The NIMBY Chronicles

This is half an experiment and half therapy for me, but I am always seeing NIMBYism in my neighborhood listserv. Sometimes I reply with measured responses, but I don't think it really does anything except alienate me to my neighbors.

So, instead, I will start sharing the emails that I get here, just as an outlet. Feel free to share your own (redacting any names). If it makes us all too angry, we can stop, of course.

Here is the first one!

***************************

Hi Neighbors:

The Planning Commission will meet tonight to consider several proposed changes to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that will affect our neighborhood (we are part of the urban tier).

1) Significantly educing minimum lot size to accommodate higher-density development;

2) Reducing yard sizes and minimum distances from the street;

3) Reducing the required distance between buildings, based on vertical height;

4) Changing the number of unrelated persons who may occupy a dwelling from 3 to 6; and

5) Reducing open space and tree canopy requirements in the city and suburban tiers.

Some of these changes will be contingent on the development plan for the proposed construction--specifically, whether the proposed use is for affordable or for-profit housing. But in my opinion, all of these changes are highly vulnerable to misuse by developers who seek to maximize profits through housing that is crowded inside and out (higher density, more occupants, less green space).

It also seems to me that the city staff is supporting these changes out of capitulation to two current trends: one of moving affordable housing out of the urban tier and into the suburbs, and the other of increasing the density of the urban tier while reducing its green spaces.

Please read the attachment and attend the meeting if you can.

I can't speak for this person but the things that are raising his/her hackles are pretty consistently raised by people I've spoken with who want the benefits of urban living (restaurants, cafes, artists & young people, and most importantly, JOBS!) without the sacrifices (smaller living spaces, concentrated green spaces, sharing your commute with others).

Also I get a kick out of this:

It also seems to me that the city staff is supporting these changes out of capitulation to two current trends: one of moving affordable housing out of the urban tier and into the suburbs, and the other of increasing the density of the urban tier while reducing its green spaces.

I don't know what this person is basing the first trend on. Effectively every affordable/mixed-income housing proposal I've seen has been in the urban tier (and in my opinion it should be distributed across the county). To the second trend, it's unfortunate to lose tree canopy but private property is not green space, and I haven't heard any proposals to shutter any public parks recently.

I encountered the same obstinance when living in California: homeowners objecting to dense development located 2 or 3 miles away. Extremely frustrating.

That part jumped out at me as well! It also is a huge leap to say that allowing for increased density means fewer green spaces. This is not a proposal to sell all park land to developers!

And if you are talking about "green spaces" meaning manicured suburban-style lawns, those are certainly not great for the environment. The number of logical fallacies in NIMBY arguments is overwhelming.