JUSTIFYING NIMBY
Veikko Eranti 15.6.2010
Not in my slippery slope
Not in my backyard (NIMBY) is a difficult problem to tackle.
The term is widely used (in Finland) as a pejorative dismissal
Good academic definitions are scarce Some scholars argue, that the term
shouldn’t be used at all.
15.6.2010
2
Justifying nimby
Then again…
Intuitively, the consept holds. It seems clear, that some local conflicts
over land use resonate better with larger audience (and the planning officials) than others
Some local conflicts over land use are better justified than others.
15.6.2010
3
Justifying nimby
The Fine People of Haaga
Since 1999, every finnish citizens has had a right to comment proposed plans for parts of the city
New plan for Haaga, a rather well-to-do area in western Helsinki, in 2007. Flats for 700 new inhabitants. One ”sport park” replaced with another Slightly less green area
People of Haaga left all and all 107 comments on the plans
15.6.2010
4
Justifying nimby
Haaga
15.6.2010
5
Justifying nimby
Haaga
15.6.2010Justifying nimby
6
From Citizens to Authorities
The comments… 69 by private person 22 by Housing cooperatives and such Others by NGOs, Shell etc Some were clearly ”organised”, same
comment appeared ca. five times Direct communication between a citizen
and the planning authority The authority even responds!
15.6.2010
7
Justifying nimby
Nimby in Haaga
Most commentators comletely ok with the plan to build new houses in general Some even extensively mention how they
understand the city’s rationale in the plan …but nobody want’s them in Haaga – or
at least not in their part of Haaga For me, this is the core of nimby. Not
against the phenomenom as such, just don’t want it in my spesific backyard
15.6.2010
8
Justifying nimby
Assumptions
1. The citizens oppose new buildings because of their location, not as such
2. New buildings could also be built somewhere else.
3. The citizens will use only arguments they think have persuasive power (Strategic, dear Watson!)
4. The citizens have the capabilities needed in constructing a persuasive argument
15.6.2010
9
Justifying nimby
What’s in a Comment
It’s all there We the people of Haaga despise these new
buildings The planning provess hasn’t been
transparent Prices of the flats will go down Less green area = less beautiful places to
relax, less birds etc. The tradition of the area demands a more
spacious plan This famous professor told that children need
more open space between the buildings15.6.2010
10
Justifying nimby
Three Different Justifications1. Nimby as a pure market argument2. Nimby as a civic argument3. Nimby as a domestic argument
15.6.2010
11
Justifying nimby
Nimby as a pure market argument
Why should I suffer the negative consequences of this building project just because I live in this particular place? I had no way of knowing that this thing would be built here when I bought/rented my flat.
I’m going to suffer (economically).
15.6.2010
12
Justifying nimby
Nimby as a Civic Argument
We the inhabitants of this part of the city should have the final say about what gets built and what doesn’t.
(And we happen to like it the way it is right now.)
15.6.2010
13
Justifying nimby
Nimby as a domestic argument
The area is mighty fine the way it is right now, and it should stay the way it is, because it has been like this for years, even centuries.
No changes should be made.
15.6.2010
14
Justifying nimby
Are these good arguments?
It is hard to reason with the market argument Clearly, putting a waste processing plant
somewhere and not anywhere else is a bit unfair. Then again, that is the cost of living in cities:
waste needs to be processed, poor people have to have access to basic housing (in Finland, the winter is even chillier than the summer)
The domestic/traditionalist argument has little persuasive power, but some people seem to respond nicely to it
15.6.2010
15
Justifying nimby
The Civic Problems
We the people of Haaga hereby claim this land The justification is based on the construction of
group of people This group, informal by nature, then makes the
claim that groups like these should have certain rights
The group is, however, constructed, arbitrary, maybe even imaginary It doesn’t have a spokesperson or any other legitimate
actors in a way many other groups in the civic category do.
This group is not a recognized actor nor does it have any legal rights.
All of it’s members have, though.
15.6.2010
16
Justifying nimby
Continued
15.6.2010Justifying nimby
17
No reference is made to common good At least the citizens think this is an idea
that should resonate within the planning authority
Even if we accept the People of Haaga as a legitimate civic group, they still act only based on what’s good for themselves. …acting as an interest group.
Conclusions, Questions etc.
Justifications: based on a shared order of worth
Nimby: the negative side of counter-democracy, hiding private gain arguments in the veils of accepted justifications?
What do we accept as the legitimate basis for a civic group?
Common good vs. private gain Thanks to Risto, Markku, Eeva and Tuomas
and all the other thesis-grinders
15.6.2010
18
Justifying nimby
Recommended
