NIMBY Gone Wild

Many decades ago, the acronym NIMBY was created to describe a growing phenomenon. NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard. It is the essence of the position taken by folks who do not oppose some particular sort of development or installation, but who want it far from where they live. A good example might be the construction of a prison. Everyone would agree that prisons have to be built, but many would also want to make sure that the prisons are built far from their homes.

Fifty years or so ago another aspect of so called land use planning also came alive. The idea that a building could have value to a community over and above the worth of the building to the actual owner was given a weight that it had never had previously. The catalyst for the movement was the demolition of the old Penn Station in New York City and its replacement with Madison Square Garden and the underground replacement for Penn Station. The old architectural elegance of the station was replaced with a utilitarian station with all the charm of the subway. The movement to protect historical buildings was born.

Today, we have managed in this country to let these two threads run wild. People who own land or buildings can no longer assume that they will be able to use that property in the way that makes the most economic sense. Recently, my own town had a multi-year battle over whether or not an old restaurant on a main commercial road could be replaced with a bank. The restaurant had been housed in a structure originally built to be a Dairy Queen, so it had no historical significance. A few folks in the neighborhood, however, objected to the demolition of the restaurant building and its replacement with a modern bank building on the grounds that there were already "too many" banks in that area. In other words, a few of the folks who lived nearby wanted to determine the mix of businesses that could locate in the town. The battle raged over the site, and because the bank involved had deep pockets, the bank eventually won. A non-descript restaurant was replaced with a new, non-descript bank.

Elsewhere, similar battles are playing out. The town in Pennsylvania where I was raised decided to pass legislation to make a portion of it into an historic district. In all fairness, there was nothing historic about the area; it was a decaying business district with inadequate parking that had been built for the most part in the early 20th century. The first thing that the local property gurus did was to ban certain types of businesses from locating into the area. This led first to empty stores and was followed lower rents and then by a rush of nail salons into the area. Any property owner who wanted to improve his building was now also faced with new layers of bureaucracy with which to contend. Every change from items as small as new windows or signs to the biggest modifications had to be approved by the appropriate committees and agencies. Each approval took many months. As a result, development was discouraged and decay of the area went further.

This kind of attitude has also permeated much larger issues. One of the best known is the windmill farm that was to be constructed in the water off of Cape Cod. Opposition arose since the windmills would be only a few miles out at sea and would be visible from the shore. Many folks did not want their ocean views to include these green energy structures. When the Kennedy family got involved to protect the view from their Hyannisport compound, the wind energy farm was killed.

The simple truth is that NIMBY has run amok. We are giving "neighbors" too much say in the control of land. Designation of general types of land usage like commercial or residential through zoning is fine. Micromanagement of the property owned by others is not.