NIMBY

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unfinished tower in Tenleytown, Washington, D.C. that was later removed as a result of complaints from the neighborhood

NIMBY (or Nimby),[1] an acronym for the phrase "not in my back yard",[2][3] is a characterization of opposition by residents to proposed developments in their local area, as well as support for strict land use regulations. It carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away. The residents are often called Nimbys, and their viewpoint is called Nimbyism. The opposite, pro-housing movement is known as YIMBY for "yes in my back yard".[4]

Some examples of projects that have been opposed by NIMBYs include housing development,[5] homeless shelters,[6] incinerators, sewage treatment systems,[7] fracking,[8] and nuclear waste repositories.[9]

Proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository,[10] 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was approved by the government and then opposed by the citizens of Nevada. Federal funding ended in 2011.

Claimed rationale[edit]

Developments likely to attract local objections include:

The claimed reasons against these developments vary, and some are given below.

  • Increased traffic: more jobs, more housing or more stores correlates to increased traffic on local streets and greater demand for parking spots. Industrial facilities such as warehouses, factories, or landfills often increase the volume of truck traffic.
  • Harm to locally owned small businesses: the development of a big box store may provide too much competition to a locally owned store; similarly, the construction of a new road may make the older road less traveled, leading to a loss of business for property owners. This can lead to excessive relocation costs, or to loss of respected local businesses.
  • Loss of residential property value: homes near an undesirable development may be less desirable for potential buyers. The lost revenue from property taxes may, or may not, be offset by increased revenue from the project.
  • Environmental pollution of land, air, and water: power plants, factories, chemical facilities, crematoriums, sewage treatment facilities, airports, and similar projects may—or may be claimed to—contaminate the land, air, or water around them. Especially facilities assumed to smell might cause objections.
  • Light pollution: projects that operate at night, or that include security lighting (such as street lights in a parking lot), may be accused of causing light pollution.
  • Noise pollution: in addition to the noise of traffic, a project may inherently be noisy. This is a common objection to wind power, airports, roads, and many industrial facilities, but also stadiums, festivals, and nightclubs which are particularly noisy at night when locals want to sleep.[11]
  • Visual blight and failure to "blend in" with the surrounding architecture: the proposed project might be ugly or particularly large, or cast a shadow over an area due to its height.[12]
  • Loss of a community's small-town feel: proposals that might result in new people moving into the community, such as a plan to build many new houses, are often claimed to change the community's character.
  • Strain of public resources and schools: this reason is given for any increase in the local area's population, as additional school facilities might be needed for the additional children, but particularly to projects that might result in certain kinds of people joining the community, such as a group home for people with disabilities, or immigrants.
  • Disproportionate benefit to non-locals: the project appears to benefit distant people, such as investors (in the case of commercial projects like factories or big-box stores) or people from neighboring areas (in the case of regional government projects, such as airports, highways, sewage treatment, or landfills).
  • Increases in crime: this is usually applied to projects that are perceived as attracting or employing low-skill workers or racial minorities, as well as projects that cater to people who are thought to often commit crimes, such as the mentally ill, the poor, and drug addicts. Additionally, certain types of projects, such as pubs or medical marijuana dispensaries, might be perceived as directly increasing the amount of crime in the area.
  • Risk of an (environmental) disaster, such as with drilling operations, chemical industry, dams,[13] or nuclear power plants.
  • Historic districts: the affected area is on a heritage register, because of its many older properties that are being preserved as such.[14][15][16]

Generally, many NIMBY objections are guessed or feared, because objections are more likely to be successful before construction starts. It is often too late to object to the project after its completion, since new additions are unlikely to be reversed.

As hinted by the list, protests can occur for opposite reasons. A new road or shopping center can cause increased traffic and work opportunities for some, and decreased traffic for others, harming local businesses.

People in an area affected by plans sometimes form an organization which can collect money and organize the objection activities. NIMBYists can hire a lawyer to file formal appeals, and contact media to gain public support for their case.

Origin and history[edit]

The word appears in a June 1980 newspaper article from Virginia, with the origin of the phrase explained thus:

Some call it the Nimby Syndrome. That's Nimby, as in "Not-in-my-back-yard"[17]

The phrase '"not in my back yard" syndrome', without the acronym, is found from February of the same year.[18] The Oxford English Dictionary earliest citation is a Christian Science Monitor article from November 1980, although even there the author indicates the term is already used in the hazardous waste industry.[19][20]

The concept behind the term, that of locally organized resistance to unwanted land uses, is likely to have originated earlier. One suggestion is it emerged in the 1950s.[21]

In the 1980s, the term was popularized by British politician Nicholas Ridley, who was Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment.[22] Comedian George Carlin used the term in 1992 for his Jammin' in New York special, implying that people had already heard of it.[23]

The NIMBY acronym has also been used by social scientists since the early 1980s to describe the resistance of communities to the siting of controversial facilities and land use.[24]

The term's connotation has harshened since its introduction in the 1980s.[25] Beyond their impact on any single development or neighborhood, NIMBY organizations and policies are now painted as worsening racial segregation, deepening economic inequality, and limiting the overall supply of affordable housing.[25]

Variations[edit]

NIMBY and its derivative terms NIMBYism, NIMBYs, and NIMBYists, refer implicitly to debates of development generally or to a specific case. As such, their use is inherently contentious. The term is usually applied to opponents of a development, implying that they have narrow, selfish, or myopic views. Its use is often pejorative.[26]

Not in my neighborhood[edit]

The term Not in my neighborhood, or NIMN, is also frequently used.[27] "NIMN" additionally refers to legislative actions or private agreements made with the sole purpose of maintaining racial identity within a particular neighborhood or residential area by forcefully keeping members of other races from moving into the area.[28] In that regard, "Not in My Neighborhood," by author and journalist Antero Pietila, describes the toll NIMN politics had on housing conditions in Baltimore throughout the 20th century and the systemic, racially based citywide separation it caused.[29]

NAMBI[edit]

NAMBI ("not against my business or industry") is used as a label for any business concern that expresses umbrage with actions or policy that threaten that business, whereby they are believed to be complaining about the principle of the action or policy only for their interests alone and not for all similar business concerns who would equally suffer from the actions or policies.[30] The term serves as a criticism of the kind of outrage that business expresses when disingenuously portraying its protest to be for the benefit of all other businesses. Such a labelling would occur, for example, when opposition expressed by a business involved in urban development is challenged by activists—causing the business to in turn protest and appealing for support from fellow businesses lest they also find themselves challenged where they seek urban development. This term also serves as a rhetorical counter to NIMBY. It is seen as an equivalent to NIMBY by those opposing the business or industry in question.[clarification needed]

BANANA and CAVE [edit]

