NIMBY: Difference between revisions

Line 22:

Pendall [1999]

=== Pendall [1999] ===

When reduced to its most literal interpretation of “not in my backyard,” the term NIMBY connotes a selfish desire to abdicate responsibility for important community facilities. Where housing is concerned, NIMBY is a label most commonly applied to people who oppose subsidized dwellings, group homes, and shelters for the homeless. But in recent years, homebuilders and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under Secretary Kemp have painted all opposition to housing with this broad NIMBY brush (Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing 1991). This interpretation of opposition to housing extends to the academic literature as well (Frieden 1979). Yet opponents cite myriad reasons for changing or stopping new housing projects. In this article, I presume that we can learn much more about the planning and development process by taking these concerns at face value...

Line 34:

== Monkkonen & Manville (2018): Anti-developer sentiment ==

⚫

~~ ~~

Monkkonen, Paavo, and Michael Manville. "[http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf Opposition to Development or Opposition to Developers?: Survey Evidence from Los Angeles County on Attitudes towards New Housing.]" Working paper. February 22, 2018.

'''''"Abstract:''' '''Problem, Research Strategy and Findings''': Opposition to new housing at higher densities is a pervasive problem in planning. Such opposition constrains the housing supply and undermines both affordability and sustainability in growing metropolitan areas. Relatively little research, however, examines the motives behind such opposition, and much of the research that does exist examines only opponents’ stated concerns, which may differ from their underlying reasons. We use a survey-framing experiment, administered to over 1,300 people in Los Angeles County, to measure the relative power of different arguments against new housing. We test the impact of common anti-housing arguments: about traffic congestion, neighborhood character, and strained local services. We also, however, introduce the idea that local residents might not like development because they do not like developers. We find strong evidence for this idea: opposition to new development increases by 20 percentage points when respondents see the argument that a developer is likely to earn a large profit from the building. This magnitude is double the increase in opposition associated with concerns about traffic congestion.''

''"'''Takeaway for Practice''': Housing opposition is often framed as a form of risk aversion. Our findings, however, suggest that at least some opposition to housing might be motivated not by  residents’ fears of their own losses, but resentment of others’ gains. This finding in turn suggests the possibility that housing opposition could be influenced by vicious cycles of regulation and resentment. Many expensive cities are heavily-regulated, and in such cities only deep-pocketed and aggressive developers can afford to build. The prevalence of such developers might reinforce negative stereotypes about them, and fuel animus against them, further complicating efforts to build housing. Finally, such resentment might help explain the popularity of regulations—such as exactions—whose costs to developers are certain but whose benefits to society are less so. If residents derive satisfaction from seeing developers punished, the persistence of these programs in the face of ambiguous evidence about their efficacy becomes less mysterious."''

</blockquote>

⚫

== in San Francisco Bay Area ==

Line 81:

Line 89:

== References ==

Line 90:

Line 98:

*Glaberson, William. "Coping in the Age of 'NIMBY.'" ''New York Times,'' June 19, 1988. [http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/19/business/coping-in-the-age-of-nimby.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/19/business/coping-in-the-age-of-nimby.html?pagewanted=all].

*Hankinson, M. (2018). When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism. American Political Science Review, 1-21. doi:10.1017/S0003055418000035. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000035 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000035]. Preprint 2017: “[http://mhankinson.com/assets/jmpWeb.pdf When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism.]” [http://mhankinson.com/assets/jmpWeb.pdf. http://mhankinson.com/assets/jmpWeb.pdf. ]

*Monkkonen, Paavo, and Michael Manville. "[http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf Opposition to Development or Opposition to Developers?: Survey Evidence from Los Angeles County on Attitudes towards New Housing]." Working paper. February 22, 2018. http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf.

*Monkkonen, Paavo, and Michael Manville. "[http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf Opposition to Development or Opposition to Developers?: Survey Evidence from Los Angeles County on Attitudes towards New Housing]." Working paper. February 22, 2018. [http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/ziman/2018-04WP.pdf].

*Iannarone, Sarah. “[http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/a_fix_for_portlands_growing_pa.html A fix for Portland's growing pains: Less 'NIMBY,' more unity.]" (Guest opinion). Dec 31, 2017 [http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/a_fix_for_portlands_growing_pa.html http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/12/a_fix_for_portlands_growing_pa.html].

*Jacobus, Rick. “[https://shelterforce.org/2017/09/12/we-are-all-nimbys-sometimes/ We Are All NIMBYs…Sometimes.]” Shelterforce, September 12, 2017. [https://shelterforce.org/2017/09/12/we-are-all-nimbys-sometimes/ https://shelterforce.org/2017/09/12/we-are-all-nimbys-sometimes/].