Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AriPVD

The Anti-NIMBY crew

Recommended Posts

AriPVD    0

Ok, so this is just an idea and I don't know if it has much traction...

and it is very much based on one of Garris' suggestions.

I propose we (anyone on here interested) form an anti-NIMBY constorium to attend any and all zoning, DRC, city plan meetings to stand up to the NIMBYs and special interests that currently dominate these forums. As a group we can offer at-large perspective, reflective of a broader citizenry, not just angry abutters to new projects. Sure, we will disagree internally on some projects, but I believe we can offer a great service to our fair city. Almost every city official (or anyone who has tried to pursue a change to the built environment/status quo) has said the NIMBYs are a forced to be reckoned with and have a significant role in killing worthy projects. WE CAN HELP.

I propose the next UP meeting revolves around the theme of organizing to make our presence known as the allies of good, holistic development. I'd love to hear thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


MikeR    0

Ok, so this is just an idea and I don't know if it has much traction...

and it is very much based on one of Garris' suggestions.

I propose we (anyone on here interested) form an anti-NIMBY constorium to attend any and all zoning, DRC, city plan meetings to stand up to the NIMBYs and special interests that currently dominate these forums. As a group we can offer at-large perspective, reflective of a broader citizenry, not just angry abutters to new projects. Sure, we will disagree internally on some projects, but I believe we can offer a great service to our fair city. Almost every city official (or anyone who has tried to pursue a change to the built environment/status quo) has said the NIMBYs are a forced to be reckoned with and have a significant role in killing worthy projects. WE CAN HELP.

I propose the next UP meeting revolves around the theme of organizing to make our presence known as the allies of good, holistic development. I'd love to hear thoughts.

I say Amen to that. I know of one special interest individual who registered here a short time ago who has been critical of a certain new proposal because if built, might compete with the organization he/she works for. It's been hard for me to not have called him/her out earlier based on the FUD this person was posting on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cotuit    0

It's been hard for me to not have called him/her out earlier based on the FUD this person was posting on this forum.

Well I thank you for not launching open war on the forum.

We do need to be aware that not everyone here would feel the same way, and I think that I can speak for Ari in saying that none of us want to be blind yes-(wo)men to any development. Embracing development doesn't mean that you have to stop viewing things with a critical eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Garris    0

Ok, so this is just an idea and I don't know if it has much traction...

and it is very much based on one of Garris' suggestions.

I propose we (anyone on here interested) form an anti-NIMBY constorium to attend any and all zoning, DRC, city plan meetings to stand up to the NIMBYs and special interests that currently dominate these forums. As a group we can offer at-large perspective, reflective of a broader citizenry, not just angry abutters to new projects. Sure, we will disagree internally on some projects, but I believe we can offer a great service to our fair city. Almost every city official (or anyone who has tried to pursue a change to the built environment/status quo) has said the NIMBYs are a forced to be reckoned with and have a significant role in killing worthy projects. WE CAN HELP.

I propose the next UP meeting revolves around the theme of organizing to make our presence known as the allies of good, holistic development. I'd love to hear thoughts.

I obviously love this idea to death. Cotuit's point that we shouldn't be blind yes-people to development is a key one, as is yours that obviously everyone won't agree on everything.

But there really doesn't need to be a lockstep agreement on everything, just a broad counterbalance to the radical-fringe, Providence-as-suburb crowd... A counterbalancing group that advocates a relentlessly urban, vibrant, and smart development and growth for the city at large.

And Ari's idea that there needs to be a pool of volunteers available to attend and, especially, speak at meetings is critical. Obviously everyone won't be able to attend everything, but spreading out the responsibility should be possible. I think the effect on decisionmakers to hear at each key meeting a pro-urban and pro-smart growth viewpoint would be huge, I think...

A key topic for the next group meething to be sure...

