|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Older discussion
- 2 List
- 3 NIMBY
- 4 Infrastructure
- 5 Accuracy
- 6 Origin of the phrase
- 7 Split "Debate of propriety of land development"
- 8 "Alexandria, Virigina" split?
- 9 BANANA merge into NIABY section
- 10 WikiProject class rating
- 11 Incorrectly stated cost
- 12 Nuclear facilities
- 13 Point of View
- 14 NIMBY in other languages
- 15 New acronym, Jon Stewart style
- 16 NIMBY
- 17 Neutrality
- 18 Other Example
- 19 NAMBI?
- 20 Merges
- 21 Combine primary/secondary for/against, enhance against
- 22 Adding POV-check tag
- 23 NIMBYism and racism?
- 24 Airways
- 25 Srirachi Sauce?
- 26 Petone, Wellington?
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. 220.127.116.11 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)
I think this page really needs a list of cities and towns with a particularly strong reputation for NIMBY behavor.
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.
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.
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
- Against, on the general principle that people who merge articles on Wikipedia almost never clean up all the resulting degraded links from other articles to the formerly distinct article which became a redirect. The result is a bunch of confusing and irritatingly incoherent links that don't do what the reader expects. Instead they bounce the reader to an article with a different title than the reader expects from the link text, and this breaks the reader's flow. In other words, people who downgrade articles to redirects usually seem to be focusing exclusively on only one small part of the big picture on Wikipedia, and when they "fix" the one isolated "problem" they perceive, they don't go around and fix all the other damage they caused. This is a manifestation of the Law of unintended consequences. --Teratornis (talk) 23:59, 14 December 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)
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 , ). 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)
- Some wind farms have been the target for some NIMBY opposition. There are some Web sites dedicated to this, although they look to me like a kind of fringe-element activity, with lots of quasi-factual arguments that had nothing to do with the intial objection, which was purely the fact that some people had a negative emotional reaction to wind farms when they first learned about them. The fact that a few eccentrics might object loudly to wind farms doesn't change the fact that the majority of people in an area may be either neutral or welcoming to them. Very few things are 100% welcomed anywhere - different people have amazingly diverse opinions. Objections to wind farms seem to be more common in areas where (some) people live quasi-rural exurban lifestyles. This is more common in the eastern United States where suitable wind farm sites are fewer, and are often in relatively undeveloped areas near enough to cities to allow some people to burn large amounts of petroleum on daily commutes, to get the aesthetic benefits of a kind of country living along with the economic benefits of city life. It is quite natural for a person who lives this kind of lifestyle to object to any sort of noticeable development in the bucolic bedroom area. In honestly rural areas where most people actually make their livings from ranching and farming, and often struggle economically from the ups and downs of agriculture, wind power tends to be welcomed as a reliable source of supplementary income requiring no investment from the landowner. In short, NIMBY is often a function of whether developers pay the people who have to live with the development. Obviously a person will tend to view a gigantic wind turbine more favorably if it reminds him or her of the several thousand dollars he or she gets for doing nothing besides allowing it to be there. In this sense, when NIMBYism occurs it is a manifestation of an unpaid external cost, just as a pleasant view of land that one does not own is a similarly unpaid external benefit. If the peak oil doomers turn out to be correct, the petroleum-fueled exurban lifestyle will turn out to have been a short-term unsustainable aberration, and this could quiet objections to future wind farm expansion once people begin to realize wind farms are essential to maintaining modern comforts in a world where fossil fuels become increasingly scarce. --Teratornis (talk) 23:52, 14 December 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)
- I disagree with the claim "there is no problem with having an opinion." Opinions have led to all sorts of problems throughout history. For example, groups of people with different opinions have fought religious wars, and any opinion which happens to be factually incorrect and produces real-world consequences could readily lead to problems. Opinions are one of the biggest sources of problems for humans. In my opinion. --Teratornis (talk) 23:31, 14 December 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 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- A better place to ask this question is on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. --Teratornis (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
New acronym, Jon Stewart style
"Not Against My Business, Life or Area" or NAMBLA. ;) --20:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The current discussion about the imprisoning of former guantanamo detainees inside the USA is a prime example for MINBY. Anybody care to incorporate this into the article? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I must admit I've never seen the acronym NAMBI, ever. I notice that the section is uncited, and the acronym isn't in any of the top very many Google hits, contrast with Nimby. Can a source be found for this usage?126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Following discussion at Talk:BANANA#Merge_or_redirect I've merged the content here.
