NIMBY

An airport is a typical example of a development that can cause a NIMBY reaction: developers may claim economic benefits for the city, while locals may benefit from improved transport links and new jobs—but they may oppose it with objections to the noise, pollution and traffic it will generate.

Unfinished tower in Tenleytown, Washington, D.C. that was later removed as a result of complaints from the local neighborhood

car drivers requesting less car traffic in their street

NIMBY or Nimby is an acronym for the phrase "not in my back yard". The term (or the derivative Nimbyism) is used pejoratively to describe opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development close to them. Opposing residents themselves are sometimes called Nimbies. The term was coined in 1980 by Emilie Travel Livezey, and was popularized by British politician Nicholas Ridley, who was Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment.^{[citation needed]}

Projects likely to be opposed include but are not limited to tall buildings, chemical plants, industrial parks, military bases, wind turbines, desalination plants, landfills, incinerators, power plants, prisons,^[1] mobile telephone network masts, schools, nuclear waste dumps, landfill dump sites, youth hostels, wind farms, golf courses, housing developments and especially transportation improvement schemes (e.g. new roads, passenger and freight railways, highways, airports, seaports).

NIMBY is also used more generally to describe people who advocate some proposal (for example, austerity measures including budget cuts, tax increases, downsizing), but oppose implementing it in a way that would require sacrifice on their part.

Variations

NIMBY and its derivative terms NIMBYism, NIMBYs, and NIMBYists, refer implicitly to debates of development generally or to a specific case. As such, their use is inherently contentious. The term is usually applied to opponents of a development, implying that they have narrow, selfish, or myopic views. Its use is often pejorative.^[2]

The term has been applied in debates over developments in various situations, including:

• When parties advocate infrastructure development such as new roads, light rail and metro lines, airports, power plants, retail developments, sales of public assets, electrical transmission lines, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, sewage outfalls or prisons.
• When parties build, operate, or advocate culturally unfamiliar functions, such as methadone clinics, needle exchange programs, or halfway houses.
• When parties propose to build or operate facilities that are perceived as primarily benefitting disadvantaged people, such as subsidized housing for poor people, supportive housing for mentally ill people, and homeless shelters for people without a home. These facilities are often opposed by wealthier, healthier, and securely housed people on the grounds that the facilities serve, and therefore might attract or make more visible, people that they consider to be "undesirable".
• When a government or private party advocates development of residential or commercial property.

Not in my neighbourhood

The term "not in my neighbourhood" is also frequently used.^[3]

NIABY

Opposition to certain developments as inappropriate anywhere in the world is characterised by the acronym NIABY (Not In Anyone's Backyard). The building of nuclear power plants, for example, is often subject to NIABY concerns.^[4]

NAMBI

NAMBI (Not Against My Business or Industry) is used as a label for any business concern that expresses umbrage with actions or policy that threaten that business, whereby they are believed to be complaining about the principle of the action or policy only for their interests alone and not for all similar business concerns who would equally suffer from the actions or policies.^[4] The term serves as a criticism of the kind of outrage that business expresses when disingenuously portraying its protest to be for the benefit of all other businesses. Such a labelling would occur, for example, when opposition expressed by a business involved in urban development is challenged by activists — causing the business to in turn protest and appealing for support from fellow businesses lest they also find themselves challenged where they seek urban development. This term also serves as a rhetorical counter to NIMBY. Seen as an equivalent to NIMBY by those opposing the business or industry in question.

BANANA

BANANA is an acronym for Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (or Anyone).^[5][6] The term is most often used to criticize the ongoing opposition of certain advocacy groups to land development.^[7] The apparent opposition of some activists to every instance of proposed development suggests that they seek a complete absence of new growth. The term is commonly used within the context of planning in the United Kingdom. The Sunderland City Council lists the term on their online dictionary of jargon.^[8]

PIBBY

PIBBY is the acronym for Put In Blacks' Back Yard. This principle indicates that the people with social, racial, and economic privileges object to a development in their own back yards, and if the objectionable item must be built, then it should be built so that its perceived harms disproportionately affect poor, racially disadvantaged people. The environmental justice movement has critiqued Nimbyism as a form of environmental racism. Robert Doyle Bullard, Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, has argued that official responses to NIMBY phenomena have led to the PIBBY (Put In Blacks' Back Yard) principle.^[9]

FRUIT

FRUIT is the acronym for Fear of Revitalization Urban-Infill and Towers. The word FRUIT or FRUITs is a play on words in support of the acronym BANANAs. First used in a development industry article in Vancouver to describe irrational local opponents (fruit cakes, fruit loops or just fruits) of well-planned developments.

