Revision as of 17:56, 12 March 2018 (view source) imported>Rihallix (Significant edits to qualify and clarify usage.) ← Older edit		Revision as of 23:11, 13 March 2018 (view source) imported>Tmccormick No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 4: The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "NIMBY":  <blockquote>''“A person who objects to the siting of something perceived as unpleasant or hazardous in their own neighborhood, especially while raising no such objections to similar developments elsewhere.”''</blockquote> The term [[YIMBY_movement\|YIMBY]], for Yes In My Backyard, was coined as a play on NIMBY.  'NIMBY' was coined as, and generally remains, a critical and pejorative term, which people hardly ever use to self-identify. So if used as a term for a person (as opposed to say a ''dynamic ''or ''syndrome), ''it may be viewed as inherently polarizing. <br/>   == Other definitions == === Hankinson [2018] === Hankinson [2018] offers this definition and statement of problem:  <blockquote>''‘Not In My Back Yard’ or ‘NIMBY’ opposition (Dear, 1992; Schively, 2007) creates a collective action problem for the housing supply. Despite supporting supply citywide, residents individually have an incentive to ‘defect’ and block new housing proposed for their own neighborhood. If the permitting process allows individual residents to defect from a group interest of more supply, then NIMBYism will not only lead to less new housing overall, but to a level of supply below majoritarian preferences. This ability of NIMBYism to undermine collective action extends beyond housing to an array of land uses, from clean energy facilities (Stokes, 2016) and landfills (Lake, 1996) to homeless shelters and social service centers (Dear, 1992). So long as the costs are spatially concentrated, even broadly supported land uses will face NIMBY opposition.''</blockquote> === <br/> Dear [1992] === from one of the earliest discussions of NIMBY phenomenon: Michael Dear [1992] “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome.” Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3): 288–300. <blockquote>''"In plain language, NIMBYis the motivation of residents who want to protect their turf. More formally, NIMBY refers to the protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics adopted by community groups facing an unwelcome development in theirneighborhood. Such controversial developments encom-pass a wide range of land-use proposals, including many human service facilities, landfill sites, hazardous wastefacilities, low-income housing, nuclear facilities, and air-ports. Residents usually concede that these “noxious” facilities are necessary, but not near their homes, hence the term “not in my back yard.”'' ''"Of course, not all oppositionis counterproductive: Neighborhood complaints can result in valuable improvements to proposed programs;and vocal, client-led opposition may cause positive adjustments to the program plans of human service providers. This essay, however, focuses on the more self-interested, turf-protectionist behavior of facility opponents in an attempt to provide a perspective on the NIMBY phenomenon and to reduce an apparently chaotic concept to manageable proportions in ways that will beuseful for planners, advocates, and service providers. Thearticle addresses three important themes: the nature of community opposition, factors determining community attitudes, and a guide to alternative strategies for community relations."''</blockquote>   == in San Francisco Bay Area == The term NIMBY over-simplifies people with what may be valid objections to development, while there are certainly invalid reasons against development. It can be interpreted to mean 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. As an over-simplistic label NIMBY, or "NIMBY advocates" , should be carefully and selectively used 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, people holding concerns about new development activists have successfully blocked the new housing construction needed to meet demand. Arguments against new construction from some of these advocates include the idea that new development will negatively alter the character or "soul" of the area and that it will drive [[Displacement\|displacement]] and [http://yimby.wiki/wiki/Gentrification gentrification]. Such activists argue that in housing markets with rising prices, there are incentives for landlords to evict low-income tenants in order to demolish and build larger luxury housing or to sell at a high profit to developers.  Line 22 ⟶ 36: Some slogans used to oppose development include: "Gentrification is colonization," "No demolition. No displacement," and "Stop evictions."  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~~may be 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 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~~  In Portland, Oregon, for example, the Residential Infill Project, a committee of residents, builders, city planners and low-income housing experts is researching changes to regulations on height and scale requirements for new homes, increased density as well as an easement to limits on demolitions. Portlanders are also exploring duplex and triplex [[Co-housing\|co-housing]], [[Accessory_dwelling\|accessory dwelling]] units, building around natural features like trees and converting large single household dwellings into apartments. While many YIMBY activists do call for increased density by building up and increasing floor area ratios, these low-rise strategies embraced by YIMBY advocates as ''part'' of the solution to the housing crunch run counter to NIMBY fears and rhetoric about the development of new high-rise condo buildings. Other YIMBY strategies that speak to stated opponent 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, those raising concerns about new housing developments 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 those on 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 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.  ▼ == Criticisms of term  == "The term NIMBY over-simplifies people with what may be valid objections to development, while there are certainly invalid reasons against development. It can be interpreted to mean 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. As an over-simplistic label NIMBY, or "NIMBY advocates," should be carefully and selectively used as it can antagonize and polarize dialog, unless that is the intended effect. "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/>  - Richard Hall.  [https://twitter.com/rihallix @rihallix] / [http://planningforreality.org/ Planningforreality.org.]   ▼ == See also == Line 38 ⟶ 62: [[Co-housing\|Co-housing]] [[Gentrification\|Gentrification]] ▲  ▲    Line 48 ⟶ 68: Bosetti, Nicolas, and Sam Sims. "[http://www.centreforlondon.org/publication/nimby-opposition/ STOPPED: Why People Oppose New Residential Developments in Their Back Yard]." Centre for London, 20 July 2016.  An excellent study by Centre for London examined people's reasons for resisting new housing development. <br/>   Dear, Michael. 1992. “Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome.” Journal of the American Planning Association 58 (3): 288–300.<br/> [https://drive.google.com/open?id=11H7kPi1mL3NM9YYgkrMAMxc2UKII0aGI [1]].<br/>   Fishel, William. "[https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF Why Are There NIMBYs?]" 2000. An eminent US land-use/zoning scholar provides a useful analysis of the NIMBY phenomenon from an economic perspective.  [https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF]<br/>   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].<br/>   ~~Hankinson~~HANKINSON, ~~Michael~~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 [2]].<br/> Preprint 2017: “[http://mhankinson.com/assets/jmpWeb.pdf When Do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism.]” ~~draft, 2017. ~~<br/> [http://mhankinson.com/assets/jmpWeb.pdf. http://mhankinson.com/assets/jmpWeb.pdf]. ]<br/>   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<br/> [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].<br/>   Jacobus, Rick. “[https://shelterforce.org/2017/09/12/we-are-all-nimbys-sometimes/ We Are All NIMBYs…Sometimes.]” Shelterforce, September 12, 2017.<br/> [https://shelterforce.org/2017/09/12/we-are-all-nimbys-sometimes/ https://shelterforce.org/2017/09/12/we-are-all-nimbys-sometimes/].<br/>   Kiefer, Matthew J. "[http://Planetizen.com/node/34505\|The The Social Functions of #NIMBYism]" ''Harvard Graduate School of Design Magazine'', 2008: a nuanced, relatively sympathetic examination of NIMBYism. Republished by Planetizen. [https://www.planetizen.com/node/34505 https://www.planetizen.com/node/34505].<br/>   Lewyn, Michael. "[http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/112/ Deny, Deny, Deny]." Real Estate Law Journal Vol. 44 (2016) p. 558 - 572 <br/> Available at: [http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/112/ http://works.bepress.com/lewyn/112/].<br/>   Nicholson, C. (2014, February 18). Nostalgia and NIMBYism: Rebecca Solnit’s San Francisco — The Bold Italic — San Francisco [Online magazine.]. Retrieved from [https://thebolditalic.com/nostalgia-and-nimbyism-rebecca-solnit-s-san-francisco-the-bold-italic-san-francisco-e426d7d1847b#.orp12a6zl [1]]<br/>   ▼ Portland growth survey shows 'not in my backyard' attitude \| KGW.com. (2016, August 1). Retrieved from [http://www.kgw.com/news/local/portland-growth-survey-shows-not-in-my-backyard-attitude/63872102 [1]].<br/>   ▼ Rosenblum, Constance. "[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/realestate/sure-build-it-in-my-backyard.html Sure, Build It in My Backyard.]" [profile of New York YIMBY founder Nikolai Fedak].  April 4, 2014. [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/realestate/sure-build-it-in-my-backyard.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/realestate/sure-build-it-in-my-backyard.html].<br/>   Schively, Carissa. 2007. “Understanding the NIMBY and LULU Phenomena: Reassessing our Knowledge Base and Informing Future Research.” Journal of Planning Literature 21 (3): 255–66.<br/> ''"Abstract:<br/> A substantial amount of research relative to the not in my backyard (NIMBY) and locally unwanted land use (LULU) phenomena has been conducted during the past two decades. The article begins by illustrating the complex nature of these phenomena, noting variation in the types of facilities considered LULUs, the range of participants who exhibit NIMBY responses, and the varied manner in which these phenomena have been described. The focus of the article then moves to the influence of perceptions relative to NIMBY and methods available to respond to NIMBY concerns. The article summarizes research in these areas with the purpose of reminding us of what we know about NIMBY and LULU phenomena and what continues to challenge planning practitioners. The literature review points to research opportunities and the need to integrate the findings of previously distinct areas of inquiry to inform planning practice."''<br/>   Schleicher, David. "[http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/city-unplanning City Unplanning]." A thorough review of US zoning's legal underpinnings, the economic dynamics produced, and some ways to counteract indesirable outcomes. [http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/1162_m41e7ifa.pdf http://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/1162_m41e7ifa.~~pdf~~pd]~~<br/>  ~~ ▲Nicholson, C. (2014, February 18). Nostalgia and NIMBYism: Rebecca Solnit’s San Francisco — The Bold Italic — San Francisco [Online magazine.]. Retrieved from [https://thebolditalic.com/nostalgia-and-nimbyism-rebecca-solnit-s-san-francisco-the-bold-italic-san-francisco-e426d7d1847b#.orp12a6zl [1]] ▲Portland growth survey shows 'not in my backyard' attitude \| KGW.com. (2016, August 1). Retrieved from [http://www.kgw.com/news/local/portland-growth-survey-shows-not-in-my-backyard-attitude/63872102 [1]]   == See also:  == [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAVE_People CAVE People] ("Citizens Against Virtually Everything).<br/> <br/>

NIMBY: Difference between revisions

NIMBY (view source)

Revision as of 23:11, 13 March 2018