After I did that, I noticed the threads above at #BANANA merge into NIABY section. I didn't mean to edit against consensus, and now I'm hoping that this can possibly be seen as a case of WP:Consensus can change or somesuch. The BANANA article-stub had no real potential of growth, and is clearly at least a related term to NIABY (and hence NIMBY).
The three possibilities I can think of are:
- Leave the content as merged
- Instead, change the page BANANA to a softredirect to wikt:BANANA (which doesn't really help readers who want contextual details and references)
- Either retitle this article to encompass all the terms, or create a new glossary/list page for all the related terms: There are quite a few stubs (with little growth potential) in the See also section here, as well as sections already within this article, eg. NIABY, NAMBI, BANANA, CAVE People, Drawbridge mentality, Locally unwanted land use, YIMBY.
- I support merging all of the closely related stubs into one, so that readers can get a better overview and more precisely identify the differences between the terms. This should also make the process be more about "the idea that local residents don't want something here" rather than "the specific word used to describe it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Do you mean: Merge the other terms into this article, under the "Variations" section (possibly retitling that section), or, move&merge the non-NIMBY terms to a new list article (any title suggestions? perhaps something like "Land use activism terminology"?), or other? Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Combine primary/secondary for/against, enhance against
I've reorganized this section for purposes of NPOV and clarity. I have:
- combine primary and secondary for clarity
- DELETE: "that public services are demanded without regard to how government will pay for them" -- How is this an issue here?
- change "loss of property value" to "loss of residential property value, and thus municipal income from property taxes"
- added "toxic pollution of land, air, and water, light pollution, noise pollution, visual blight, and other quality of life losses," -- this is because simply "environmental depredation" simply doesn't cover all of the harmful effects.
- Delete "new residents" from "disproportionate benefit to non-locals or new residents" unless someone can give an example of how a new resident can benefit
- I've also added a new statement at the intro of the "against development" section about local sovereignty, because this had been entirely absent.
- About #3: Don't you suppose that declining commercial and agricultural property values would have the same negative effect on property tax revenues? And might those taxes be paid to more than merely municipalities? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Adding POV-check tag
After making edits to the issues section, I still find this article has multiple POV/bias problems. The preamble mentions that NIMBY is chiefly used in a pejorative sense, then the article uses it this way in many instances. An example is the caption on the first image:
- An airport is a typical example of a development that can cause a NIMBY reaction
"NIMBY reaction" uses the term in the pejorative sense, and is thus not NPOV. There are good reasons why local residents may oppose development. This article makes it seem like "NIMBY reaction" is a psychological pathology, and like any good Public Relations neologism, it slides by certain premises, i.e., that foreign development should never be opposed, and masks any legitimate concerns local residents may have to oppose such. -- Bill Huston (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
NIMBYism and racism?
If a well-off white person could support the views of the political left (i.e. the Labour party in the UK) as long as ethnic minorities were concentrated in poorer areas and sent their children to a fee-paying school where there were less ethnic minorities, wouldn't this be a form of NIMBYism?--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- "as long as ethnic minorities were concentrated in poorer areas" - I would call it blatent racism over NIMBYism. I certainly wouldn't consider it to be the views of someone who supported the political left. BulbaThor (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
One of our examples of a NIMBYism appears to be a condiment. Unless we have some concrete example of people opposing this hot sauce, I'd suggest we remove this. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I would say that the entry about Petone, Wellington, New Zealand, is very unencyclopaedic, and adds nothing relevant to the page. Quite possibly some of the other examples for other countries/regions are poor too, but I haven't read those in depth. The article appears inflammatory, and or written by a person with a distinct bias against a people group and/or geographic area. I'd say the whole section should be tidied up, but in the first instance the Petone writings should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)