BANANA is an acronym for "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" (or "anyone").[31][32] The term is most often used to criticize the ongoing opposition of certain advocacy groups to land development.[33] The term is commonly used within the context of planning in the United Kingdom. Sunderland City Council lists the term in their online dictionary of jargon.[34]

In the United States, the related phenomenon "CAVE people" or "CAVE dwellers" serves as an acronym for "citizens against virtually everything."[35][36]

PIBBY[edit]

PIBBY is an acronym for "place in blacks' back yard." This principle indicates that the people with perceived social, racial, and economic privileges object to a development in their own back yards, and if the objectionable item must be built, then it should be built so that its perceived harms disproportionately affect poor, socially disadvantaged people. Economically disadvantaged people might not be willing or able to hire a lawyer to appeal the right way, or might have more immediate troubles than a new nearby construction project. The environmental justice movement has pointed out Nimbyism leads to environmental racism. Robert D. Bullard, Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, has argued that official responses to NIMBY phenomena have led to the PIBBY principle.[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]

SOBBY[edit]

SOBBY is an acronym for "some other bugger's back yard" and refers to the state of mind which agrees that a particular project may be desirable and perhaps necessary but only if it is placed elsewhere than someone's neighborhood or district.[44]

Reverse NIMBY[edit]

Reverse NIMBY is a phenomenon opposite to the widely educated concept of NIMBY. Instead of arguing that it is troublesome that a hazardous facility is located in my backyard, proponents and people who exploit the concept of reverse NIMBY would say that "If it happens in my backyard, it matters more because, well, it's my backyard."[45] It appears within the U.S. Congress where politicians actively use the mentality after major catastrophic events to garner recovery funds from the federal government.[45] This is a viable strategy for members of Congress to garner benefits for their constituents because it is difficult for the federal government to understand needs at the local level.[46]

NIMTOO[edit]

NIMTOO, or Not In My Term of Office, refers to the phenomenon of how elected officials would postpone unpopular projects especially during times of elections or re-elections.[47] This creates inefficiency in governmental policies and the delaying of certain important civil infrastructures such as a nuclear power plant or a hydroelectric plant.

Points of debate[edit]

Although often used rather pejoratively, the use of the concept NIMBY and similar terms have been critiqued. For instance, the term is frequently used to dismiss groups as selfish or ill-informed, yet these same groups may have virtues that are overlooked.[48]

In favor of development[edit]

YIMBY, an acronym for "yes, in my back yard", is a pro-development movement in contrast and opposition to the NIMBY phenomenon.[49]

Frequently argued debate points in favor of development include higher employment, tax revenue, marginal cost of remote development, safety, and environmental benefits. Proponents of development may accuse locals of egotism, elitism, parochialism, drawbridge mentality, racism and anti-diversity, the inevitability of criticism, and misguided or unrealistic claims of prevention of urban sprawl. If people who do not want to be disturbed see the general need of an establishment, such as an airport, they generally suggest another location. But seen from society's perspective, the other location might not be better, since people living there get disturbed instead.[50] Strict land use regulations are an important driver of racial housing segregation in the United States.[51] White communities are more likely to have strict land use regulations (and white people are more likely to support those regulations).[51]

In favor of local sovereignty[edit]

Those labeled as NIMBYs may have a variety of motivations and may be unified only because they oppose a particular project. For example, some may oppose any significant change or development, regardless of type, purpose, or origin. Others, if the project is seen as being imposed by outsiders, may hold strong principles of self-governance, local sovereignty, local autonomy, and home rule. These people believe that local people should have the final choice, and that any project affecting the local people should clearly benefit themselves, rather than corporations with distant investors or central governments. Still others may object to a particular project because of its nature, e.g., opposing a nuclear power plant over fear of radiation, or opposing a local apartment complex due to worries about overcrowding or crime, but accepting a local waste management facility as a municipal necessity.[opinion]

Effects[edit]

Social consequences induced by NIMBY activists[edit]

A study by economists Chang-Tai Hsieh and Enrico Moretti estimated that the housing restrictions brought on by NIMBY activists are costing US workers $1 trillion in reduced wages, (several thousand dollars for every worker), by making it unaffordable to relocate to higher-productivity cities.[52]

A 1994 paper by Michael Gerrard found that NIMBY movements generally oppose three types of facilities: waste disposal, low-income housing, and social services (such as homeless shelters).[53] While opposition to waste disposal may have community benefits by encouraging recycling, it has also perpetuated the existence of those facilities in minority communities, while opposition to low-income housing and social services facilities has significant negative effects for society at large.[53]

Examples[edit]

Canada[edit]

Nova Scotia[edit]

Wind generator in Nova Scotia

In July 2012, residents of Kings County rallied against a bylaw, developed over three years of consultation and hearings, allowing wind generators to be constructed nearby.[54] A similar theme arose in September 2009, where residents there rallied against a wind generator in Digby Neck.[55] In January 2011, residents of Lawrencetown in Halifax County openly opposed a cellular telephone tower being built.[56] A proposed development of downtown Dartmouth in August 2012 was also contested by residents.[57] In February 2013, some residents of Lunenburg County opposed wind farms being built in the area, saying, "It's health and it's property devaluation" and "This is an industrial facility put in the middle of rural Nova Scotia. It does not belong there."[58]

In March 2013, some residents of the community of Blockhouse opposed the building and development of a recycling plant, referred to by one business owner as a "dump." The plant would offer 75 jobs to the community of roughly 5,900 people.[59] In the same month, the municipal councilors of Chester approved the building of wind turbines in the area in a 6–1 vote, despite some local opposition.[60]

Ireland[edit]

The opposition to the development of 650 apartments in the grounds of St Paul's College school in the Dublin suburb of Raheny.[61][62][63][64][65] 650 individual objections were received against the planning submission as well as several protests held.[66]

Court challenges were taken by residents groups against the permission which was granted on the basis of not adequately addressing the EU habitats directive.[67] Following a revised submission with a report on the effects to light-bellied Brent geese and other protected birds, the development was finally granted permission in August 2020.

