Talk:NIMBY

Don't wanna get involved until it's sorted but don't forget the Guantanamo relocation. thing. 16:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You ruined the surprise of what a future article for my Bored Stiff Month project was going to feature! Damn your intelligence, Toast! --Irrational Atheist (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should this mention wp:Cape_Wind? One of the biggest problems with the project is exactly whose view it would be affecting. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NIMBY is generally reserved for arguments that something should be built to benefit a community, so long as it isn't built near the community. Prisons are getting overpopulated, so there should be a new jail built! Just it shouldn't be built near my neighborhood, where I shop, by my office, etc. NIMBY became popular in the 70s and 80s with the want to build more nuclear power plants, but 3-Mile and Chernobyl made too many people not want nuke power anywhere near them. Just get them the cheap and plentiful power it provides. --Irrational Atheist (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could it also involve an event occurring in someone's neighborhood? Here in Pittsburgh, there is talk about holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad here.  People are saying that "I'm not real comfortable having the trial here n' 'at. (pardon the Pittsburghese)  What if the terrorists got something planned?  Have it in New York or something."  To me that seems like a fitting NIMBY situation.  Same thing happened when we hosted G8 last year.   18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"reverse" NIMBYism
What about stuff that doesn't make sense being put everywhere (or where funds don't permit it) and people are opposed to it, if it does not directly benefit them. For example if a subway is to be extended into neighborhood A but neighborhood B does not (yet) get a new subway and as such votes against the half cent sales tax necessary to pay for said subway. This can even be combined with NIMBYism, as evidenced by the Cologne-Frankfurt HSR line, that has two stops only twenty kilometers apart (Limburg and Montabaur) that are mostly there to please the state governors who threatened to block the project if "their" state would not get a station. Of course the fact that those stations exist greatly helped ease NIMBY concerns as well... 141.30.210.129 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be more like pork, or at least a variant of it, wherein the project as a whole may be sensible, but then senseless elements are tagged on to appease special (local) interests.
 * I know of an example from my home country in which a regional cross-partyThis system has multiple political parties, so a US equivalent would be bipartisan cabal of national parliamentarians managed to get a ridiculous amount of highways by extracting promises to add extra infrastructure spending in their particular region every time a big national infrastructure project was voted on. This also led to "creative accounting" to avoid asking for the actual sums needed (or extra subsequent funding) in order to avoid having to buy off this so-called "highway mafia" with yet more infrastructure spending. Definitely one of the less salubrious aspects of democratic politics. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well there sure is some overlap with pork (which of course only applies if other people do it, just like NIMBY). But sometimes there is a "if I don't get it, nobody should" attitude that blocks all infrastructure funding unless it specifically benefits me/my district/"my people". This even extends in a sense to the classic suburban car people arguing against spending for a subway "nobody rides". 141.30.210.129 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, though I still think that infrastructure projects which add additional taxes which the non-beneficiaries don't want to pay are more reminiscent of pork (in the sense that they want to avoid expenditures which is not that different from wanting to attract increased spending). The more "pure" form of reverse NIMBYism would be a case when non-beneficiaries block an infrastructure project despite not having to cough up any extra funds for it, but I suspect such cases to be relatively rare since such a rather pointless act of political sabotage would piss off other political players and would thus be highly likely return to bite the spoilsports on the ass when they want to get something approved in the future. ScepticWombat (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't heard of any project that was outright stopped because of "reverse-NIMBYism" but the threat of stopping a project or making the planning process excruciatingly long is often used by local power brokers to get favorable alignments. Examples are This German railway project connecting Leipzig and Nürnberg... via Erfurt. (the latter being due to the than prime minister of Thuringia being best buddies with chancellor Kohl) Or this German railway project with two stops 20 km from each other... on a high speed line 141.30.210.129 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know of an ongoing example from my home country (it still hangs in the balance) where the rail company most emphatically does not want a stop in a specific provincial town, but because a politician with local buddies promised it and the new station has now been almost completed, it will probably end up as an official stop anyway. Still, that's what I'd call pork as it's pretty similar to the US system of earmarks and their accompanying tactics of Members of Congress either having to vote for completely unconnected funding tagged onto necessary spending bills (e.g. the military budget or the farm bill) or more or less explicit threats by Members of Congress that they will not support some important piece of legislation unless they get some pork for their local patronage systems. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

it might be prudent than to mention pork with a one liner explanation that is in essence the same thing in reverse... 19:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverse NIMBYism part 2
The things you actually want in your locality - aka the Waitrose Effect. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Definition
I'm proposing to revise the definition of NIMBY in the opening salvo. Currently it is: "This is the term usually given to arguments from groups or individuals who demand a controversial development be built, as long as it is not built anywhere near where they live and work."

I propose to change this to: "This is the term usually given to groups or individuals who oppose a new development, infrastructure or other project by relying entirely or primarily on arguments that it should not built near where they live rather than any relative merits or drawbacks of the proposal itself" (changes highlighted in italics).

The reasons for this are:


 * 'NIMBY' is most commonly applied to individuals or groups rather than arguments
 * The term is much broader than just development or urban planning issues (see https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/08/09/melbourne-skyrail-opposition-ridiculous-nimbys/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/07/26/a-denver-newscasters-epic-takedown-of-bike-lane-nimbys/ and others for examples)
 * NIMBY arguments are rarely used as the sole basis for opposing something. They are often wrapped up in other prejudice, ad hominem and other irrational assertions (e.g. racism, classism)

Happy to discuss below. If there's no response within a couple of weeks or sooner, I'll probably just make the change and we can talk about it further afterwards. Gremlins (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Neither is really right. NIMBYs (I'm hip deep in them right now) exaggerate small, usually already addressed concerns (The Traffic!  The Sewage!  The Super Special Characteristics of our 100% Unique Neighborhood!) but would rather pound a rusty nail into their eyeball than admit where their strong emotions are actually coming from.  As to your last point, you need to differentiate between NIMBY arguments ("Density!") and NIMBY motivation (Racism); they almost never intersect.  - Immigrant laborer (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Good points, I think there should be a way to incorporate both of those aspects into the definition at the beginning of the article as the current one covers neither very well. Any suggestions? Gremlins (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)