Report a Comment

@David Alpert, et al.,

I read through that last post, and immediately latched onto Kim's first comment - which made perfect sense to me. I was actually surprised to see you, David, so dismissive of it. But, that's up to you. If you've always used the term NIMBY in exactly and only those cases that deserved it (and none of us commenters would know your project details, of course - an impossible request of Kim on your part), then I don't have a problem with it. I might disagree on whether that was appropriate strategy, but that's about it.

I also figured out why NIMBY has a negative connotation - why it could even be used as a pejorative term. There is, of course, all the surrounding negative implications of that term - backwardness, provincialism, etc. - but the key is 'hypocrisy'. If you label someone NIMBY, you are calling them a hypocrite. If it's true, and you want that battle, go for it - do your thing, and have fun fighting it out in front of your town council.

But if it's not true, then you shouldn't go for it - it's not fair, and it makes my life more difficult as I try to convince people that smart development is the path to all that is good.

More notes:

* Huge developments are not necessary. Build smaller, high-density developments. Lower profits? Too bad.

* If developers actually cared about good community relations, they would practice them by going to neighborhood groups first. They should even sign legally-binding MoUs.

* People who live somewhere are concerned about their quality of life and the culture of their neighborhoods, and they have that right. Culture is important. If they don't care to participate in the 'economic development' of their neighborhood, then they should be able to object on any number of grounds, none, some, or all of which may be valid - and they may have nothing to do with our beloved 'density'. The NIMBYs in New London, Connecticut, for instance, didn't get the memo.

[It'd be helpful to have permalinks to comments. They're already there - you just need to drop in a character.]

That is all.

by Peter on Oct 14, 2008 11:03 am • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam