NIMBYs

[Greens!]

What are your thoughts on NIMBYs? Are they a necessary part of every city? Do they suck? Are they actually sensible? Where are they the worst? Since there are members from all over the USA and elsewhere, im curious as to what everyone thinks.

[MJLO]

I am for responsible NIMBYism. Not BANANA's! It makes sense for controlled growth. But I think there are a certain element of people who resist any form of change even if it's the color of their french fries.

Down with NIMBY's!

[hood]

I can't stand NIMBYs, especially being someone who prizes personal property rights.

[damus]

I can't stand NIMBYs, especially being someone who prizes personal property rights.

What about people who go NIMBY on sprawl or major development on rural areas?

I think my state should be focusing on filling in the gaps in the cities and suburbs rather than encouraging sprawl in Eastern Connecticut, which is largely rural.

[ironchapman]

Either "Annoying but important" or "They Should have better things to do".

I picked "They Should have better things to do"

[Greens!]

Agreed. In many cases they have a valid point. for example in Austin they help prevent massive development which could damage the hill country's environment. But in some cases, they suck, like buying a place in the city and complaining about new buldings going up that block their view. In many cases it seems to be the "cross the bridge and then raise it" menatlity.

[dimebag1980]

NIMBYism must stop... in most cases. In rare cases, I'm in agreement. But I'm pro-urban growth and am normally at odds with the NIMBYs.

[ironchapman]

Agreed. In many cases they have a valid point. for example in Austin they help prevent massive development which could damage the hill country's environment. But in some cases, they suck, like buying a place in the city and complaining about new buldings going up that block their view. In many cases it seems to be the "cross the bridge and then raise it" menatlity.

Yeah, I agree. In some cases, they are right, but it's the "Look at my great big house in the suburbs", "Why live in the city where all the poor people do?", and "But those buildings are goign to block our view!" mentality that annoys us to no end.

[damus]

Yeah, I agree. In some cases, they are right, but it's the "Look at my great big house in the suburbs", "Why live in the city where all the poor people do?", and "But those buildings are goign to block our view!" mentality that annoys us to no end.

I hate those people, they give "NIMBY" a bad name.

A person who is against a Walmart or other big box coming to town is also a NIMBY. I'm a NIMBY for opposing the Utopia Project, which promises to have as big an effect on this mostly rural region as Disney had in Florida and California.

[peaceloveunderstanding]

They have some important and useful functions. Like in South Charlotte they are trying to keep a WalMart out, and in downtown Charlotte they were against an Asphalt plant a while ago.

[Greens!]

But we need asphalt plants! What is a vibrant urban core without one?

[MJLO]

They surely do have thier place. In some areas you find the majority of people who don't care. In Grand Rapids, and i'm sure some will disagree, there are those who complain about anything that is proposed to be developed. In my opinion a tower veiwed from a hill, would be an augmentation, not an obstruction. But alot of it is political. Some developers, get no resistance at all when they build new structures and take away old ones. Just depends on your name, but Nimbyism runs rampant. To me NIMBY's have become obstructionists, they stand in the way of progress. They exist not for the good of the landscape, or the insurance of well placed architecture. But only for themselves and whatever they feel is best for themselves, with little regard to the greater community.

[hood]

What about people who go NIMBY on sprawl or major development on rural areas?

I think my state should be focusing on filling in the gaps in the cities and suburbs rather than encouraging sprawl in Eastern Connecticut, which is largely rural.

Virtually all the NIMBY's I've seen are people from the suburbs fighting more urban and dense developments. They hate anything tall (over two or three floors), anything close the the street, anything multi-use and so on. The other NIMBY's are the ones that fight a new development on some empty land in the suburbs, which sounds fine, until you realize that the people complain just moved into a brand new development exactly like the one their trying to fight, that gets really annoying.

[breaux]

What are your thoughts on NIMBYs? Are they a necessary part of every city? Do they suck? Are they actually sensible? Where are they the worst? Since there are members from all over the USA and elsewhere, im curious as to what everyone thinks.

They're good and bad.

They hold up good projects that would benefit everybody, but without them would we lose all character?

A few decades ago in New Orleans they were planning to build a freeway along the river which would have ruined the French Quarter. If people hadn't said "not in my back yard" a vital part of America would have been ruined.

In my city, there have been times when specifically road projects have been/are being held up that would provide a great benefit, yet there have been too many buildings ruined and there is too much urban sprawl.

I guess there is a huge difference between preservationists and NIMBYs. Preservationists are the greatest asset a community can have, IMO.

[Recchia]

I love it when subdivision NIMBY's complain about new subdivisions going up near them, and start screaming that it'll worsen traffic and kill open space. Okay, yeah, but isn't that what YOUR subdivision did however many years ago?!

[dimebag1980]

I guess my beef with NIMBYs stems from 5-6 years ago when Shreveport dragged its butt on building a downtown arena and Bossier City stepped up to the plate to build one. That's when the NIMBYs showed up, complaining about the project and how badly it was going to destroy their quiet south Bossier City neighborhoods. Bossier City built it anyway, and ever since, not a word has been spoken from the NIMBYs... probably because those people are the same people who attend concerts, hockey games, arena football games, Sesame Street on Ice (lol,) etc. The arena has, in fact, made their neighborhoods more appealing to people who want to be closer to this facility. In fact, the only negative thing that has come from the development of the arena is the added traffic; and the only reason the traffic is a negative thing is because the infrastructure in that area of Bossier City is extremely inadequate.

Now the city of Bossier City is pushing for the state to replace the decades-old 2-land bridge next to the arena and is planning to extend the parkway further south to better accomodate the profitable, classy facility. New condo and subdivision developments are in the works for that area now, as are more stores and restaurants, and even possibly more sports-related facilities.

The NIMBYs were way off in this case, but I can see some cases where they could have good reasons to oppose certain developments.

[Cadeho]

Here in Richmond, Chesterfield County should change its name to Nimby County, because that is all that comes from that place.

[tamias6]

In some case NIMBY's hold valid points such as keeping Wal-Mart at bay. But mostly they are a thorn in the side. Maybe I'm seeing this through the eyes of a person that lives in a state that desaratly need jobs. But I think is more important to pump fresh blood (I.e. developments and potential jobs) into the local econamy to keep it going. If a development that was going to bring a couple of hundred high quality jobs to my area but at the cost of my view out my window-- Well sometimes, you have to give in order to receive. But if Wal-Mart or McDonalds with low rage jobs was going to obstruct my view. That's the time and place to start screaming NIMBY.