
Attack of the Fifty-Foot NIMBYs - jmias
http://i.stanford.edu/~ullman/pub/nimby.html
======
Anechoic
I've been on both sides of public project hearings, representing proponents
who want to build or expand a project, and project opponents who want to block
or reduce the expansion of a project. NIMBYism is very real, from folks who
may just oppose a project on principle unrelated to actual negative effects (I
see this a lot on transit projects from folks who are just opposed to public
transportation) to folks who may be uninformed. It can be extremely
frustrating when I have the facts on my side (and even the experts on the
other side agree with me), but there is still opposition based based on
"feelings."

That said, the public process in general (aside from NIMBYs) is necessary and
useful. The most prominent example from my experience is the public opposition
marshaled by Cambridge MA against the original "Scheme Z" Charles River
crossing plan for the Big Dig. From an engineering point-of-view, it made
perfect sense, but it would have been a hideous monstrosity that the city
would have been stuck with for 50 years. The opposition made the project go
back to the drawing board and resulted in the iconic Zakim bridge. The public
process worked.

In my own direct experience, there have been times when me or my team missed
something on an analysis (we may have mistaken a home for a garage for
example) and the public process makes us aware of that so we can properly
account for impacts. It works. Yet the process can be hijacked by NIMBY's and
if those opponents know who to work the politics, it can cause real problems.

The problem is trying to separate the NIMBYs from the legitimate concerns.
Planners and public staff have been trying to deal with this for decades with
no real progress. If you eliminate the public process, you get the original
Boston Central Artery where the state came in, bulldozed entire neighborhoods
at pennies on the dollar, and constructed an eyesore that divided the city for
decades. With the process, you get the Big Dig where a whole bunch of
interests use Section 4(f), NEPA, MEPA, and Army Corp of Engineer regulations
to blackmail the project into funding dozens of pet projects.

This is definitely an area in need of disruption. If you have ideas, get them
out there.

~~~
forensic
Thanks for your comment. One thing I take away from what you said is that the
solution to problems like this is BETTER government, not ZERO government.

All the libertarians want to use any government problem as an excuse to just
scrap the whole government. But you make it clear that the problem is not ALL
government, the problem is BAD government, and government CAN be improved.

~~~
Anechoic
Yes, I would choose "better government" over "zero government" (although the
libertarian response would be "we're not calling for _no_ government, just
_minimal_ government). That said - I don't really see the path to "better"
government. We have so many competing interests, even at the city level, that
it's very difficult to develop reasonable regulations that are effective yet
fair. That's one of the big problems with environmental regulations and the
public process.

One response would be to push as much of the decision-making process as
possible down to the local level, but that creates its own problem, as well as
inefficiencies.

Obviously, it's a hard problem; if it wasn't, it would have been solved by
now.

------
malandrew
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that 90% of the examples of NIMBYism
cited in this thread and the example cited in the original article revolve
around cars?

Cars are the epitomy of an externality and are inherently anti-community and
anti-commons. A vehicle that can move at 20mph to 70+ mph and comes in contact
with human beings (as opposed to being segregated from them by barriers or
being buried underground like a train) can only ever be detrimental to the
commons. Everyone with a car wants it to move slowly around their own
neighborhood and fast through everyone else's.

~~~
guylhem
I found a good example on seniors healthcare, while reading overcomingbias
today. It hasn't been discussed that much in the thread. Maybe that's because
of the political link of the issue? Then it's not a bad thing.

Yet healthcare is the total opposite of anti-community !

~~~
malandrew
Yes and no. It's definitely an externality issue where one group robs another
via voting power, but it's not NIMBYism because it doesn't involve
"backyards"/neighborhoods.

~~~
guylhem
Define neighborhoods ie proximity on a time scale (age) instead of a
geographic scale (backyards) and it seems like the exact same problem : a case
where the voting density (voting power) function does not match the impacts
function (who pays for what), with the cause of the externality being a
proximity preference.

------
AnthonyMouse
The analysis is reasonable overall, but trying to distinguish between "good"
and "bad" NIMBYs is a pretty serious flaw. You have to put halfway houses and
power plants _somewhere_. Those NIMBYs are still stealing from other people,
they're just stealing from the residents of some other place whose residents
have less free time or political capital to prevent something that lowers
property values from being constructed in their neighborhood. Or they're again
stealing from society at large if they prevent such things from being built at
all. In either case they create a societal cost by adding the cost of the
fight to the cost of building necessary things.

~~~
cturner
The OP and your post have the word 'stealing' in. It's an incorrect use of the
word.

