Nimbyism Should Be Applauded, Not Despised

[Green_not_greed]

This article was published in the Independent on January 4th. Given the many uses of NIMBY as an insult on this forum, I thought it was worth posting the entire article, which I happen to completely agree with.

Nimbyism should be applauded, not despised
There are certain well-used contemporary clichés which are more than lazy verbal shortcuts. They represent clichés of the mind and the heart. Substitutes for thought, they are weapons used by the spin-merchants of commerce and politics. They simplify complexity and smother debate.
A perfect example lies in that brutally neat little word, "nimby". No definition is now required. We all know that nimbyism is the placing of selfish individual wants before the common good. While the world is warming up and jobs are needed, the nimbies crouch down behind their privet hedges, shouting "Not in my back yard!". Comfortable, middle-class and blinkered, they fret about their view, their quality of life, the value of their property. It's just me-me-me with that lot. Irresponsible and self-protective, they are enemies of progress - sometimes enemies of the very planet on which we live.
Or so the cliché goes, propagated unquestioningly by politicians and the press alike. This week Labour's official environmental lobby group Sera wheeled it out while complaining about what it believes is impeding the spread of wind turbine developments across the country. The problem was caused by "nimby councillors" who opposed planning permission, said Sera.
Perhaps it is time to look beyond the cliché and ask, in the manner of the old Persil ads: what is a nimby? The truth is that the values a nimby defends were, until very recently, those which most environmentally-minded people would support. The nimby believes that to contribute to a better world a person should start with the one area over which he or she can have some influence: the local community and landscape.

That influence might involve litter, vandalism, transport, the use of land. At its core is the idea that the local should be balanced against the national. Action in a person's own area is rarely glamorous - it involves work and application - but, the nimby believes, it is worth more than any number of warm words about the state of Planet Earth. The nimby protects the small against the big.

Those with a threatened "back yard" (a sneering phrase which can be used to describe most of Britain) will know just how powerful the outside forces of profit, politics and populism now are. I had written around the subject in the past but until last year, when an industrial wind turbine development was proposed on a site between four nearby villages, I had little idea how much emotion and venom it provoked.

Something truly strange has happened, I discovered. The sort of people whose environmental values I thought I shared were now enthusiastic supporters of a policy which, if applied in this back yard, would violate a stretch of countryside that down the centuries has provided pleasure for humans and habitat for wildlife. Even more bizarrely, the new hero of the hour was the developer, a large and wealthy firm, openly and frankly motivated by the massive potential profits offered by public subsidies. Lastly, in this most selfish of ages, it was those arguing that an enormous development affecting the lives of those living in local villages was a wasteful and wrong-headed approach to climate change who were demonised. These were the selfish ones - the nimbies.

The tell-tale clichés of the moment are now all around us. They are drummed into the heads of our schoolchildren. We should each "do our bit" because "every little bit helps". These simple-minded and usefully vague invocations remove any need to think and plan sensibly around renewable energy, offering instead a crude emotionalism.

When big business and big politics are trying to discredit anyone impertinent enough to question their motives, there are more crooked clichés. Opposition, it is said, comes from "a vocal minority of local people". Any planning department that dares to question whether an area should be transformed is described as "sluggish" or "clogged up".

In the face of this prejudice and propaganda, it takes courage to be a nimby. The qualities of a particular area will seem insignificant beside the fate of the earth. Set against big, sexy statistics concerning the future of mankind, the future of a moorland, a wood, some fields, a village, will seem puny. But it is not. It is in these places that a nation's soul resides; they are too important to be obliterated in a mood of emotion and anxiety for some nebulous, ill-defined national interest.

These things have been known in the past and, although they are currently drowned out by dishonest clichés, will probably be understood in the future. In the meantime, anyone brave enough to speak up for them around the country deserves gratitude not sneers. The nimby is one of the unsung heroes of these very odd times.

[Rheghead]

I wonder how many jobs we'd have if we were all effective NIMBYs?

No Dounreay, no railways, no nothing.

[mareng]

I wonder how many jobs we'd have if we were all effective NIMBYs?

No Dounreay, no railways, no nothing.

So very true...........

