andere grond dan ook, is verboden."
It kind of is there already no? >

It was already illegal, but it's now in the constitution. On one hand it's a mostly symbolic gesture, on the other hand this should theoretically be more difficult to undo for future legislators. >


on the other hand this should theoretically be more difficult to undo for future legislators.

Nope. Not in the slightest. This is an entirely symbolic gesture that changes absolutely nothing but some of the wording, and arguably weakens the overall constitutional ban on discrimination by being specific about certain subjects.
While it might still be nice as a purely symbolic gesture, there really is no practical change to speak of. >

How to say you don’t understand Dutch constitutional law without saying you don’t understand Dutch constitutional law. 
Multiple judges have already said this will help them in certain legal cases as the specification allows them to point at certain edge cases regarding disability and sexuality discrimination (but ESPECIALLY disability discrimination) and tilt them in favour of the disabled party. 
There are a lot of examples of for example students that were hard of hearing failing a hearing part of a language exam and not being allowed a sign language or writing alternative and such. And judges have said those students would be better aided with this change to our constitution. 
This passed the house and senate in two rounds of voting and in case of the house even hit the mandatory threshold of 2/3rd of parliament. This type of stuff isn’t just “symbolic” these things have ramifications. Just because •you• can’t phantom them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. 
But please. Keep posting your hunches while lacking a law degree or anything of the kind for the whole world to read. It’s not like the past decades have made the dangers of people bluffing their way through life and not knowing when to shut up abundantly clear. >

Fuck, I loved your last paragraph. >

Feel free to repeat it where ever you find it fitting.
Let’s make sure that those who bluff are aware that they can’t count on our silence to give their performance-art-piece space. >

I'm thinking of moving to the netherlands >

We don't have any houses fam >

like the entirety of Europe right now it seems aha
(except Italy?) >

The entirety of the western industrialized world, at least anywhere where people want to live. It's almost like treating housing as an investment instead of as a necessity is bad... >

Plenty of US states don’t have insane housing prices. >

People move there when none of the higher ranking states are available. >

So in other words "the more desirable places to live are more expensive because demand is huge."
Shocker.
Anyway, just build more housing. There is a direct and obvious connection between NIMBYism and expensive housing prices. >

It's not really NIMBYism that we don't build enough, it's (extremely necessary) environmental laws and not having enough builders and building materials. Foreign builders could help if they had a place to sleep between shifts...