- Garris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
runawayjim    0

Have you ever seen the YIMBY-wear from San Francisco Cityscape? :thumbsup:

And yes, I agree, we need to set a date to meet though.

i like the "Save the Planet: grow cities, not suburbs"... i'm addicted to law and order re-runs on TNT for some reason and last night they had one where a radical environmental group burned down a new apartment building that was built on top of a community garden because of the environmental impact... yet i truly doubt it had that much environmental impact.

this is something i had been thinking about for a while... cities are here to stay, suburbs are all really new when you look at the grand scheme of things. cities could exist surrounded by more rural areas and the environmental problems we see today wouldn't be as big as they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like the "Save the Planet: grow cities, not suburbs"...

Runaway Jim (and others), you may enjoy a fabulous piece that appeared in the New Yorker in 2004. Its about why NYC is actually the "greenest" city because of the public transit, energy used, etc. Very interesting stuff. I may have posted a link before, but here it is again ...

http://www.greenbelt.org/downloads/resourc...enManhattan.pdf

Here's an excerpt -- the first paragraph to give you a taste (if I'm not supposed to do that, please delete).

"My wife and I got married right out of college, in 1978. We were young and na

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
runawayjim    0

Runaway Jim (and others), you may enjoy a fabulous piece that appeared in the New Yorker in 2004. Its about why NYC is actually the "greenest" city because of the public transit, energy used, etc. Very interesting stuff. I may have posted a link before, but here it is again ...

http://www.greenbelt.org/downloads/resourc...enManhattan.pdf

awesome article. i suggest everyone read it.

this is exactly why we need to build up providence and increase the density here. i think that'll be the one way to get RIPTA to actually change their ways.

however, i worry that the people moving to these expensive condo's will bring their cars along with them... and will simply drive everywhere they need to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mij    0

awesome article. i suggest everyone read it.

this is exactly why we need to build up providence and increase the density here. i think that'll be the one way to get RIPTA to actually change their ways.

however, i worry that the people moving to these expensive condo's will bring their cars along with them... and will simply drive everywhere they need to go.

Not entirly true, The best case for me was that every thing was within walking distance. I did have a car, but for te most past it stayed in the garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
runawayjim    0

Not entirly true, The best case for me was that every thing was within walking distance. I did have a car, but for te most past it stayed in the garage.

the reason i'm worried is that i have a feeling most of these people will not be working in providence, so they'll be driving to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mij    0

the reason i'm worried is that i have a feeling most of these people will not be working in providence, so they'll be driving to work.

Ever here of "The Lyon Protocall"? Mainly in europe (france) cities are trying to work with the idea of making dence area auto-free. Strictly relying on public transit. If any area of Providence could champion this couse, it would be the the down city area. Imagine??? http://www.carfree.com/lyon_protocol.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Garris    0

the reason i'm worried is that i have a feeling most of these people will not be working in providence, so they'll be driving to work.

I think it would be hard to have a critical mass of people in Providence that completely didn't need cars at all. I work in Providence, and for me a car is an absolute necessity in what I do. Even if I lived downtown, I'd need to use it daily.

Frankly, even most people I know who live still live in the center of NYC, Chicago, or Boston have now, by their early 30's, broken down and have a car stored away somewhere in the city, if only for the occasional trip to a parent's place or away for a day trip or weekend jaunt.

More important is developing the offerings and infrastructure to allow walkability in the 95% of things people do at home in their neighborhoods.

- Garris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recchia    0

More important is developing the offerings and infrastructure to allow walkability in the 95% of things people do at home in their neighborhoods.

- Garris

This is very true. I would love to not own a car at all, but unfortunately, I work in Taunton and refuse to live in such a mediocre place, so I must have one since the bus service to there doesn't fit my work schedule at all. However, once I'm home, that's it, I'm done with my car, and I walk everywhere (grocery store, hair cut, gym, bar etc.)

Here's the problem though, people like me (who walk everywhere but still need that damn car for work or something) don't get to share in the main incentive that those who dont have a car at all get: no insurance payments. I wish that the fact that I walk everywhere but work was factored into my insurance. Or even a reduction for owning a transit pass, or something. Insurance companies need to work on this, although they never ever would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

runawayjim    0

I wish that the fact that I walk everywhere but work was factored into my insurance. Or even a reduction for owning a transit pass, or something. Insurance companies need to work on this, although they never ever would.

some do... my girlfriend lived in arlington, but took the bus/T to MGH for work everyday. so she had a monthly pass. all she had to do was save the passes and she got a refund from her insurance company for taking mass transit to work everyday.

i don't, however, think that any insurance companies give you breaks for driving to work and nothing else, you don't really have a way to prove that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jencoleslaw    0

Ok, so this is just an idea and I don't know if it has much traction...

and it is very much based on one of Garris' suggestions.