[NickInTheNorth]

From my reading of the article you quote the writer is not truly discussing NIMBY'ism, which to my mind is the attitude of don't build that (undesired object) near me, build it a little distance away. For example the recent debate on here regarding the new workshop at Bower. Many suggestions of not at Bower, build it in Wick or Thurso at some industrial estate. Thus no argument against it in principle, purely Not In My Back Yard.

It did not involve any thought as to the needs of planet earth versus the local environment.

NIMBY'ism is not about global scale discussion, it is local displacement of problems away from your immediate locale.

[scorrie]

From my reading of the article you quote the writer is not truly discussing NIMBY'ism, which to my mind is the attitude of don't build that (undesired object) near me, build it a little distance away. For example the recent debate on here regarding the new workshop at Bower. Many suggestions of not at Bower, build it in Wick or Thurso at some industrial estate. Thus no argument against it in principle, purely Not In My Back Yard.

It did not involve any thought as to the needs of planet earth versus the local environment.

NIMBY'ism is not about global scale discussion, it is local displacement of problems away from your immediate locale.

You are right. The article is not about Nimbyism. The article is a long-winded waffle pretending that "Nimbys" are simply little people taking on the big boys, when the fact is that, by the very definition (allegedly no longer required!!) Nimbys only desire that the rape of the countryside, or whatever, takes place somewhere else. Nimby=Double Standards, applaud that if you wish!!

[badger]

From my reading of the article you quote the writer is not truly discussing NIMBY'ism, which to my mind is the attitude of don't build that (undesired object) near me, build it a little distance away. For example the recent debate on here regarding the new workshop at Bower. Many suggestions of not at Bower, build it in Wick or Thurso at some industrial estate. Thus no argument against it in principle, purely Not In My Back Yard.

It did not involve any thought as to the needs of planet earth versus the local environment.

NIMBY'ism is not about global scale discussion, it is local displacement of problems away from your immediate locale.

Railways and roads, planes even, are required for people to travel so have to be built close to where people live. I have frequently lived in places where the railway was close to the back of houses, busy roads in front and flight paths overhead. If a new road is required, the people living in houses affected should be properly compensated. Windfarms are more complicated as the damage they do to people and the environment has to be balanced against the need for the energy produced. There is no mention of compensation here for neighbours. Certain developments however, unlike road and rail, can and should be sited in suitable locations. The place for a large, noisy factory accompanied by a huge increase in traffic, both large and small, is not a quiet residential/agricultural village – it is in an existing industrial estate where it would be surrounded by other factories and close to where the end product will be required. Again, no mention of compensation for those affected.

The place for a farm with animals is not in the middle of a town or business park but in the countryside. A working farm has large barns, which may not be things of great beauty, and can be noisy – cows, sheep, tractors which sometimes have to work at night with headlights on. All perfectly proper and appropriate in an agricultural community. New barns have appeared in several fields near me – that’s great seeing more people who believe they can make some living from the land.

Do you really want to see the whole of Britain turned into one large industrial/housing estate with no countryside left? How else is one to keep what countryside we have without protecting one’s own little bit of it? No-one else is going to. Or maybe you really don’t care.

[NickInTheNorth]

Hi Badger

I was not trying to reignite the Bower debate, merely using it to illustrate my understanding of what is meant by NIMBY, and to highlight the simple fact that I did not believe the article quoted was actyally discussing NIMBY'ism.

I'd be very interested in your views of the article.

[spurtle]

Hi Badger

I was not trying to reignite the Bower debate, merely using it to illustrate my understanding of what is meant by NIMBY, and to highlight the simple fact that I did not believe the article quoted was actyally discussing NIMBY'ism.

I'd be very interested in your views of the article.

If you don't care about your back yard, don't expect anyone else to.

[badger]

Hi Badger

I was not trying to reignite the Bower debate, merely using it to illustrate my understanding of what is meant by NIMBY, and to highlight the simple fact that I did not believe the article quoted was actyally discussing NIMBY'ism.

I'd be very interested in your views of the article.

Hi Nick

I think it was certainly worth stating if only because the accusation of being a NIMBY is thrown up far too often by those who are opposed over some development or other, usually to make themselves money although obviously not in the case of roads. In one paragraph the writer seems to be arguing against him(her?)self by decrying the use of phrases such as "do our bit" and "every little helps" which is exactly what I thought he was advocating.

