NIMBY
Guide to Recognizing
Behavior
What’s a NIMBY?
In community discussions, particularly those surrounding development or change, it's not uncommon to encounter resistance. While some concerns may be valid, others stem from a "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) mindset. Dealing with this can be very frustrating, but labeling someone a NIMBY can be counterproductive, akin to calling someone a racist. You will never win an argument about who someone is - you are much more likely to win an argument about what they said or did. Instead, focus on identifying and calling out specific NIMBY behaviors. These behaviors show up when someone doesn’t have coherent policy reasons for what they are requesting, or more likely, does not understand the issues well enough to formulate coherent policy reasons. The behaviors described below are:
Common NIMBY Behaviors
A Focus on Process Instead of Substance
Individuals fixate on minor procedural details or technicalities to delay or obstruct projects, often losing sight of the overall benefits or goals. This is how, for example, a 1.4-mile segment of bike lane can take over 25 years to build. The opponents do not actually care about the environment, but were willing to use SEPA to force environmental review after environmental review, despite the fact that building a bike lane has negligible negative environmental impacts and significant positive ones. Vague remarks about “lack of transparency”, “insufficient environmental study” (for things that are clearly good for the environment), but no actual constructive criticism, are a strong sign of NIMBY behavior.
Unsubstantiated Claims to Support Similar Projects or Goals
One of the most common NIMBY tactics is to try to portray a reasonable position by claiming that while they are against this particular project/plan, they are in favor of the end goals. This assertion is made with little to no evidence. Examples include:
“I am a cyclist, but I think this bike lane shouldn’t happen.”
What bike infrastructure projects has the person supported?“I believe in growth and housing affordability, but I just don’t think the housing should go here.”
What growth has the person expressed support for in the past? When have they spoken up in favor of building more housing, spending more on subsidizing housing, and/or lowering the costs associated with building housing?
If those claims are just pulled out of thin air but have nothing to back them up, beeware!
Catastrophizing
Catastrophizing means exaggerating potential negative impacts or consequences, often painting worst-case scenarios as inevitable. It is also often accompanied by a complete discounting of a city’s ability to make adjustments that mitigate, compensate for, or altogether avoid negative consequences.
By painting a dire picture of the future, often involving unrealistic worst-case scenarios, some people aim to mobilize public opposition and discourage projects from going forward. This tactic can be particularly effective because it taps into people's natural fear of change and uncertainty, making it difficult to counter with factual information or rational arguments. Here are some examples:
"If this development is approved, our neighborhood will be overrun by traffic, noise, and crime."
"These new apartments will lower property values and destroy the character of our community."
"This development will ruin our children's future by overcrowding schools and limiting their opportunities."
"Expanding the light rail into our neighborhood will bring crime, drug addicts, and homeless people to our quiet streets."
NIMBY claims like these often rely on stereotypes, unfounded assumptions, or fallacious reasoning.
Fatalistic Apathy
In order to derail efforts to solve a problem, one NIMBY tactic is to portray the problem as unsolvable. The argument is essentially that the problem cannot be solved (an assertion often made without any evidence), so we should not even try. Some examples:
“Our city’s carbon emissions are only a drop in the global bucket, so we shouldn’t bother making changes to try to fight climate change.”
“People here simply love their cars too much and will never take the bus, walk, or ride a bike.”
“Our community will never be ‘affordable’ again. The housing problem can be improved, but not solved.”
“I saw some new houses get built and they were expensive, so I guess building new houses cannot improve the affordability of the overall market.”
These arguments are reminiscent of the “learned incompetence” that toddlers and young children exhibit. Are experts in the field agreeing that the problem is unsolvable? Or is that just a baseless assertion whose consequences are conveniently aligned with the interests of the person asserting it?
Continued Repetition of Debunked and Disproven Claims
When faced with evidence that the claims they are making are inaccurate, some people will simply double down on those statements. Often this is because what they are saying “feels true” or seems plausible on the surface. Examples:
“If the we decide to study something, that thing will definitely happen.”
“Building quality connected bike infrastructure does not increase bicycle usage.”
“Families only want to live in detached single-family homes.”
“Because the individual new units are expensive, building new housing does not lower housing costs.”
“Density creates transportation problems.”
Reliance on Sound Bites and Simplistic Language
This tactic aims to create an easily digestible narrative that resonates with emotions rather than appealing to logic. By casting complex issues in overly simplistic terms, people can obscure the actual mechanisms and processes at work at the heart of an issue. This approach can be effective in swaying public opinion, particularly when dealing with topics that are difficult to understand or emotionally charged. However, it ultimately hinders constructive dialogue and prevents a comprehensive understanding of the issues at hand - which is exactly the goal.
Recursive Requests for More Detail and Specificity
This tactic involves constantly demanding additional information or clarification, often to an unreasonable degree. While seeking details and specificity is important for informed decision-making, this behavior can be used to delay or obstruct progress. By continually raising new questions or demanding ever-increasing levels of detail, they can create an endless cycle of information gathering that effectively prevents any action from being taken. It’s a recurring theme, but this is like when a child constantly responds to every single statement or request with “why?” It’s clear they don’t want the answer - they probably aren’t even paying attention to it. They just want you to keep wasting your time.