Is NIMBYISM a good thing?

Or a bad thing? Or just is? Merely reflecting people expressing their self-interest?

My take is of course the last one. People are free to, and in a healthy democratic society I believe should be clear about what it is and to work towards it. After all, who else will? Expressing one's totally self-serving self-interest is a good and legitimate part of the democratic political process. I think it in fact strengthens political action when people come out of their own experience and don't try to gussy-up their political positions with "it's good for you." For example, when I argue for pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, I do so out of total self-interest: that's the kind of world I want to live in. I happen to think that there are indeed a host of overall social benefits to organizing the built world so that it is easy and pleasant to walk. But my own particular motivation starts from my own perception of my own self-interest.

The only problem is when such self-interest is often seen to hold the high moral ground of "community interest." After all, what is "community interest" --- and please understand that I am thinking of these matters in the context in which I have observed them in action for thirty years: land use --- except the collection of a host of individual self-interests into some large entity. But does it change when such individual interests become associated in name with "the community"? Well the term "The Community" does have a stirring and portentous sound to it; it impresses politicians; it has a sort of moral fervor to it: "Dost thou dare to flout The Community Interest which transforms a host of individual self-interests into something much grander.

That's my only problem with NIMBYISM. It can be just as narrow and self-ish as any other "faction" yet because it often coalesces into and is manifest by "community groups" it can seem to easily and fluidly become the same thing. Everyone wants the high moral ground and speaking for "the community" rather than "for me and three neighbors" makes such a claim more verbally plausible.

Yes, of course there is such a thing as "community interest." And I value it highly. But I don't always assume that the people who claim to stand for it actually do.

So NIMBYISM is a fine thing, so long as we acknoweldge it for what it is: a bunch of individuals trying to get the best deal possible for themselves.

Comments

[Brian Miller]

Too often, though, NIMBYism is based on racism and classism that may reflect "your interests" but should nonetheless be catered to very little.

[Rich]

The word "community" is one that is rife with issues, as Brian's comment above hints at. Community is a group. The group includes some, but just as significantly excludes others. Communities are valuable parts of society, but they are parts, not the whole. There are many times that a community working together can make a group or place better. But often times the community interests are pursued at the expense of the whole.

The point made in the post linking NIMBYism with "commmunity interests" leads in some very interesting directions. If we look at the term NIMBY the area is defined as "backyard." Now that is not a specific definitional term, but I think one can say with confidence that backyards are generally small and a narrow view of community. When people define community in a more narrow way it is more likely that their community interests will be pursued at the expense of the excluded, the whole.

While a neighborhood might be better off without a mental health facility, society is better off with mental health facilities. The facility has to be somewhere. So when one "community" makes a convincing case that the facility should be elsewhere, it is jut going to be somewhere else. That somewhere else is a place, or commmunity, that does not have the resources the first place possess. Because resources are often the same as money, NIMBYism often starts looking like classism.

I hope that this is not simplifying the issue though because the negotiation between communities is how things get done. It is how we decide how society is constructed. It is often about conflict, but from that conflict is how we find the solutions to the challenges in building a society.

[Larry Kestenbaum]

Agreed that some opposition to e.g. mental health facilities is selfish or racist, but I think a blanket rejection of neighborhood input as "NIMBY-ism" is a mistake.

Most people can't be bothered to write a letter or show up at public hearings about a land use issue even if doing so is manifestly in their interest. In most places, we have too little neighborhood self-concern rather than too much.

As a result, redevelopment and public works projects proceed with zero constraints or sensitivity; neighborhoods are treated as worthless throwaways. Even if the changes are necessary, this is not the route to a better urban environment.

[Michael Lewyn]

NIMBYism is good if it leads to good results and bad if it doesn't. NIMBYism that prevents the highway from destroying the neighborhood is good; NIMBYism that chokes off the housing supply is bad.

[Ron]

I would argue that the term NIMBY itself is perjorative, and was a construct of developers, anxious to put a negative spin on whoever opposed them. Easier to depersonalize the active citizens involved...

And I think ANY NIMBYism is good, whatever the result, since it really is nothing more than organized community involvement -- and often, not all that organized. Isn't that what so many people bemoan -- American's lack of interaction with their communities and their government? You may not agree with their views, but it certainly scares me to think that anyone doesn't want to hear from them.

Finally, if we assume that NIMBYs are often racist or classist, remember this; our government (at all levels) has done an incredible poor job of determining "proper uses" over the years. I'm not saying all NIMBYs are right, just that they often have a more informed opinion than a bunch of inbred, anti-intellectural Council or Zoning Board Members.

Ron