Italy[edit]

No TAV protest in 2005

The No TAV opposition to the Turin–Lyon high-speed railway is often characterized as a NIMBY movement.[68]

Japan[edit]

Narita Airport[edit]

Starting in 1966, the Sanrizuka Struggle movement opposed the construction of Narita International Airport. Originally the plan for the airport also included a high speed railway line that was scrapped.[citation needed] NIMBYs also prevented extension of the congested airport's very short second runway (unusable for anything but short-haul narrow-body aircraft) until the late 2000s, when cross-town Haneda Airport was opened to international traffic, as additional runways on landfill were completed at many billions of dollars of extra costs; the second runway was lengthened to 2,500 metres (8,200 ft). The second Narita runway still runs short of its original 1974 blueprints and impacts airport operational capacity.[citation needed]

Odakyu Double Tracking[edit]

Odakyu Electric Railway, now providing transit along a corridor with 5 million people living in walking distance of its rail and feeder bus service area,[69] was originally built in the pre-war era, and as the city of Tokyo's population ballooned, rail demand in suburbs exploded. By the 1960s, oshiya pushers were required to squash people into packed trains, and Odakyu Railway sought to expand its two-track lines to four,[70] thus allowing more passing trains and faster run times as well as less crowding and congestive wait and hold of trains. NIMBY residents living near the line in the Setagaya ward fought attempts by the railway to acquire land; Odakyu attempted to buy each piece of land individually, offering high prices. The Setagaya Residents' opposition established a long-term and remarkable[according to whom?] NIMBY case in the courts and legislature.[71] By 1993, after three decades of trying, it was apparent this plan was failing, and the company decided to go for a multi-billion dollar solution: tunneling two lines underground, and then adding back two new lines stacked on top, to make four tracks in each direction for 12 stations and 10.4 km, instead of acquiring the land.[69] The company's decision began in 1993 and completed in 2004 for one critical section, meanwhile, for the second smaller section, this same decision was made in 2003 with project completion finally approaching fruition in March 2018, nearly six decades later.[70][69][clarification needed]

Serbia[edit]

There is mounting opposition to the exploitation of Lithium at the Jadar mine site by Rio Tinto (corporation) in Western Serbia.[72] The local residents are concerned about the impact of Lithium mining on the local environment including water pollution with no regard to the economic and other environmental benefits including battery production reducing reliance on oil, less air pollution and lower CO2 emissions.

United Kingdom[edit]

Oxford Memorial[edit]

The Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial, erected near South Park after all planning permissions for an anti-fascist memorial in Oxford city centre were rejected

The Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial, built in 2017, is dedicated to locals who served the International Brigades against Spanish nationalist forces backed by Hitler and Mussolini. The memorial sits outside the city centre because all planning proposals to erect the memorial in the centre were rejected for numerous reasons, with Liberal Democrat councillors opposing all the suggested locations. The creation of the monument was also opposed by the Oxford Preservation Trust and the London Place Residents' Association.[73] The current placement of the memorial was the third proposed location, with the previous two having their planning applications rejected by Oxford City Council.[74] The first proposed spot was Bonn Square which was rejected citing that granite was not a stone native to Oxford.[75] The second proposed location was St Giles' which was also rejected by councillors, claiming that the close proximity of an anti-fascist memorial to current war memorials would insult the memory of people who died during the Second World War.[75] Some objected to the memorial because it did not honour "both sides ... in a spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness", and called the design "aggressive towards the memory of the victims of conflict".[76]

Liberal Democrat councillor Elizabeth Wade opposed each proposed location for a monument in Oxford, although she claimed she was never opposed in principle. She described the second proposal on St Giles' near Oxford's First and Second World War memorials as “aggressive and triumphalist”.[77] Describing herself as a historian and speaking to the Oxford Mail, she then opposed the third and current location because she believed a monument with a red flag would glorify communism, despite no red flag ever being proposed to appear on the monument.[73] Her rejection of every proposal led to Britain's largest and longest running left-wing newspaper, the Morning Star, labelling her as a NIMBY.[75]

Ashtead, Surrey[edit]

In the affluent English village of Ashtead, Surrey, which lies on the outskirts of London, residents objected in 2007[78] to the conversion of a large, £1.7 million residential property into a family support centre for relatives of wounded British service personnel. The house was to be purchased by a registered charity, SSAFA Forces Help.[78][79] Local residents objected to the proposal out of fear of increased traffic and noise, as well as the possibility of an increased threat of terrorism. They also contended that the SSAFA charity is actually a business, thereby setting an unwelcome precedent.[80] Local newspapers ran articles titled "Nimby neighbours' war with wounded soldiers' families" and "No Heroes in my Backyard."

Ex-servicemen and several members of the British general public organised a petition in support of SSAFA, and even auctioned the "Self Respect of Ashtead" on eBay.[81]

High Speed 2[edit]

Particularly in the time period preceding the final decision on the route of the high-speed railway known as High Speed 2,[timeframe?] BBC News Online reported that many residents of conservative constituencies were launching objections to the HS2 route based on the effects it would have on them, whilst also showing concerns that HS2 is unlikely to have a societal benefit at a macro level under the current economic circumstances.[82][83] Likewise, Labour MP Natascha Engel—through whose constituency the line will pass—offered a "passionate defence of nimbyism" in the House of Commons, with regards to the effects the line would have on home- and business-owning constituents.[84] HS2 has also been opposed by residents of the Chilterns and Camden who argue that there is an insufficient business case for the line. On 17 March 2014, it was announced that Camden residents were successful in their campaign to prevent the construction of the HS1–HS2 link railway.[85]

Heathrow Airport[edit]

In November 2007, a consultation process began for the building of a new third runway and a sixth terminal and it was controversially[86] approved on 15 January 2009 by UK government ministers.[87] The project was then cancelled on 12 May 2010 by the Cameron Government.[88] The project was adopted by the House of Commons in June 2018. NIMBY people and political objectors appealed to court of law, and lost in the UK Supreme Court in December 2020.[citation needed]

Coventry Airport[edit]

Coventry Airport is owned by CAFCO (Coventry) Limited, a joint venture between Howard Holdings plc[89] and Convergence-AFCO Holdings Limited (CAFCOHL). In June 2007, it had its application to build permanent terminal and passenger facilities rejected by the UK government due to public pressure.[90][91][92][93][94][95]

Wimbledon, London[edit]

The London Borough of Merton did not have enough school places for local children who would be reaching school age in 2012 and 2013. Almost all local schools had expanded, but the group "Save Our Rec" (recreation ground) (dedicated in the preservation of green areas in the local community) opposed the expansion of Dundonald School as their interest was focused on protecting one of the few green spaces left in the Borough of Merton. Those that disagreed with the "Save our Rec" group labelled the group NIMBY [96] despite efforts to protect green spaces the expansion proceeded onto a portion of the park and the park's pavilion.[97]

United States[edit]

Research shows that conservatives and liberals are equally likely to oppose new housing developments in their localities. White neighborhoods and cities tend to favor more restrictive housing development policy.[98][51][99] A study in Perspectives on Politics found that "individuals who are older, male, longtime residents, voters in local elections, and homeowners are significantly more likely to participate" in local government, and that "these individuals overwhelmingly (and to a much greater degree than the general public) oppose new housing construction."[100] Nimbys tend to be homeowners, and have been described as acting to keep home prices high in self-interest[101] and as working against their financial interests.[102]

