Nimby Wars

In public affairs much emphasis is put on the importance ethos/credibility. In that regard, for me, our guest lecturer from BigFish got off to a shaky start. I was unimpressed by the presumptuousness of his unsupported (and inaccurate) statement that US coal mines are the safest in the world - they're not - and seriously offended by his related statement that life is regarded as less valuable in China. Talk about an Enthymeme! As a foreigner, it's irritating and wearying to have to deal constantly with US ethnocentricity and the US national superiority complex which so often feels like a form of low level racism. Rant over!

Mr BigFish (I couldn't find his name on their website or Facebook page) brought up NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard - the idea that people will oppose LULU - Local Unwanted Land Use - developments in their area. NIMBY campaigns are a specific occurrence of grassroots organizing which is generally regarded as a good thing, however, the term NIMBY coined in the 1980's by a conservative UK politician is almost always used pejoratively to imply that opponents of a development have narrow, selfish, or myopic views.

The key difference between NIMBY and NIABY - Not In Anyone's Back Yard – is that opponents of NIMBY development don't question the underlying social utility of the development exposing them to charges of hypocrisy. For example, most people accept that society needs prisons but few communities want one in their area. An example closer to home is a wind farm on Nantucket Sound, MA. Some residents and businesses of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket Island have opposed construction of Cape Wind, a proposed offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound. Supporters cite the environmental, economic, and energy security benefits of clean, renewable energy, while opponents are against any obstruction to the views from oceanfront vacation homes and tourist destinations based in the region. While NIMBY wars are often waged by communities against local government officials and Big Business, this example shows how sometimes both sides come from within the community itself, or from adjacent communities.

Sometimes, the shoe is on the other foot with a community campaigning for a development opposed by local government officials/planners. A case in point is the large IKEA store, recently opened on the outskirts of Dublin in a socially disadvantaged area. Although planners were against the development arguing about the traffic impact (on one of the main routes to the airport), the local community successfully lobbied for the store. No doubt they will soon be equally vocal about the traffic problems.

The inherent Social Utility vs. Private (Selfish) Interests contradiction has an impact on how NIMBY groups campaign, with organizers often trying to use find more reasonable/acceptable public grounds to mask their less reasonable/acceptable private objections, or finding other ways to block the development. For example, in Alexandria, VA, people who opposed high-density development in Potomac Yard demanded an additional Washington Metro station while simultaneously opposing the scale of development that would provide either sufficient funds for the station or sufficient ridership to justify its construction. What some people in a community will see as NIMBY others will see as NIABY – for example, nuclear power stations – further complicating how LULU grassroots campaigns organize themselves.

For those interested in Nimby issues and campaigns, NIMBY Wars: The Politics of Land Use (available on inter-library loan from the Emerson Library) is an interesting read. From the book blurb: “Nimby Wars distills more than 25 years of experience in the trenches of land use battles, both for and against projects as varied as a hospital and an oil refinery. Readers will learn exactly what works and what doesn’t work when it comes to influencing local decision-makers faced with a controversial development proposal.”

Carissa Schively's 2007 academic article Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing Our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research (which can be ordered online via the Emerson Library) is also a good read. It looks at research in the area from the planners' perspective and methods available to respond to NIMBY concerns.

The Saint Consulting Group 2009 Index which tracks attitudes toward real estate development projects in the U.S., Canada and UK. contains some interesting statistics. A few are included here, however, the whole list is worth a look for anyone with an interest in the area.

American Attitudes on Development

• America’s opposition to local real estate development remains strong, with 74% of adults opposed to new development in their community.
• 78% of American adults oppose a landfill development in their hometown, making it the most unwanted type of local real estate project in America.
• A casino is the second most unwanted local project — 77% opposed.
• 59% of Americans say they are more likely to support new commercial projects in their hometown given the current economic situation.
• A nuclear power plant, while the least-favored type of power plant, would still be preferable as a local development project to a landfill, a casino, or an aggregate quarry, the survey results show.

Who Fights Development and Why

• One in five American families have actively opposed a development project
• The Northeast is the most actively NIMBY region of the U.S. (surprise, surprise!!!) followed by the West and Mid-Atlantic.
• The Midwest is the region most welcoming to local development.
• The most active NIMBYs are age 46-55, college or post-grad educated, own their home, and have an annual household income of $75,000 to $99,000.
• Key reasons for opposing a project are protecting the environment (22%) and protecting the value of a home or real estate (21%). Other reasons for opposition include fear of too much new traffic (19%) and protecting community character (18%).
• Nearly seven out of 10 Americans (69%) believe the relationship between developers and elected officials makes the land use approval process unfair.
• 87% of Americans say that a candidate’s position on development and growth is important when deciding for whom to vote.

Energy and Power Plants

• 53% of American adults oppose a local power plant project. That is down significantly from 75% opposed to a local power project in 2006, and 57% a year ago.
• Wind power remains the top choice for a power plant among Americans if one were to be built near them. 82% say they would support a wind-powered generation project if one were proposed for their community.
• Also enjoying more support than opposition are a local biofuel (54% support) or hydro power (61% support) project.
• 60% of Americans oppose building a nuclear power plant in their community —down from 65% opposed a year ago.
• 50% of Americans oppose a fossil fuel power plant in their community, down from 58% last year.