It's not hard to find respectactable nimby cases. What if someone wanted to
pub a pub at the end of your street? You are not a drinker, and you object to
the prospect of people stumbling down your street shouting at strange hours,
leaving mess on your property and more chance of intoxicated drivers.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Neighborhood pubs/bars of the sort that are attended primarily by people in
the neighborhood are actually beneficial to neighborhood security and quality
of life.

Anything that gets the people who actually live there out on the street,
particularly in the nighttime hours, increases security.

Our modern, sterile "city planning" where everything is separated and zoned
off into their own areas is a huge factor in the decline of our quality of
life.

For an extensive treatment of this thesis, see the work of Jane Jacobs.

~~~
Evbn
Jacobs analysis doesn't extend to public drunkenness.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Actually, it does.

She argues that people are less likely to engage in any type of antisocial
behavior when they're in their own neighborhoods, where people know them.

------
luser001
I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my
road which has official speed limit of 25 mph.

Instead of spending money policing main streets, I support draconian camera-
driven enforcement on side streets.

Make unmarked google-maps-like cars with high quality cameras and software.
Park it on streets and watch for traffic. Send tickets remotely to speeders
(equivalent to running a red light). Split revenue with the city.

Hmm, maybe I should run this by my city council. :)

~~~
TDL
Speed bumps are great up until you need an ambulance or fire truck to get to
you quickly.

~~~
stuaxo
Here (UK) we have speed bumps that are narrow - cars hit the bump, buses
ambulances and trucks hit the bump ... though cars in the US are pretty big,
so not sure this would work.

~~~
TDL
The speed bumps that I've encountered in the U.S. typically take up as much of
the street as possible. The UK example is interesting, but I think you are
right about the cars here in the U.S.

------
guylhem
Excellent analysis of the situation - very interesting and could be with other
consequences and applications, whenever the minority can be the one to both
benefit on, propose, and vote on a change that the majority will have to bear
and pay - all the while using a false pretense like safety.

The proposed solution to study the consequences could also be returned and
simplified - to mesure the impact of the proposed changed on property value
and to refuse by default any change that would raise it.

(the best way would be to accept changes that increase the global utility, but
it might be hard to measure - giving a number to the increased property value
would be hard, but giving a number due to lost time due to lower speeds or
other inconveniences would be even harder)

~~~
guylhem
Wow that's luck - just when I was browsing around I found the perfect analysis
on overcoming bias : senior voters and their healtcare - paid for by the
majority, but since seniors vote more, they favour the candidate serving their
interest - at the expanse of the majority

[http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/09/us-politics-of-
medicin...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/09/us-politics-of-
medicine.html#more-30008)

Very interesting indeed- it seems to be the simplest pitfall of democracy :
when the repartition of voters becomes detached from the repartition of the
consequences and advantages.

~~~
edoloughlin
> senior voters and their healtcare - paid for by the majority, but since
> seniors vote more, they favour the candidate serving their interest - at the
> expanse of the majority

It's difficult to see how this is at the expense of the majority since it's
not exclusive: the majority will eventually become members of the beneficial
group. I.e., why not have a policy that benefits the elderly since most of us
will one day be elderly?

~~~
prakashk
Also, overall health situation tends to deteriorate as one ages, so seniors as
a group would need more healthcare dollars per capita compared to the younger
population groups. No wonder healthcare becomes one of the most important
issues for seniors.

~~~
guylhem
No- healthcare is an investment with a negative interest rate, ie you can only
try to maintain your capital if you keep investing more and more - with a
diminishing return since it ends in death anyway (with the current technology)

In this specific case, a better investment strategy is to put the money where
you will get the most of it, i.e. on the health of people still young, and
reduce the investment as the people age.

~~~
kghose
I don't know about the economic soundness of the argument, but it is so cold
hearted that I would immediately emigrate from any country where this was the
driving force behind government policy.

~~~
guylhem
It's not about being cold hearted - it's a fact of life. We die. And before we
die we cost a lot of money - for unfixable problems.

We also have health problems when we are young. All things being equal, we are
also more likely to take advantage of healthcare "done" at a young age than at
an older age - if only because of the longer lifespan.

I can't see any logic behind medicare - money should be spend on young adult
so that they can become productive again, not on old retired people.

If we had technology to make death avoidable or just far away enough than say
being 80 became being young, it would be wise to spend healthcare money on 80
years old.

At the present time it is not.

If you feel like emigrating from a country where this became government
policy, I would feel like immigrating to that country, if only because of the
better economic prospects removing part of the healthcare "tax" would bring -
and hopefully the other good policies that might come from such a country.