According to a 2017 report from the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is a shortage of 7.4 million affordable homes available for rent to extremely low income (ELI) households in the United States. As a result, seventy-one percent of ELI households are forced to spend over half of their income on housing costs leading to severe financial burdens.[103][104] Although the need for more affordable housing is evident,[according to whom?] opposition from NIMBY activists present significant challenges to affordable housing developments, resulting in costly design changes, construction delays, and permit denials.[105] However, research suggests that proactive outreach and communication by affordable housing developers and proponents through the leveraging of social marketing and positive messaging can overcome common NIMBY barriers.[106][107]

California[edit]

Many local residents (including farmers) in Hanford, California and surrounding areas are opposed to the California High-Speed Rail Authority building high-speed rail near farmland, citing that it will bring environmental and economic problems.[108]

Wealthy residents of southern Orange County, California defeated a local measure that proposed to convert the decommissioned El Toro Marine Base into a commercial airport, claiming that the airport would be "unsafe" during landings and takeoffs, as well as create air quality issues. The real issue was the FAA planned the flight paths for the airport over expensive neighborhoods of south Orange County and residents feared that their property values would decrease. The airport proposal, however, was strongly supported by northern Orange County residents. The defeat of the local measure resulted in the creation of the Orange County Great Park.[citation needed]

National, state and local environmentalists, historic preservationists and long-time residents of South Pasadena, California have been successfully opposing the completion of the highly controversial[citation needed] State Route 710 through the cities of Los Angeles (El Sereno), South Pasadena and Pasadena for over 60 years.[citation needed] There has been a federal injunction in place for 41 years stopping construction of the surface freeway. USC and UCLA urban and transportation planning students study this 80-year-old controversy because it is a classic example of sustained grass-roots opposition to a government proposal.[citation needed]

On 29 September 2017, 15 housing bills were signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown to combat the state's housing shortage. Many of these bills are considered direct attempts to reduce the ability of private citizens to suppress housing construction, even being referred to by some as "Anti-NIMBY" bills.[109][110]

In 2022, California governor Gavin Newsom declared that "NIMBYism is destroying the state" and promised to hold cities and counties accountable for stopping new housing development.[111]

San Francisco[edit]

NIMBYism from a small number of people in San Francisco, including several members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, has led to a suppression of new housing construction, transit expansion, bike infrastructure, and new retail stores in the city. NIMBYs have cited restrictions on buildings' shadows, increased car traffic, and concerns with parking as reasons for opposing projects.[112] Residents, economists, and housing advocates argue that new housing construction makes housing more affordable, thereby reducing displacement, personal property tax burdens, and homelessness. Examples of NIMBYism in San Francisco include 8 Washington housing project, 1846 Grove Street housing, 1060 Folsom housing, 1979 Mission housing, 2675 Folsom housing, 250 Laguna Honda Boulevard housing, 770 Woolsey, UCSF Parnassus Heights hospital expansion, and the Polk Street bike lane.[113][114][115][116]

San Francisco NIMBYs have also been described as "housing conservatives".[117][improper synthesis?]

Marin County[edit]

Many residents of Marin County, an affluent bedroom community in the San Francisco Bay Area, have for many years exemplified the idea of NIMBYism through their ardent resistance to housing developments and housing quotas.[118][119][120][121][25] Residents believe housing developments will lead to increased population density which can lead to increased traffic, increased pollution, crowded schools, a lack of open space, and a poor quality of life.

Florida[edit]

A minority of residents in St. Lucie County, Florida have vehemently opposed the construction of wind turbines in the county. The construction of the wind turbines was strongly supported by over 80% of county residents according to a 2008 Florida Power and Light (FPL) poll.[122] Additionally, the power company proposed building the turbines in a location on a beach near a prior existing nuclear power plant owned by the company.[citation needed]

In the 1980s, an agency known as the Palm Beach County Expressway Authority was formed to develop a series of east/west highways to take people from suburban Palm Beach County into downtown West Palm Beach.[citation needed] This was done in anticipation of population growth that would happen over the next decades in Palm Beach County that would bring in more traffic.[citation needed] Many neighbors in areas such as Westgate and Lake Belvedere Estates strongly opposed this plan, stating it would destroy their neighborhoods.[citation needed] Ultimately, the plan was revised to turn the SR-80 Boulevard into an express-like roadway by eliminating traffic lights and overpassing other local roadways.[citation needed]

Illinois[edit]

In 1959, when Deerfield officials learned that a developer building a neighborhood of large new homes planned to make houses available to African Americans, they issued a stop-work order. An intense debate began about racial integration, property values, and the good faith of the residents, community officials and builders. For a brief time, Deerfield was spotlighted in the national news as "the Little Rock of the North."[123] Supporters of integration were denounced and ostracized by residents. Eventually, the village passed a referendum to build parks on the property, thus putting an end to the housing development. Two model homes already partially completed were sold to village officials.[123] Otherwise, the land lay dormant for years before it was developed into what is now Mitchell Pool and Park and Jaycee Park. The first black family did not move into Deerfield until much later, and in years since Deerfield has seen a greater influx of minorities, including Jews, Asians, Greeks and others. This episode in Deerfield's history is described in But Not Next Door by Harry and David Rosen, both residents of Deerfield.

Minnesota[edit]

In the late 1990s a proposal for commuter rail on the Dan Patch Corridor between Minneapolis and Northfield was studied. In 2002, due to opposition from neighborhoods along the corridor, two state representatives from the suburbs of Bloomington and Edina passed a legislative ban prohibiting further study, discussion, funding, and construction of the project. While the ban is still in place despite numerous attempts to repeal it, the two suburbs that sponsored the ban are now open to the proposal. Lakeville and St. Louis Park remain opposed to the project and repealing the ban.

New York[edit]

In 1858, a group of residents in Staten Island burned down the New York Marine Hospital, at the time the largest quarantine facility in the United States, citing its negative effect on local property values.

On Long Island, various electrification and expansion projects of the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) were substantially delayed due to the protests of people living near the railroad. For example, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has proposed to build a third track on the Main Line from Floral Park station to Hicksville station in order to increase capacity.[124][125] Although most communities along the route supported grade crossing eliminations as part of the project, there was fierce opposition for building a third track from the villages of Floral Park, New Hyde Park, and Garden City, which said the construction and the resulting increased train service will reduce the quality of life in their neighborhoods.[126][127][128] The third track project was suspended indefinitely in 2008,[129] but new funding for the project was included in a 2016 infrastructure improvement plan announced by New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, which included measures intended to mitigate locals' concerns.[130] Despite the promise of mitigation efforts, several local politicians denounced the governor's plan within a day of its announcement.[131][132] In December 2017, the LIRR awarded a contract to build the third track.[133]

In Port Washington, New York, a dispute broke out between the town of North Hempstead and the LIRR over a proposed yard expansion at Port Washington station. To expand the yard, a parking lot belonging to the town would need to be reduced in size, but a local councilperson stated that the addition of the tracks "will completely ruin the character of the town."[134] The LIRR was able to expand the yard without the agreement of North Hempstead by tearing up 140 parking spaces of its own parking lot, also adjacent to the station.[134]

