NIMBYism (Not In My Backyard) refers to the protectionist attitudes of, and oppositional tactics adopted by, community groups facing an unwelcome development in their neighborhoods. NIMBYism is an acute sociopolitical problem since it typically involves opposition to projects that place most of the burden on those living closest to the site while dispersing benefits to the much wider community (e.g., city, region, or nation). Waste disposal and landfill sites, hazardous waste and nuclear facilities, airports, homeless shelters, low-income housing, prisons, schools, and even convention centers and sporting stadiums all pose NIMBY problems.

In the United States, since the 1970s NIMBY opposition has drastically hampered the siting of many facilities considered important and even necessary to the well-being of the overall polity. Some frustrated observers have developed a series of wry acronyms to classify NIMBY attitudes. These include NOOS (Not On Our Street), BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything), and NIMTOO (Not In My Term Of Office), which reflects the propensity of local politicians to ride NIMBY waves.

The NIMBY problem is inherent in any democracy and especially any form of government that recognizes the right of local residents to have input into decisions that affect them. The central difficulty is that polities that allow local residents to play a significant role in planning decisions regarding their neighborhoods are likely to end up with a dearth of socially needed projects. This is because the benefits of NIMBY projects are usually spread broadly among a large population, while the drawbacks and costs of these projects tend to be focused in concentrated form on the small group who inhabit the host community. The latter are therefore highly motivated to oppose the project strenuously. However, because the benefits of the project are diffused over the broad community, the beneficiaries are often less vocal than the opposition groups.

One solution to the unequal distribution of costs and benefits that characterize NIMBY problems is to use part of the economic surplus that would result if the project was implemented as compensation for local residents (e.g., providing neighborhood parks, lower local taxes, and other desirable amenities). However, redistributive solutions are hampered by a number of obstacles, including transaction costs. These include difficulties in determining who should represent the local community in compensation negotiations; the prevalence of holdouts because some residents may be opposed to the project under any circumstances; residents' fears of possible risk to their homes and neighborhoods; difficulties in getting accurate information about the project's likely costs; and the uncertainty created by the fact that no democratic government can guarantee that future governments will not reverse a particular program or course of action designed to compensate for, or mitigate the impact of, a NIMBY project.

Of course, not all NIMBY projects are, in fact, desirable to the broader community. Thus NIMBYism can halt projects that should never have been proposed in the first place. It can also result in improvements being made to proposed projects that are eventually built.

NIMBYism tends to develop in three stages. In Stage 1, word of the project breaks, and opposition, often in fairly visceral form, starts from those living closest to the proposed project. Indeed, one iron law of NIMBYism is that the closer people reside to a proposed project, the more likely they are to oppose it. In Stage 2, the debate moves into a public arena, and the opposition arguments become more reasoned. Stage 3 often consists of a long, drawn-out conflict, which may involve some kind of arbitration. The winner is often the side with the greatest stamina for a long, drawn-out conflict.

Opposition arguments generally focus on two areas: the possible threat to property values, and safety. With respect to the property values, studies show that oppositionists often wrongly perceive a negative impact on the value of their property. Local property values tend to be more closely associated with broader phenomena rather than specific projects. As regards concerns about safety, these vary with the specific group associated with the project. Most likely to trigger alarm are such substance abusers as drug addicts and alcoholics and certain types of ex-convicts. Next would be those with mental disabilities. Other concerns that opponents commonly express about a project's impact on the neighborhood include fears of more traffic and bringing in unkemptlooking people.

The opposition generally uses a range of tactics--letter writing, marches, political lobbying--but their most effective weapon is the zoning hearing. Since NIMBY projects typically involve a land-use variance, there are usually public hearings at which the opposition can gather strength.

References:

1) Dear, Michael. 1992. "Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome." Journal of the American Planning Association 58:288-300.

2) Richman, Barak D. and Christopher Boerner. 2006. "A Transaction Cost Economizing Approach to Regulation: Understanding the NIMBY Problem and Improving Regulatory Responses." Yale Journal on Regulation 23:29-76.

3) Robinson, Gail. 2001. "Not in My Backyard." Gotham Gazette, April 30.

Free term papers are not written to satisfy your specific instructions. You can use our professional writing services to buy a custom written research paper, term paper, or essay on Argumentative Topics at affordable price. CustomTermPapers is the best solution for those who seek help in writing term papers, essays, and research papers related to Argumentative Topics and other relevant topics.