[2] Use of the terminology FRUITs in context with use of the acronym BANANAs.

Points of debate

In favor of development

Frequently argued debate points in favor of development include higher employment, tax revenue, marginal cost of remote development, safety, and environmental benefits. Proponents of development may accuse locals of elitism, parochialism, drawbridge mentality, racism and opposition to diversity, the inevitability of criticism, and misguided or unrealistic claims of prevention of urban sprawl.

In favor of local sovereignty

Those labeled as NIMBYs may have a variety of motivations and may be unified only because they oppose a particular project. For example, some may oppose any significant change or development, regardless of type, purpose, or origin. Others, if the project may is seen as being imposed by outsiders, may hold strong principles of self-governance, local sovereignty, local autonomy, and home rule. These people believe that local people should have the final choice and that any project affecting the local people should clearly benefit themselves, rather than corporations with distant investors or central governments.^[10] Still others may object to a particular project because of its nature, e.g., opposing a nuclear power plant over fear of radiation, but accepting a local waste management facility as a municipal necessity.

Regardless of motivation, they may cite any perceived disadvantages that seem relevant. A typical list of objections includes:

• Increased traffic: More jobs, more housing or more stores means more people driving on local streets. Industrial facilities such as warehouses, factories, or landfills often increase the volume of truck traffic.
• Harm to locally owned small businesses: The addition of a big box store, such as Wal-Mart, might result in local people no longer choosing to patronize locally owned stores.
• Loss of residential property value: Homes near an undesirable development may be less desirable when the owner attempts to sell it. The lost revenue from property taxes may or may not be offset by increased revenue from the project.
• Environmental pollution of land, air, and water: Power plants, factories, chemical facilities, crematoriums, sewage treatment facilities, airports, and similar projects may contaminate the land, air, or water around them.
• Light pollution: Projects that operate at night, or that include security lighting (such as streetlights in a parking lot), may be accused of causing light pollution.
• Noise pollution: In addition to the noise of traffic, a project may inherently be noisy. This is a common objection to wind power, airports, and many industrial facilities.
• Visual blight and failure to "blend in" with the surrounding architecture: The proposed project might be ugly or particularly large.
• Loss of a community's small-town feel: This objection typically is given to proposals that might result in new people moving into the community, such as a plan to build many new houses.
• Strain of public resources and schools: This reason is given for any increase in the local area's population, as additional school facilities might be needed for the additional children, but particularly to projects that might result in certain kinds of people joining the community, such as a group home for people with disabilities.
• Disproportionate benefit to non-locals: The project appears to benefit distant people, such as investors (in the case of commercial projects like factories or big-box stores) or people from neighboring areas (in the case of regional government projects, such as airports, highways, sewage treatment, or landfills).
• Increases in crime: This is usually applied to commercial projects that are perceived as attracting low-skill workers, or any project that might employ racially disadvantaged people or recent immigrants, or that might benefit people with mental illness or poor people, such as low-income housing. Additionally, certain types of projects, such as place selling alcohol or medical marijuana, might directly increase the amount of crime in the area.

Origin

The Oxford English Dictionary identifies the acronym's earliest use as being in 1980 in the Christian Science Monitor.^[11]

However, the concept behind the name originated before then, possibly in the 1950s.^[12]

Examples

Canada

Edmonton, Alberta

Opposition to a buried high voltage power transmission line that would require the rezoning of existing urban planning designs and the purchase (forced relocation of current residents) of houses along the planned corridor. Tax payer money would be spent to help finance the upgrade. NIMBY protests attract sympathy from citizens not directly affected by the project.

Southwestern Ontario

Many residents of the various towns in Essex County (as well as other nearby counties) are opposed to companies building wind turbines in Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, as well as in farmers' fields and along Ontario Highway 401. Concerns include their effects on the migration of birds, the noise associated with wind-powered electricity generation, and the unsightliness of the towers themselves.