Community opposition also led to the cancellation of a proposed extension of the New York City Subway's Astoria Line (carrying the N and ​W trains) to LaGuardia Airport.[135][136] Similarly, opposition has stopped any proposal to build a bridge or tunnel across the Long Island Sound with some believing it will harm their communities with an influx of unwanted traffic as well as concerns regarding the environment and the number of homes that would be cleared as a result.[137]

Tennessee[edit]

In early 2020, in Campbell County, Tennessee, complaints occurred after an out-of-state company began controlled blasting at a rock quarry in the county.[138] Campbell County Schools had dismissed their schools early due to the quarry, located less than 2,000 feet from the high school, performing a scheduled blast.[138] Residents gathered for pleas to shut down the quarry.[138] Campbell County officials later passed a resolution banning the development of quarries within 2,000 feet of a public building or power grid structure.[139]

In 2009, Norfolk Southern Railway released plans of a proposed 1,300 acres (5.3 km2) intermodal freight transport truck-and-train facility in Jefferson County, Tennessee as a part of the US$2.5 billion Crescent Corridor project in a US$133 million private-public partnership with state and Jefferson County officials.[140][141] The proposed facility, if completed, would have generated 77 on-site jobs, 1,700 related-industry jobs in Jefferson and surrounding counties, and the potential of an annual income of US$60 million dollars a year.[140] The project received extensive backlash from an organized group of affected property owners and farmers, citing the massive loss of land as a negative impact on Jefferson County's agricultural industry.[142] The project status has remained stagnant since 2015, as Norfolk had no plans of constructing the facility in the short-term future, but plans on having the site property as a "long-term investment" according to a press release by the company's public relations director.[143]

Virginia[edit]

In 1994, opposition from residents and historians led to the cancellation of the Disney's America theme park outside of Haymarket, Virginia.[144]

China[edit]

NIMBY movements in a non-western context are often overlooked by the general public because grassroot resistance is less likely to occur under authoritarian regimes. However, there have been successful NIMBY movements in China over the last few decades. In May 2014, in the city of Yuhang in Zhejiang Province, a NIMBY movement prevented the construction of a giant refuse incinerator.[145] The victory came at enormous costs with many grassroot leaders arrested and many government infrastructures destroyed.[145] However, in the case of China, many socially harmful projects simply continue their operation or relocate after the media attention has died down.[145]

Political implications of Nimbyism[edit]

On this issue, New York Times opinion writer Farhad Manjoo stated: "What Republicans want to do with I.C.E. and border walls, wealthy progressive Democrats are doing with zoning and Nimbyism. Preserving “local character,” maintaining “local control,” keeping housing scarce and inaccessible—the goals of both sides are really the same: to keep people out."[146]

In a 2020 paper exploring the relationship between homeowners' self-interest and pro-NIMBY attitudes among both self-identified liberals and conservatives, William Marble and Clayton Nall note: “Whether they are responding to different housing policies, responding to persuasive political messaging, or evaluating hypothetical proposals for local development, homeowners remain opposed to local development policies that threaten their self-interest.“[147]