I propose we (anyone on here interested) form an anti-NIMBY constorium to attend any and all zoning, DRC, city plan meetings to stand up to the NIMBYs and special interests that currently dominate these forums. As a group we can offer at-large perspective, reflective of a broader citizenry, not just angry abutters to new projects. Sure, we will disagree internally on some projects, but I believe we can offer a great service to our fair city. Almost every city official (or anyone who has tried to pursue a change to the built environment/status quo) has said the NIMBYs are a forced to be reckoned with and have a significant role in killing worthy projects. WE CAN HELP.

I propose the next UP meeting revolves around the theme of organizing to make our presence known as the allies of good, holistic development. I'd love to hear thoughts.

i think you'll make a lot of friends that way. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
runawayjim    0

feel free to attend any of the airpprt related meeting - talk about NIMBYs...

this is where i stray a bit from the YIMBY viewpoint (and ari mentioned that people will disagree). warwick is very suburban, especially around the airport (talk about cookie cutter neighborhoods). the airport is loud, my aunt has lived by it, all sides of it too. expanding will most likely require buying people out, and what is the likelihood that the state will not only buy the property (at real market value), but also pay people for relocation costs?

so to a certain degree, i don't blame them. on the other hand, i also agree that airport expansion would be great for the state...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
brick    0

no offense but why is anyone living so close to an airport in the first placE?

Everyone has to live somewhere ne c'est pas?

I think the airport thing is a tough issue. Not just the houses they will have to take, but the other areas where property values could likely be affected. Considering that most people in the middle class count their house as their most valuable asset, I can see this as a major concern. Then again, they probably paid less in the first place because of the risk of the airport expanding, so it was a risk they took. It's a tough issue and I can definitely see both sides.

I think most of the NIMBYism regarding the airport has to do with this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recchia    0

The airport issue is kinda out of hand. There was a similar proposal to expand the New Bedford Airport's runway, but this was killed by the mayor, supposedly after the Mass Environmental Agency, or whatever they're called, didn't accept the Draft EIR for the project. It would have required the filling and replication of a ton of wetlands (can't remember the exact amount). In reality, the mayor didn't want to lose votes from his supporting residents who chose to live near the airport.

Now my point is, this project was highly supported by a lot of economic and regional planning groups, yet it still lost. The Greene expansion wouldn't have nearly as many wetlands/environmental effects, and yet it is still highly opposed. I don't get it. As someone who lived right next to the airport (and then right next to Quonset afterward), I have little sympathy for my former neighbors. We all chose to live next to an airport, so what were we to expect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jencoleslaw    0

getting tired of the Providence cynics.

Be tired of Providence cynics all you need to be. But don't be fooled into thinking that your presence at every zoning and CPC meeting, espousing new urbanism with an imperialistic tone, with no connection to the action neighborhood is actually going to get your message across in any kind of useful way that will help educate the so-called NIMBYs.

Not trying to be disrepectful of your efforts, and as usual, your milage may vary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recchia    0

Be tired of Providence cynics all you need to be. But don't be fooled into thinking that your presence at every zoning and CPC meeting, espousing new urbanism with an imperialistic tone, with no connection to the action neighborhood is actually going to get your message across in any kind of useful way that will help educate the so-called NIMBYs.

Not trying to be disrepectful of your efforts, and as usual, your milage may vary.

I doubt that anyone here is the way you think they are. Nobody is out to ignore our neighborhoods by supporting developments in and around them. If anything, people on this site are more for a traditional urban Providence than most of the city's, dare I say, "urban planning UN-educated" residents are. We want what is best for our CITY, and probably agree with most of what you say, it's just not getting across right. Development, when it fits the surrounding neighborhood, and especially when it increases density (this is a city), is generally a positive thing. Do you disagree with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.