Hong Kong

When Christian Zheng Sheng College, the only school in Hong Kong which is dedicated to life education for teenagers with drug addiction, tries to relocate the campus from Chi Ma Wan to Mui Wo due to overcrowding, the school faced opposition from Mui Wo residents even when the government supported the relocation. An editorial in The Standard said the opposition is "the common 'not in my backyard' mentality".^[13]

United Kingdom

Newton Mearns, Scotland

The sizable Muslim community of Newton Mearns, an affluent, leafy suburb of Glasgow, have long campaigned for a mosque to be built where they may worship. NIMBY protests defeated attempts to construct a mosque in the relatively small community.

East Kilbride, Scotland

The railway line from Glasgow Central to East Kilbride was considered for extension to East Kilbride shopping center and bus station in 1989. This process involved tunneling under people's back gardens and the area around the Civic Centre. NIMBY protests defeated such a movement and the line was not extended.

Ashtead, Surrey

In the affluent English village of Ashtead, Surrey, which lies on the outside of London, residents objected in 2007^[14] to the conversion of a large, £1.7 million residential property into a family support centre for relatives of wounded British service personnel. The house was to be purchased by a registered charity, SSAFA Forces Help.^[15][16][17] Local residents objected to the proposal out of fear of increased traffic and noise, as well as the possibility of an increased threat of terrorism. They also contended that the SSAFA charity is actually a business, thereby setting an unwelcome precedent.^[18] Local newspapers ran articles titled "Nimby neighbours' war with wounded soldiers' families" and "No Heroes in my Backyard."

Ex-servicemen and several members of the British general public organised a petition in support of SSAFA, and even auctioned the "Self Respect of Ashtead" on eBay.^[19]

High Speed Rail 2

Particularly in the run up to the final decision on the route of High Speed 2, BBC News Online reported that many residents of Tory constituencies were launching objections to the HS2 route based on the effects it would have on them, whilst also showing concerns that HS2 is unlikely to have a societal benefit at a macro level under the current economic circumstances.^[20][21]

Heathrow Airport

In November 2007 a consultation process began for the building of a new third runway and a sixth terminal and it was controversially^[22] approved on 15 January 2009 by UK Government ministers.^[23] The project was then cancelled on 12 May 2010 by the Cameron Government.^[24]

Heathrow Airport has a CAA Public Use Aerodrome Licence (Number P527) that allows flights for the public transport of passengers or for flying instruction.^[25]

Coventry Airport

The airport is owned by CAFCO (Coventry) Limited, a joint venture between Howard Holdings plc^[26] and Convergence-AFCO Holdings Limited (CAFCOHL), and in June 2007 had its application to build permanent terminal and passenger facilities turned down by the UK government due to public pressure. ^{[27][28][29][30][31][32]}

United States

Alexandria, Virginia

In Alexandria, Virginia, a high-density development in Potomac Yard was criticized by local residents. The developers in turn accused the residents of hypocrisy for campaigning for their own Washington Metro station while simultaneously opposing the scale of development that would allow the station's construction.^{[citation needed]}

Deerfield, Illinois

In 1959, when Deerfield officials learned that a developer building a neighborhood of large new homes planned to make houses available to African Americans, they issued a stop-work order. An intense debate began about racial integration, property values, and the good faith of the community officials and builders. For a brief time, Deerfield was spotlighted in the national news as "the Little Rock of the North."^[33] Supporters of integration were denounced and ostracized by angry residents. Eventually, the village passed a referendum to build parks on the property, thus putting an end to the housing development. Two model homes already partially completed were sold to village officials.^[33] Otherwise, the land lay dormant for years before it was developed into what is now Mitchell Pool and Park and Jaycee Park. The first black family did not move into Deerfield until much later. This episode in Deerfield's history is described in But Not Next Door by Harry and David Rosen, both residents of Deerfield.

Nantucket Sound, Massachusetts

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. Proponents 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.

St. Lucie County, Florida

Similar to the situation in Nantucket Sound, Mass., a minority of residents in St. Lucie County, Florida have vehemently opposed the construction of wind turbines in the county. The construction of the wind turbines is strongly supported by over 80% of county residents according to a 2008 Florida Power and Light (FPL) poll.^[34] Additionally, the power company proposed building the turbines in a location on a beach near a prior existing nuclear power plant owned by the company.^{[citation needed]}

California

A small number of residents (mostly farmers) in Hanford, California and surrounding areas are opposed to the California High-Speed Rail Authority building high-speed rail near farmland, citing that it will bring environmental and economic problems.

