Talk:NIMBY

Does anyone have a primary source showing that the "possible solution" described in the last full paragraph is based on anything except one person's speculation? Thanks. 216.214.103.34 15:34, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of any such primary source in more than a month, I will delete that paragraph. Anyone who can provide such a primary source is welcome to revert. Doctor Whom 15:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added cleanup and POV tags to this article. I've cleaned up some of both, but it still reads a bit like a rant. I'd appreciate some help in making it more NPOV, and it doesn't read too well either - some style cleanup would be good Tonywalton  | Talk 00:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Holy POV, Batman! The article in its present form includes paragraphs like this:

NIMBYISM can bee seen as a byproduct of several attitudes. It stems from a hyper-individualism in which the interests of the individual blind the individual from appreciating the needs of their community. It stems from pastoralism, which holds urbanism and development to be breeding grounds for corruption, crime, and needless complexity while less developed areas are thought to be paradises of purity, rejuvenation, and beautiful simplicity. And it also stems from the conservative attitude of wanting to be “left alone” from the onslaught of modern evils.

Besides the fact that none of this is substantiated, it's neither realistic nor fair to blame NIMBYism on individualism and conservativism, when I see so much of it in liberal, collectivist communities. I think that this article could be shortened by maybe one-third without losing useful, encyclopedic content. Unless anyone objects, I'll have a go at it. Thanks much. Doctor Whom 00:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at editing the article to remove the POV and mind-reading tricks, provide non-straw-man arguments for and against NIMBYism, and substantiate some of the points raised, as well as to clean up the style a bit. Doctor Whom 19:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I've also removed a couple of POV words. Jon 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

List

I think this page really needs a list of cities and towns with a particularly strong reputation for NIMBY behavor.

NIMBY

I realize that there is a pejorative negativity about NIMBY's, however it is important to note that not all NIMBY's are obstructionists to a future that works, and sometimes they represent the common good. I think that this is an important part of this discussion. For instance, it is often factual that low income communities bear an inequitable burden regarding industrial development, pollution, and a wide variety of community character issues decisions that are, shall we say, driven by developers. Often the developers promoting the inappropriate activities are somewhat empowered, politically, and economically, and have easier access to media.

NIMBY's in these cases can and do become community hero's and should be recognized as such.

Jay Burney

A follow on point: it is one of the paradoxes of urban sustainability that individuals who live in the densest cities produce less pollution, and consume less energy, than their brethren who live in sparser settlments, however they breath more polluted air and have to make do with a poorer quality of environment. NIMBYism tends to be about protecting the individual's quality of life against the processes which would reduce the whole population's impact on the planet.

Alan Penn

If you plan to add these points to the article, please pay due attention to NPOV, as reasonable people familiar with the issues have differing perspectives on some of the points raised. Thanks. Doctor Whom 02:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The photograph of an airport is NOT a good example of NIMBY. New airports are rare, and most airport vs. neighbor problems are due to encrouching development around a pre-existing airport. Maybe a better photograph would be of a prison, power plant, or a waste-water treatment facility? Charles Oppermann 05:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Infrastructure

I'm quite surprised that the original article didn't mention the NIMBY issues surrounding essential infrastructure such as power plants. The first time I heard if NIMBY was in relation to power plants, as part of the reading for my Cambridge A-level Physics and I've tried to add some of the issues surrounding infrastructure although perhaps I haven't done that good a job. Nil Einne 14:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy

I've read this article several times now, and apart from the first sentence it seems to completely miss the main point. NIMBY's don't oppose a development per say, they often agree it's needed somwhere, "but not in my back yard". Most of the article seems to miss this, portraying NIMBYs that oppose all development, which is not correct. NIMBY's aren't those that say "no". NIMBY's are those that say "yes, but not here" MartinRe 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You're describing a "BANANA" -- Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. 203.129.58.36 05:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned where this phrase originated from. It was first used by a planning minister in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government in Britain. It must have been in the Eighties, or perhaps the late seventies. He refused planning permission for a development near his home in the countryside, and used the phrase "Not in my back yard". Dont remember what his name was, or if he was the same minister who famously walked out of a live tv interview when he didnt like the questioning. Ah, Thatcher's Britain - still remembered with a shiver. fred

The term was in use long before the Iron Bitch blasted Britain; I'd say mid-1960s or so. --Orange Mike 02:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Split "Debate of propriety of land development"

I believe that I included every point in the reorganization that I just completed. I wanted to address the relevance of the content, not change the content itself. Much of the content is, in fact, on the topic of whether land development is appropriate, and not on NIMBY specifically, which is a topic of quite limited scope and arguably naught but a definition. If this content is suitable for Wikipedia, which may in turn be subject to debate, it must be identified as what it is: part of the debate on development. ENeville 02:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Article not created for over a year, no interest shown by anyone. Removing tag. Ingolfson (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Alexandria, Virigina" split?

Currently this sextion consists of a single sentence- is the "split" tag really neccessary? Patch86 14:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to why that should be split out, and I live in the affected community. Doctor Whom 16:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur: it seems to be a pretty pointless split tag. I've removed it and welcome others to post here their reasoning as to recommending the split. --Thisisbossi 21:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

BANANA merge into NIABY section

This should occur, as they essentially mean the same thing. Anyone else concur? IPAddressConflict

Strongly oppose - the terms mean very different things; read some of the remarks a few paragraphs above this entry on this very talk page! --Orange Mike 20:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Against: apart from the fact that the terms are distinct, this merge proposal has generated little interest in the 5 months it has been current. Joffan (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisbossi (talk • contribs)

Against, for the first-cited reason, and as per the duration of the merge tag without sufficient support, I will remove it now. Ingolfson (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Incorrectly stated cost

"residents objected to the conversion of a large, £1.7 residential property" <-- this seems a little too cheap to me! Andrew Moylan 02:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear facilities

I'm not sure why wind farms have been singled out for a mention in the lead section. NIMBY opposition to nuclear facilities is far more common...

Take the USA. There has been local opposition across the country to nuclear power plants (see Anti-nuclear movement in the United States). There has also been much local opposition to nuclear waste dumps (see Nuclear Nebraska). And also local opposition to nuclear weapons facilities (see [1], [2]). Johnfos (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The addition of wind farms was by another contributor, I merely added a reference for it. I suspect the opposition for various types of power source depends on the geography of the country in question. The case here is that have an island (the United Kingdom) which does have (proportionally) rather a lot of windy coast line. —Sladen (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of View

Basically, around 70% of the references on this page refer to pejorative or derogatory terms for NIMBYs. NIMBYs are just people with a point of view. This article ought not to be so heavily biased towards one point of view. There is no problem with having an opinion, but keep it to blogs and forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dez82 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

NIMBY in other languages

I recently interviewed an Italian city planner and she said NIMBY is used in Italian, even if the acronym stands for words in English. What other comparable acronyms appear in other languages.- Roger Showley, San Diego (California) Union-Tribune - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.0.105.50 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New acronym, Jon Stewart style

"Not Against My Business, Life or Area" or NAMBLA. ;) --  Denelson83  20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

NIMBY

did you know that NIMBY is another name for the [[Demon X(A/N)^th]]? Xeno Cre8or _{Talk to me!} 16:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)