Anonymous user
NIMBY: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 23:
=== Pendall [1999] ===
<blockquote>''"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...'' ''"I do not presume to establish generalized rules about protests against housing. In fact, I have the opposite intent: to counter attempts to sup- press protest by labeling it with a general, pejorative term and to encourage the search for seeds of truth within protest."'' ''"Fiscal impact studies tend to show that most housing types generate less property tax reve- nue than they demand in local services (Livingston and Blayney 1971; Hughes 1974; Commonwealth Research Group, Inc. 1995)."''</blockquote> <blockquote>▼
<blockquote>▼
▲''"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...''
</blockquote> <blockquote>▼
''"Residential developments provoke controversy for many different reasons, especially in a setting that has a highly educated, politically active, and environmentally concerned citizenry such as the San Francisco Bay Area....Antigrowth and NIMBY protests were both more com- mon in jurisdictions with lower median incomes."''
</blockquote>
Line 42 ⟶ 36:
== in San Francisco Bay Area ==
NIMBYism can be considered as part of an complex mixtures of factors created opposition to development: see Dowall, David E. (1982). "[https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/1/cj2n3-4.pdf The Suburban Squeeze: Land-Use Policies in the San Francisco Bay Area.]" Cato Journal, Vol 2, No 3 (Winter 1982).
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.▼
▲<blockquote>
''"A suburban land squeeze has hit the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. Extensive post-warland development, increasing use of growth management controls, more restrictive land-use and environmental regulations, and a ffgo-slow” development posture created by the passage of Propositions 4 and 13 have combined to reduce land conversion opportunities in the region considerably."''
▲
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 91:
*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 https://drive.google.com/open?id=11H7kPi1mL3NM9YYgkrMAMxc2UKII0aGI].<br/>
*
Dowall, David E. (1982). "[https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/1/cj2n3-4.pdf The Suburban Squeeze: Land-Use Policies in the San Francisco Bay Area]." Cato Journal, Vol 2, No 3 (Winter 1982). <br/> https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1983/1/cj2n3-4.pdf.
*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/>
| |||