Historian Nancy Shoemaker cites "Not-in-My-Backyard Colonialism" as one of twelve types of colonialism, in which an area is colonized to dispose of convicts or conduct dangerous experiments. She cites Australia and the Marshall Islands—used as a nuclear test site by the United States—as examples.[148]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Definition of Nimby". Macmillan Dictionary. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
  2. ^ "Cambridge Dictionaries Online – meaning of NIMBY". Retrieved 17 July 2015.
  3. ^ "Oxford Dictionaries – definition of Nimby". Archived from the original on 29 July 2012. Retrieved 17 July 2015.
  4. ^ "Forget YIMBY vs. NIMBY. Could PHIMBYs Solve the Housing Crisis?". KQED. Retrieved 28 April 2022.
  5. ^ Matthew Holehouse (23 July 2014). "Boris Johnson: Nimbies pretend to care about architecture to block developments". The Telegraph. Retrieved 23 January 2016.
  6. ^ Andrew Galvin (28 August 2015). "Anywhere but here". OC Weekly. Archived from the original on 30 January 2016. Retrieved 23 January 2016.
  7. ^ "Charlestown City Council tables sewer ordinance after public backlash". WLKY-TV. 2 December 2019. Retrieved 26 September 2020.
  8. ^ Patrick Wintour (4 August 2013). "Fracking will meet resistance from southern nimbys, minister warns". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 January 2016.
  9. ^ James Kanter (7 November 2007). "Radioactive Nimby: No one wants nuclear waste". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2016.
  10. ^ "Eureka County, Nevada – Yucca Mountain.org". www.yuccamountain.org. Retrieved 25 April 2020.
  11. ^ "Nightclub music needs restricting to reduce noise pollution, say environmentalists". Archived from the original on 18 May 2015. Retrieved 12 May 2015.
  12. ^ Curbed (20 February 2014). "Hundreds Fret About Superscrapers' Shadows As Extell Rebuts". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  13. ^ Hager, Carol; Haddad, Mary Alice (2015). Nimby Is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation Around the World. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-1782386025. Retrieved 15 September 2016 – via Google Books.
  14. ^ a b Millsap, Adam. "Cities Should Think Twice About Expanding Historic Districts". Forbes. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
  15. ^ Washington, Emily (23 December 2015). "Historic Preservation and Its Costs". www.city-journal.org. City-Journal. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
  16. ^ Freishtat, Sarah. "Are landmark districts linked to affordable housing and segregation? A Chicago lawsuit makes the connection, but a historic preservationist disputes it". www.chicagotribune.com. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 29 March 2022.
  17. ^ Gates, Ernie (29 June 1980). "No One Wants Backyard Nuclear Dump". Daily Press. 85 (181): 1.
  18. ^ Sniatynski, Gillian (February–March 1980). "Hazardous Wastes". Environment Views. 2 (6): 5. The 'not in my back yard' syndrome is a compound of fears about health, safety, and environmental quality
  19. ^ Spy, Word. "NIMBY – Word Spy". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  20. ^ Livezey, Emilie Travel (6 November 1980). "Hazardous waste". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  21. ^ Maiorino, Al. (22 March 2011) "Do You Have Control Over NIMBYism?" Biomass Magazine
  22. ^ Heywood, Andrew (1 March 2015). "Short memories?". Housing Finance International (Spring 2015): 4–5. 2 – via Business Source Complete.
  23. ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: "George Carlin on N.I.M.B.Y." (video). YouTube. Retrieved 25 April 2012. We {{sic}} got somethin' in this country (you've heard of it) – it's called NIMBY – n-i-m-b-y – Not In My BackYard!
  24. ^ Borell, Klas; Westermark, Åsa (31 October 2016). "Siting of human services facilities and the not in my back yard phenomenon: a critical research review". Community Development Journal. 53 (2): 246–262. doi:10.1093/cdj/bsw039.
  25. ^ a b c Dougherty, Conor (5 June 2022). "Twilight of the NIMBY". New York Times. Retrieved 27 June 2022. NIMBY stands for “Not in my backyard,” an acronym that proliferated in the early 1980s to describe neighbors who fight nearby development, especially anything involving apartments. The word was initially descriptive (the Oxford English Dictionary added “NIMBY” in 1989 and has since tacked on “NIMBYism” and “NIMBYish”) but its connotation has harshened as rent and home prices have exploded. NIMBYs who used to be viewed as, at best, defenders of their community, and at worst just practical, are now painted as housing hoarders whose efforts have increased racial segregation, deepened wealth inequality and are robbing the next generation of the American dream.
  26. ^ You can't park here: it's my retreat, says ‘Nimby’ Clooney (The Times)
  27. ^ Hull, Jon (25 January 1988). "Not In My Neighborhood". Time. Time Inc. Archived from the original on 25 July 2008. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
  28. ^ Scharper, Diane (21 March 2010). "Ex-Sun author traces bigotry's role in shaping Baltimore". The Baltimore Sun.
  29. ^ Pietila, Antero (2010). Not in my neighborhood : how bigotry shaped a great American city. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. ISBN 978-1566638432.
  30. ^ translationconference.com[permanent dead link]
  31. ^ "Absolute Banana". The New York Times. 23 December 1993. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  32. ^ "From NIMBYs To DUDEs: The Wacky World Of Plannerese". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  33. ^ BANANA at Wordspy
  34. ^ "Sunderland City Council". Archived from the original on 8 May 2008. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  35. ^ Grant Barrett (2006). The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang. OUP US. pp. 76–77. ISBN 978-0195304473.
  36. ^ Joel E. Ross; Susan Perry (1999). Total Quality Management: Text, Cases and Readings (Third ed.). CRC Press. p. 65. ISBN 978-1574442663.
  37. ^ Stewart, James B. (5 April 2002) Book Reviews: "Dumping in dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality" The Review of Black Political Economy Volume 20, Number 2, 105–107, doi:10.1007/BF02689929
  38. ^ Bullard, Robert D. (2008). Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality. Westview Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0813344270.
  39. ^ Noguera, Pedro; Cammarota, Julio; Ginwright, Shawn (2013). Beyond Resistance! Youth Activism and Community Change: New Democratic ... edited by Pedro Noguera, Julio Cammarota, Shawn Ginwright. ISBN 978-1135927790.
  40. ^ "Black environmentalists go after PIBBY – 'put it in blacks' backyards'". AthensNews.
  41. ^ Gouldson, Andrew; Roberts, Peter (2002). Integrating Environment and Economy: Strategies for Local and RegionalGovernment edited by Andrew Gouldson, Peter Roberts. ISBN 978-1134703685.
  42. ^ "PIBBY". The Free Dictionary.
  43. ^ Andolina, Molly W. (March 2014). "Book Reviews: American Politics The Evolving Citizen: American Youth and the Changing Norms of Democratic Engagement. By Jay P. Childers. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (1): 237–238. doi:10.1017/S1537592714000358. S2CID 145733215.
  44. ^ Walter, Liz (3 March 2014). "Move over Yuppies – the Magpies have arrived". dictionaryblog.cambridge.org. Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved 13 August 2015.
  45. ^ a b Cillizza, Chris (21 May 2013). "Jim Inhofe and the "reverse NIMBY" phenomenon". The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 December 2021.
  46. ^ Woolcock, Nicola. "The reverse Nimby effect". The Times. ISSN 0140-0460. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
  47. ^ "Not in my term of office – Energy Education". energyeducation.ca. Retrieved 7 December 2021.
  48. ^ Mcclymont, Katie; O'hare, Paul (1 June 2008). ""We're not NIMBYs!" Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities" (PDF). Local Environment. 13 (4): 321–335. doi:10.1080/13549830701803273. ISSN 1354-9839. S2CID 143704483.
  49. ^ Semuels, Alana (5 July 2017). "From 'Not in My Backyard' to 'Yes in My Backyard'". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 5 July 2017. Out of a desire for more-equitable housing policy, some city dwellers have started allying with developers instead of opposing them.
  50. ^ Gerdner, A. & Borell, K. 2003. Neighbourhood Reactions toward Facilities for Residential Care: A Swedish Survey Study. Journal of Community Practice 11(4):59–81
  51. ^ a b c Trounstine, Jessica (2020). "The Geography of Inequality: How Land Use Regulation Produces Segregation". American Political Science Review. 114 (2): 443–455. doi:10.1017/S0003055419000844. ISSN 0003-0554.
