NIMBY: Difference between revisions

The term NIMBY over-simplifies people with what may be&nbsp;valid objections to&nbsp;development, while there are certainly invalid reasons against development. It can be interpreted to mean&nbsp;opponents are against all development, or for zero growth - when they may be pro development when that development respects important considerations such as environment, cultural history, health, city financial solvency, water, city services such as police or fire, or traffic concerns. Another argument may be adding buildings that are out of scale with a city - e.g. imposing 6 - 10 story mid-rise buildings in a 1- 3 story neighborhood.&nbsp;As an over-simplistic label NIMBY, or "NIMBY advocates" , should be carefully and selectively used&nbsp;as it can antagonize and polarize dialog, unless that is the intended effect.<br/> <br/> For constructive conversations YIMBYs should seek to avoid this polarizing term. It is inaccurate and depicts a stereotype - typically that of those with invalid, trivial or inconsistent reasons for opposing development.<br/> <br/> This concept has particular relevance in tight housing markets, which would benefit from the creation of new affordable housing. In some of these housing markets, such as the San Francisco Bay Area, NIBMYpeople holding concerns about new development&nbsp;activists have successfully blocked the new housing construction needed to meet demand.

Some NIMBY slogans used to oppose development&nbsp;include: "Gentrification is colonization," "No demolition. No displacement," and "Stop evictions."&nbsp;

Concerns of those opposed to development, who can be inaccurately framed as NIMBY fears ignore the fact that many YIMBY activists are pushing for linkage payments from developers that would go to funds to create affordable housing, inclusionary zoning to require the building of low and mid-income affordable housing and rezoning that would allow for new forms of housing built onto or around existing residential structures. However often these linkage payments or "impact fees" are insufficient for infrastructure to keep pace with the added burden of new development, or overlook an existing wide gap between provision of acceptable infrastructure for existing residential units, even before new units are added. On the San Francisco peninsular these situations have been exacerbated with the addition of commercial office space without commensurate addition of housing or infrastructure as cities welcome high revenue generating commercial space over residential which&nbsp;typically has a net negative impact on city cashflows. A further concern of development opponents is that blanket legislation such as Senate Bill 827 removes&nbsp;

Other YIMBY strategies that speak to stated NIMBYopponent concerns about affordable housing focus on lowering the cost to build affordable units by building on disused or underutilized municipal land (e.g. vacant lots and parking lots), lowering parking requirements for new developments and streamlining interior installations in units slated for low-income residents. Coupled with inclusionary zoning, linkage payments and increased density housing near public transportation hubs, this is the approach being examined in Cambridge, Massachusetts (see[http://www.abettercambridge.org/ A Better Cambridge]). In response, NIMBYiststhose raising concerns about new housing developments&nbsp;raise the concern of whether linkage payments and inclusionary zoning programs result in the creation of enough units (particularly two and three bedroom units for families versus smaller units geared towards singletons and childless couples) that rent for rates low enough to be affordable for thethose pooron low incomes. They also hold concerns that when developments are built with insuffucient parking that parking overflow can occur, resulting in residents circling to find a spot which slows traffic and adds to emissions. Actual reduction in car usage resulting from Transit Oriented Development&nbsp;may be minimal, especially in suburban locations with plentiful free parking or that are distant (e.g. >30 minutes) from a major employment center such as San Francisco.