Wealthy residents of Southern Orange County, CA were successfully able to defeat a local measure to convert the decommissioned El Torro Marine Base from a commercial airport proposal to a park proposal, claiming that the airport would be "unsafe" during landings and take-offs as well as air quality issues. The real issue was the FAA planned the flight paths for the airport over expensive neighborhoods of the south Orange County and residents feared that their property values would decrease. The airport proposal was strongly supported by Northern Orange County residents.Orange County Great Park

See also

• CAVE People
• Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
• Drawbridge mentality
• Eyesore
• Locally unwanted land use (LULU)
• Luddite
• Pulp mill conflict between Argentina and Uruguay
• Smart Growth
• Somebody Else's Problem
• Technophobia
• YIMBY
• Waste

References

1. ^ Merriam-Webster
2. ^ You can’t park here: it’s my retreat, says ‘Nimby’ Clooney (The Times)
3. ^ Hull, Jon (25 January 1988). "Not In My Neighborhood". Time (Time Inc). http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966534,00.html. Retrieved 20 May 2010. 
4. ^ ^{a b} translationconference.com
5. ^ Discussion of the term in the NYT (1993)
6. ^ From NIMBYs to DUDEs: The Wacky World Of Plannerese
7. ^ BANANA at Wordspy
8. ^ Sunderland City Council
9. ^ Stewart, James B. (05 April 2002) Book Reviews: "Dumping in dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality" The Review of Black Political Economy Volume 20, Number 2, 105-107, doi: 10.1007/BF02689929
10. ^ The Impact of Corporations on the Commons, Address by Mary Zepernick at the Harvard Divinity School's Theological Opportunities Program, October 21, 2004, poclad.org
11. ^ Emilie Travel Livezey, "Hazardous waste," The Christian Science Monitor, November 6, 1980 See: [1]
12. ^ Maiorino, Al. (22 March 2011) "Do You Have Control Over NIMBYism? Biomass Magazine
13. ^ Ma, Mary (23 June 2009). "Kuk holds the wild card". The Standard. http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=21&art_id=83849&sid=24315500&con_type=1&d_str=20090623&sear_year=2009. 
14. ^ No heroes in my backyard: Residents fight guest house for servicemen’s relatives (Your Local Guardian, 19 July 2007)
15. ^ Headley Court Families Accommodation (SSAFA Forces Help)
16. ^ Nimby neighbours' war with wounded soldiers' families (Daily Mail, 15 July 2007)
17. ^ No heroes in my backyard: Residents fight guest house for servicemen’s relatives (Your Local Guardian, 19 July 2007)
18. ^ Letters of Representation (Mole Valley Council)
19. ^ Woods, Vicki (28 July 2007). "Legless boys' mammas? Not in Ashtead". telegraph.co.uk (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3641566/Legless-boys-mammas-Not-in-Ashtead.html. Retrieved 7 June 2010. 
20. ^ BBC.co.uk
21. ^ BBC.co.uk
22. ^ "Britain: Third Heathrow runway approved despite opposition - CNN.com". CNN. 15 January 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/01/15/heathrow.third.runway/index.html. Retrieved 11 May 2010. 
23. ^ BBC News
24. ^ BBC News - Heathrow third runway plans scrapped by new government
25. ^ CAA Aerodrome Licence
26. ^ Howardholdings.com
27. ^ Airport-int.com
28. ^ Herbert, Ian (10 July 2007). "Grounded: Another victory in battle to curb airport growth". The Independent (London). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grounded-another-victory-in-battle-to-curb-airport-growth-456650.html. 
29. ^ Warwickdc.gov.uk
30. ^ Birminghampost.net
31. ^ Docs.google.com
32. ^ Housepricecrash.co.uk
33. ^ ^{a b} Rosen, Harry; David Rosen (1962). But Not Next Door. Astor-Honor Inc. ISBN 0839210078. 
34. ^ Survey supports turbines, FPL says (Palm Beach Post)

External links

• The First World Network of NIMBY Experts
• Multifamily Housing Group Targets NIMBY
• Saint Index strives to measure Nimbyism
• Nimby Wars from Forbes Magazine
• How to Overcome NIMBY Opposition to Your Project
• Q & A with NIMBY Expert Debra Stein