  52. ^ Lee, Timothy (22 January 2015). "NIMBYs are costing the US economy billions". Vox. Hsieh and Moretti estimate that moving American workers to higher-productivity cities could increase the income of Americans by a stunning amount: more than $1 trillion. That amounts to a raise of several thousand dollars for every American worker. ... Hsieh and Moretti's analysis suggests that housing restrictions—and the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) activists who lobby for them—are costing the American economy tens—perhaps hundreds—of billions of dollars per year. If we want to ensure the American economy grows robustly in the coming decades, a high priority should be figuring out ways to allow more people to live in America's most productive metropolitan areas.
  53. ^ a b Gerrard, Michael (1 January 1994). "The Victims of Nimby". Fordham Urb. L. J. 21: 495. NIMBY, in its various forms, has three principal types of targets. The first is waste disposal facilities, primarily landfills and incinerators. The second is low-income housing. The third is social service facilities, group homes and shelters for individuals such as the mentally ill, AIDS patients, and the homeless. ... Conclusion: ... All forms of local opposition are often lumped together under the pejorative and trivializing label NIMBY. There is a key difference, however, between opposition to waste disposal facilities on the one hand, and to low-income housing and social service facilities on the other hand. Battles against waste disposal facilities often have significantly positive environmental impacts, not only for the particular sites, but for society at large, because they spur sounder, less wasteful modes of production. In contrast, opposition to housing and social-service facilities has overwhelmingly negative consequences for society.
  54. ^ Delaney, Gordon (7 July 2012). "Which way does the wind blow?". The Chronicle Herald. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  55. ^ "NIMBY Neck – updated : Contrarian". Contrarian.ca. 9 September 2009. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  56. ^ "Cell tower opposed in Lawrencetown". CBC News. 25 January 2011. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  57. ^ Croucher, Philip (29 August 2012). "Public hearing Thursday for planned downtown Dartmouth development | Metro". Metronews.ca. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  58. ^ "Lunenburg County debates province's largest wind farm". CBC News. 5 March 2013. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  59. ^ "Negative feedback towards new development in N.S. community". CTV Atlantic News. 11 March 2013. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  60. ^ "Chester approves Nova Scotia's largest wind farm". CBC News. 15 March 2013. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  61. ^ McGrath, Dominic. "Hundreds gather to oppose plan for over 650 apartments beside St Anne's Park in Dublin". TheJournal.ie. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  62. ^ Halpin, Hayley. "Dublin City Council opposes plans for over 650 apartments beside St Anne's Park". TheJournal.ie. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  63. ^ "Planning permission granted for 657 apartment block next to St Anne's Park". independent. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  64. ^ Power, Jack. "Residents protest proposed housing beside St Anne's Park". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  65. ^ Makk, Katie. "St Anne's Park Protesters Accused Of "NIMBY-Ism"". www.98fm.com. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  66. ^ "Raheny apartment development gets green light". RTÉ.ie. 18 February 2020. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  67. ^ Carolan, Mary. "Permission for 657 apartments near St Anne's Park overturned on consent". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  68. ^ Monella, Lillo Montalto (26 March 2019). "What is happening with the Lyon-Turin high speed line?". euronews. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  69. ^ a b c "Benefits of Completion of Multiple Double Tracks" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 January 2018. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  70. ^ a b "How do railways figure out congestion on their trains?". Japan Today.
  71. ^ "Odakyu Electric Railway – History". Archived from the original on 21 April 2018. Retrieved 12 December 2018.
  72. ^ Staff; agencies (22 January 2022). "Serbia scraps plans for Rio Tinto lithium mine after protests". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2 February 2022.
  73. ^ a b Oliver, Matt (27 February 2017). "Plans for Oxford memorial to Spanish Civil War volunteers clears key hurdle". Oxford Mail. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
  74. ^ French, Andy (20 April 2017). "Date set to unveil Spanish Civil War memorial". Oxford Mail. Retrieved 29 January 2021.
  75. ^ a b c James, Luke (6 November 2016). "Nimbys block nod to heroes of Spain civil war in Oxford: Memorial to anti-fascist fighters 'too triumphalist' for some". The Morning Star. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
  76. ^ "Spanish Civil War memorial stone approved". BBC. 22 February 2017. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
  77. ^ "IBMT Newsletter issue 41" (PDF). international brigades. 2016. Retrieved 29 December 2020.
  78. ^ a b "No heroes in my backyard". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  79. ^ "Headley Court Families Accommodation". ssafa.org.uk. SSAFA Forces Help. 1 August 2007. Archived from the original on 29 September 2007.
  80. ^ http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/cwi/getDocument?docId=112803&account=planning&ref=MO/2007/0863&filename=Letter%20of%20Representation. Retrieved 15 September 2016. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  81. ^ Woods, Vicki (28 July 2007). "Legless boys' mammas? Not in Ashtead". telegraph.co.uk. London. Retrieved 7 June 2010.
  82. ^ "The farm lying in the path of the new rail route". BBC News. 20 December 2010. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  83. ^ "Tory vs Tory on high speed rail". BBC News. 15 December 2010. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  84. ^ Natascha Engel (26 June 2013). "High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill" (PDF). Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). Vol. 565. House of Commons. col. 378–380.
  85. ^ "Build HS2 more quickly, says boss". BBC News. 17 March 2014.
  86. ^ "Britain: Third Heathrow runway approved despite opposition". CNN.com. 15 January 2009. Retrieved 11 May 2010.
  87. ^ "BBC News – Go-ahead for new Heathrow runway". 15 January 2009. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  88. ^ "BBC News – Heathrow runway plans scrapped by new government". 12 May 2010. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  89. ^ "Howardholdings.com". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  90. ^ "Shock Rejection Hits Plan for Coventry Airport Terminal". Archived from the original on 19 September 2016. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  91. ^ Herbert, Ian (10 July 2007). "Grounded: Another victory in battle to curb airport growth". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on 22 April 2008.
  92. ^ "High Court decision – Coventry Airport". warwickdc.gov.uk. Warwick District Council. Archived from the original on 27 September 2011.
  93. ^ "Birmingham Post politics news plus reports council and Government issues affecting Birmingham, the Black Country and the West Midlands". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  94. ^ Docs.google.com
  95. ^ "Coventry Airport Goes Bust And Shuts – House prices and the economy". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
  96. ^ "Dundonald Primary School and Dundonald Park. Consultation on proposed permanent expansion of school from 1FE to 2FE (30 to 60 pupil places per year) and impact on Dundonald Park" (PDF). The London Borough of Merton. 2011. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 March 2014. Retrieved 30 October 2018.
  97. ^ Archived at Ghostarchive and the Wayback Machine: "London's public open space sold off". youtube.com. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  98. ^ Badger, Emily (21 August 2018). "The Bipartisan Cry of 'Not in My Backyard'". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 August 2018.
  99. ^ Trounstine, Jessica (2018). Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108555722. ISBN 978-1108555722. S2CID 158682691. Retrieved 16 June 2020.
  100. ^ "Who Participates in Local Government? Evidence from Meeting Minutes" (PDF).
