BY JOELLEN COLLINS
“Oh, he’s just a Nimby,” and “Nimbys should shut up and let it be” are just two of the statements I’ve heard in the past several months whenever a new project, whether residential, commercial or industrial, comes before those concerned about its impact on its environment. I have mixed feelings about this label.
As almost anyone knows, the acronym NIMBY stands for “not in my backyard.” It is used to describe opposition by local citizens to the locating in their neighborhood of a civil project that, though needed by the larger community, is considered unsightly, dangerous, or likely to lead to decreased property values. This is generally used as a pejorative phrase, and is often applied to any opponent of a new project.
Certainly in small towns, like those in the Wood River Valley, we are more directly affected by the construction of entities more noticeable than if they were located in a city. Because so many of us know each other, we are also openly often involved in the concurrent issues over these new propositions.
Many residents certainly believe in the right to profit from ownership of one’s property. However, this concept is often divisive. If we are proponent owners, we might urge citizens that a particular endeavor is necessary, not unsightly or dangerous, unlikely to decrease property values and, furthermore, is none of anyone else’s business. Indeed, some of us might wish we owned a property rewarding to us if only we didn’t have to abide by city, county and state regulations, often time-consuming and expensive to fulfill.
However, Nimbys might say that they also have property rights that support local governmental concerns reflected in established zoning and ordinance provisions. They must protect their homes and surrounding areas, even at the cost to the owners of the disputed parcel who may wish to create a location that may not fill mandated standards.
Recently, I attended a planning and zoning meeting where two statements stimulated my concern. A developer said if neighbors dislike a proposal, they should just move. Later, a self-described Nimby (who was proud of that label) refuted that assertion, noting that he accepted some less than ideal situations when purchasing his neighboring property but certainly didn’t think that such an obtrusive use of land as this would ever be proposed at this place. People began to be more nasty in relaying their feelings,
One of the delights of life in our Valley is that we often encounter people we like or respect, which makes it even harder to object to another’s wishes when they conflict with ours. While we engage in some impersonal encounters here, it is likely that one’s opponents will be omnipresent at markets or post offices.
Studying the ramifications of the term “Nimby” enforced my opinion that we must continue to be determinably civil, not aggressively confrontational, behaving in our own little space of this earth as we wish other people would in conflicts well beyond our intimate enclave.
Manners matter.