In an ideal world power stations and other nasty things would be located near enough to the populations they serve to be useful but not so close they ruin the lives of said population. So I suppose you could put all the industry on one side with a nice little wood in between that and the houses, which of course would be surrounded by green belt. There would have to be a railway and roads but the motorway would be a bypass. You could even, if you believed in such things, have a windfarm as part of the industry. In between these settlements would be stretches of countryside with farms, wilderness and small villages for those who prefer to live in the country. Fortunately I think there are as many people who like living in big cities as there are those who prefer the country.

Since we are a free country and would never allow ourselves to be organised like this, I believe you have to have small bands of people who will fight to preserve what countryside we have left without being called NIMBYs.

If we were ruled by people who bothered to learn their jobs, stayed in post for more than 5 minutes and took the long view, again I don't think we would have nearly so many issues. The planning system is chaotic. The way we produce energy is a mess. The way we don't conserve it is deplorable.

Oops - time to get off my soap box.

[Green_not_greed]

If you don't care about your back yard, don't expect anyone else to.

Agreed. Why, for instance, should West Caithness be further ravaged by the Baillie Wind Farm when Scotland already meets its 2010 renewables targets, and is well on its way to meeting the 2020 targets?

The output from Baillie can only be used to bolster the UK's renewables targets - because England is so far behind Scotland and Wales. If taxpayer's money and electricity customer's money has to be used to supplement funding for such a development, surely it gives far better value to all of us to construct it closer to where the power is needed - i.e. in the English Midlands - thus saving 15% transmission losses (ref Civil Engineering Nov 2005, vol 158) and hence also being better for the planet by therefore saving 15% more CO2 than constructing the same development in Caithness.

GNG

[Highland Laddie]

Hi Nick

The planning system is chaotic. The way we produce energy is a mess. The way we don't conserve it is deplorable.

Oops - time to get off my soap box.

Things will be better this week (i think) when Gordon Brown announces the building of the first 8 of 20 new nuclear power stations.

[MadPict]

I'm not a NIMBY - I'm a BANANA......






Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody....

[Boozeburglar]

For example the recent debate on here regarding the new workshop at Bower. Many suggestions of not at Bower, build it in Wick or Thurso at some industrial estate. Thus no argument against it in principle, purely Not In My Back Yard.

I place great value on the principle that industrial sites should accommodate industrial developments, and this supports the argument that they should not be allowed in everyone's 'back yards'. We have zoning to guide planning, and this was decided nationally, not by so called 'nimbys'. The concept of separation of rural and urban, industrial and agricultural, derives from a shared interest in preserving the character of our countryside and natural heritage.

This concept has national and global importance. If we are to devalue our rural landscape in this way, how can we argue for the protection of similar worldwide?

[Cattach]

This article was published in the Independent on January 4th. Given the many uses of NIMBY as an insult on this forum, I thought it was worth posting the entire article, which I happen to completely agree with.

Nimbyism should be applauded, not despised
There are certain well-used contemporary clichés which are more than lazy verbal shortcuts. They represent clichés of the mind and the heart. Substitutes for thought, they are weapons used by the spin-merchants of commerce and politics. They simplify complexity and smother debate.
A perfect example lies in that brutally neat little word, "nimby". No definition is now required. We all know that nimbyism is the placing of selfish individual wants before the common good. While the world is warming up and jobs are needed, the nimbies crouch down behind their privet hedges, shouting "Not in my back yard!". Comfortable, middle-class and blinkered, they fret about their view, their quality of life, the value of their property. It's just me-me-me with that lot. Irresponsible and self-protective, they are enemies of progress - sometimes enemies of the very planet on which we live.
Or so the cliché goes, propagated unquestioningly by politicians and the press alike. This week Labour's official environmental lobby group Sera wheeled it out while complaining about what it believes is impeding the spread of wind turbine developments across the country. The problem was caused by "nimby councillors" who opposed planning permission, said Sera.
Perhaps it is time to look beyond the cliché and ask, in the manner of the old Persil ads: what is a nimby? The truth is that the values a nimby defends were, until very recently, those which most environmentally-minded people would support. The nimby believes that to contribute to a better world a person should start with the one area over which he or she can have some influence: the local community and landscape.

That influence might involve litter, vandalism, transport, the use of land. At its core is the idea that the local should be balanced against the national. Action in a person's own area is rarely glamorous - it involves work and application - but, the nimby believes, it is worth more than any number of warm words about the state of Planet Earth. The nimby protects the small against the big.

Those with a threatened "back yard" (a sneering phrase which can be used to describe most of Britain) will know just how powerful the outside forces of profit, politics and populism now are. I had written around the subject in the past but until last year, when an industrial wind turbine development was proposed on a site between four nearby villages, I had little idea how much emotion and venom it provoked.

Something truly strange has happened, I discovered. The sort of people whose environmental values I thought I shared were now enthusiastic supporters of a policy which, if applied in this back yard, would violate a stretch of countryside that down the centuries has provided pleasure for humans and habitat for wildlife. Even more bizarrely, the new hero of the hour was the developer, a large and wealthy firm, openly and frankly motivated by the massive potential profits offered by public subsidies. Lastly, in this most selfish of ages, it was those arguing that an enormous development affecting the lives of those living in local villages was a wasteful and wrong-headed approach to climate change who were demonised. These were the selfish ones - the nimbies.

The tell-tale clichés of the moment are now all around us. They are drummed into the heads of our schoolchildren. We should each "do our bit" because "every little bit helps". These simple-minded and usefully vague invocations remove any need to think and plan sensibly around renewable energy, offering instead a crude emotionalism.

When big business and big politics are trying to discredit anyone impertinent enough to question their motives, there are more crooked clichés. Opposition, it is said, comes from "a vocal minority of local people". Any planning department that dares to question whether an area should be transformed is described as "sluggish" or "clogged up".

In the face of this prejudice and propaganda, it takes courage to be a nimby. The qualities of a particular area will seem insignificant beside the fate of the earth. Set against big, sexy statistics concerning the future of mankind, the future of a moorland, a wood, some fields, a village, will seem puny. But it is not. It is in these places that a nation's soul resides; they are too important to be obliterated in a mood of emotion and anxiety for some nebulous, ill-defined national interest.

These things have been known in the past and, although they are currently drowned out by dishonest clichés, will probably be understood in the future. In the meantime, anyone brave enough to speak up for them around the country deserves gratitude not sneers. The nimby is one of the unsung heroes of these very odd times.

'No Long Posts in My Back Yard' please. Most people never read then but just scan a few bits and 'switch off'.

[badger]

Nobody says you have to read them if you don't want to but why deprive those who do? How do you know what "most people" do? Many people now read books online. It's all about choice.

[ywindythesecond]

I'm not a NIMBY - I'm a BANANA......
Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody....

I had a chat with a chap recently who vigorously defended his right to do anything he wanted on his own land, regardless of its effect on anyone else and in spite of civilised laws giving general protection from such actions eg planning.
A new breed? IMBYASY perhaps?
Not really, the land he owns stands to benefit from windfarm development. It is far enough away from his home but still near enough to affect his neighbours (and of course, people actually living close to it).

IMBASY ----In My Back Yard And Stuff You-- (and I can go elsewhere with the money!)

I like spurtle's statement about if you wont defend your own interests, nobody will. Why are the interests of people who wish to make lots of money at your expense more noble or worthy than your's?

[Green_not_greed]

[quote=ywindythesecond;320644]I had a chat with a chap recently who vigorously defended his right to do anything he wanted on his own land, regardless of its effect on anyone else and in spite of civilised laws giving general protection from such actions eg planning.
A new breed? IMBYASY perhaps?
quote]

I suggest POTTY may be more appropriate!

[Highland Laddie]

I place great value on the principle that industrial sites should accommodate industrial developments, and this supports the argument that they should not be allowed in everyone's 'back yards'. We have zoning to guide planning, and this was decided nationally, not by so called 'nimbys'. The concept of separation of rural and urban, industrial and agricultural, derives from a shared interest in preserving the character of our countryside and natural heritage.

This concept has national and global importance. If we are to devalue our rural landscape in this way, how can we argue for the protection of similar worldwide?

Quite right to,
so Asda should not be allowed to build in Thurso on the green field site that they prefer.