  101. ^ Einstein, Katherine Levine; Glick, David M.; Palmer, Maxwell (2019). Neighborhood Defenders and the Power of Delay. Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America's Housing Crisis. pp. 24–57. doi:10.1017/9781108769495.002. ISBN 978-1108769495. S2CID 216525554. Retrieved 19 June 2020.
  102. ^ Bliss, Laura (26 July 2019). "The NIMBY Principle". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 5 August 2020.
  103. ^ "The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes" (PDF). Retrieved 20 November 2018.
  104. ^ Larrimore, Jeff (22 December 2017). "Assessing the Severity of Rent Burden on Low-Income Families". Retrieved 20 November 2018.
  105. ^ Scally, Corianne Payton; Tighe, J. Rosie (2015). "Democracy in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting". Housing Studies. 30 (5): 749–769. doi:10.1080/02673037.2015.1013093. S2CID 153564064.
  106. ^ Beben, Robert (2015). "The Role of Social Marketing in Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome". Housing Studies. 30 (5): 749–769. doi:10.1080/02673037.2015.1013093. S2CID 153564064.
  107. ^ Rockne, Anna. "Not in My Backyard: Using Communications to Shift "NIMBY" Attitudes about Affordable Housing" (PDF). Retrieved 20 November 2018.
  108. ^ "Opposition grows at Hanford rail meeting".
  109. ^ "The Legislature's "Year Of Housing" Produces Broad Package of Bills to Stimulate Affordable Housing Construction – Meyers | Nave". www.meyersnave.com. 18 September 2017. Retrieved 18 April 2018.
  110. ^ Dillon, Liam (29 September 2017). "Gov. Brown just signed 15 housing bills. Here's how they're supposed to help the affordability crisis". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 18 April 2018.
  111. ^ Bollag, Sophia (22 May 2022). Written at Sacramento. "'NIMBYism is destroying the state.' Gavin Newsom ups pressure on cities to build more housing". San Francisco Chronicle. San Francisco. Retrieved 6 June 2022. “NIMBYism is destroying the state,” [Newsome] told the editorial board in an interview seeking the paper’s endorsement in his upcoming re-election bid. “We're gonna demand more from our cities and counties.”
  112. ^ Dineen, J.K. "NIMBYs are back: S.F. builders face growing backlash". Biz Journals. Retrieved 6 January 2014.
  113. ^ "8 Washington Is Over; Developer Gives Up On Agreement For Seawall Lot [Updated]". hoodline.com. 3 March 2016. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
  114. ^ Deutsch, Sam (25 August 2020). "Four Homes, Four Years: The saga to build four homes at 1846 Grove St". Medium. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
  115. ^ Brinklow, Adam (25 February 2020). "The biggest canceled or delayed SF housing projects". Curbed SF. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
  116. ^ "Aaron Peskin Consulted With Polk Street Bike Lane Opponents on Lawsuit". Streetsblog San Francisco. 3 September 2015. Retrieved 28 December 2020.
  117. ^ "San Francisco is one of California's most conservative cities – when it comes to housing". SFChronicle.com. 23 January 2021. Retrieved 24 January 2021.
  118. ^ Dillon, Liam (7 January 2018). "Marin County has long resisted growth in the name of environmentalism. But high housing costs and segregation persist". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 14 April 2022.
  119. ^ Walters, Dan (6 February 2021). "Marin NIMBYs not alone in pushing back on housing mandates". Marin Independent Journal. Retrieved 14 April 2022.
  120. ^ Walters, Dan (31 May 2021). "Marin County's guerrilla war against housing". CalMatters. Retrieved 14 April 2022.
  121. ^ Perigo, Sasha (20 February 2020). "Who are the Bay Area's NIMBYs – and what do they want?". Curbed SF. Retrieved 14 April 2022.
  122. ^ Quinlan, Paul (3 April 2008). "Survey supports turbines, FPL says". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 17 June 2011. Retrieved 30 October 2018.
  123. ^ a b Rosen, Harry; David Rosen (1962). But Not Next Door. Astor-Honor Inc. ISBN 978-0-8392-1007-8.
  124. ^ "MTA Long Island Rail Road East Side Access and Third Track – Main Line Corridor Improvements" (PDF). Metropolitan Transportation Authority. p. 5. Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  125. ^ Rather, John (10 July 2005). "Third-Track Project Finds Its Nemesis". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 July 2018.
  126. ^ Stephanie Mariel Petrellese (11 November 2005). "Floral Park Mayor To Address LIRR Expansion". The Garden City News. Archived from the original on 22 March 2006. Retrieved 23 December 2006.
  127. ^ Carisa Keane (24 June 2005). "Residents: MTA/LIRR Needs to Get on Right Track". New Hyde Park Illustrated News. Archived from the original on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 23 December 2006.
  128. ^ Stephanie Mariel Petrellese (15 December 2006). "Village Meets With LIRR On "Third Track" Project". The Garden City News. Archived from the original on 12 January 2007. Retrieved 23 December 2006.
  129. ^ Nardiello, Carolyn (16 September 2008). "Third-Track Plan Isn't Dead, L.I.R.R. Insists". The New York Times. Retrieved 31 July 2012.
  130. ^ Madore, James T. (5 January 2016). "Andrew Cuomo tells Long Island Association he'll push LIRR third track, LI Sound tunnel". Newsday. Retrieved 7 January 2016.
  131. ^ Fitzsimmons, Emma G. (5 January 2016). "Cuomo Revives Long-Stalled Plan to Add Track to L.I.R.R." The New York Times. p. A18. Retrieved 7 January 2016.
  132. ^ Manskar, Noah (7 January 2016). "Cuomo revives LIRR third track plans". The Island Now. Archived from the original on 10 January 2016. Retrieved 8 January 2016.
  133. ^ Berger, Paul (13 December 2017). "MTA Awards $1.8 Billion Contract to Expand Long Island Rail Road". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 25 January 2018.
  134. ^ a b "LIRR plan would run more trains to NYC". Newsday. 14 May 2013. Retrieved 7 March 2014.
  135. ^ Toscano, John (16 July 2003). "N Train Extension To LaG Scrapped". Queens Gazette. Archived from the original on 25 May 2009. Retrieved 26 July 2009.
  136. ^ "Flashback To 1999 | www.qgazette.com | Queens Gazette". www.qgazette.com. 27 June 2007. Archived from the original on 22 March 2016. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  137. ^ Andersen, Steve; Herman, Ralph; Willinger, Douglas A.; Schlictman, Paul. "Overview: Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge (I-287, unbuilt)".
  138. ^ a b c Ducre, Gwendolyn (3 February 2020). ""We've all been trying to fight it": Campbell Co. citizens concerned about quarry blasting". WVLT-TV. Retrieved 26 September 2020.
  139. ^ "Resolution to restrict quarries passes in Campbell County". WVLT-TV. 8 February 2020. Retrieved 26 September 2020.
  140. ^ a b Wilson, Robert (14 June 2009). "Are intermodal facility plans on or off the rails in Jefferson County?". Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  141. ^ Cagle, Frank. "Do the Right Thing". MetroPulse. Archived from the original on 27 October 2009. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  142. ^ Matheny, Jim (27 May 2009). "Knoxville residents rail against proposed Norfolk Southern terminal". Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. WBIR-TV. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  143. ^ Depew, Jake (18 January 2015). "Intermodal Project Still Without Steam". Jefferson County Post. Retrieved 2 September 2020.
  144. ^ Feinsilber, Mike (27 February 1994). "Virginians in Civil War Over Disney Park Plans". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. Retrieved 15 October 2020.
  145. ^ a b c Olesen, Alexa. "Do Chinese NIMBY Protests Actually Work?". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
  146. ^ Manjoo, Farhad (22 May 2019). "America's Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals. – The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 1 June 2019. It was another chapter in a dismal saga of Nimbyist urban mismanagement that is crushing American cities. Not-in-my-backyardism is a bipartisan sentiment, but because the largest American cities are populated and run by Democrats—many in states under complete Democratic control—this sort of nakedly exclusionary urban restrictionism is a particular shame of the left.
  147. ^ Marble, Nall, William, Clayton (6 February 2020). "Where Self-Interest Trumps Ideology: Liberal Homeowners and Local Opposition to Housing Development". The Journal of Politics. 83 (4): 1747–1763. doi:10.1086/711717. S2CID 225013704.
  148. ^ Shoemaker, Nancy (1 October 2015). "A Typology of Colonialism | Perspectives on History". American Historical Association. Retrieved 28 April 2022.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]