And BTW I'm not at all against spending money for healthcare of 80 years old
people (and I hope I'll be 80 years old someday!) as long as it is _their_
money. Not tax money, not my money ? Then it's not my problem either.

You know the saying - it is far too easy to spend other people money.

------
jawns
Also frustrating is when a local municipality lowers the speed limit on a
section of highway that runs through it to produce a speed trap, as a way of
generating revenue.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
I've wondered if having dendritic, branching neighborhood streets would stop
the issue. Main highways would be bigger; all roads leading to neighborhoods
would end in cul-de-sac. Only residents and visitors would ever drive into
neighborhoods.

Its a minima of road-per-house, thus a minima of cost. More greenspace,
quieter neighborhoods.

This American habit of gridding roads everywhere has a huge impact on quality-
of-life, costs a bundle, and stems from what? Some surveyors' sense of
symmetry?

------
kiba
Nuclear power plants are dangerous? I thought people might be NIMBY about coal
power plants which kill more people each year than do nuclear plants.

~~~
michaelochurch
It's more about property values and image than livability. A grisly murder in
a house 30 years ago ("haunted house" effect) doesn't make a difference to
people who live there now, but in many states you're required to disclose that
detail (because of its effect on resale value).

------
ff0066mote
I read the whole article, but stopped taking it seriously at: "a vicious
collection of roadblocks"

I think it's fine for people to desire quieter neighborhoods in this era of
high population density. I don't think that the people in all of those
examples were pursuing change for the financial gain.

~~~
natrius
Roadblocks make one part of a neighborhood quieter at the expense of another
part. They also make traffic worse, which increases wasted time and pollution.
If enough of those policies get implemented, people will find it too hard to
get to downtown Palo Alto, and the shops that make it attractive to live there
in the first place will suffer.

Policymaking based on parochial interests without regard to the effect those
policies have on the rest of a city tends to be a bad strategy. Unfortunately,
this is the status quo in many cities.

~~~
jamieb
On the other hand, I live at the bottom of a hill, 100ft from a traffic light.
A new development opened up at the top of the hill, and now SUVs barrel down
the hill at >50mph, see the green light, and _accelerate_. The speed limit is
25mph.

So when I hear about communities in Palo Alto "viscously" blocking traffic, I
wonder if perhaps they are simply attempting to return traffic levels that
were present when they bought their houses to raise their children.

~~~
balloot
Perfect example of NIMBY-ism. You bought a house at the bottom of a hill. You
got a price that likely had this negative quality priced in, because cars
drive fast downhill. Now, you act like people just started driving fast
downhill in the last few years, and that this problem needs to be resolved
immediately to suit you.

~~~
jamieb
Well I guess I explained the history too briefly. Our neighbors don't drive
down the hill too fast. Unfortunately, the new gated community that was built
recently has a primary exit at the top of our street. The fastest way for
these SUV drivers to get to the freeway is through our neighborhood. Our
street is no longer a dead-end for our neighbors. Its now the primary traffic
route for an entire community. So I'm "acting" like people just started
driving fast down _our_ hill in the last few years because, yes, that is true.
In 2005 they did not. In 2008 they did.

Now, there is another route, along a major roadway, with a higher speed limit
and more lanes. But its not a direct route and is 0.8 miles longer. I doubt
that the quality of life of this new community would be severely impacted if
they were "encouraged" to take this existing route.

~~~
natrius
For what it's worth, your complaint seems legitimate to me. However, if there
are only two routes to get to a freeway, that sounds like poor urban design to
begin with. Street connectivity is a virtue, and suburbs are designed to avoid
it at all costs. You want fewer routes to the freeway to fix your problem, but
having more routes would probably be the optimal solution to balance both your
street's interests and your city's. Given your description of the
neighborhood, I'm guessing that's not even possible anymore.

Anyway, take a video of people barreling down the hill and send it to a city
council member. Newspapers also like this sort of thing when it's egregious
enough.

------
kenko
"The origin of the NIMBY ("not in my back yard") is honorable. People would
buy a home, planning to live and raise children in reasonable safety, when
some agency of government decides to locate a halfway house or nuclear power
plant nearby. When that happens, the homeowners' property value is reduced, so
much so that they cannot even get their investment out and relocate to a safer
place. Local residents needed to band together to fight the intrusion that
would take from their assets and distribute the benefit among large numbers of
other people."

How in the world is that honorable? "No halfway house in my backyard" means
"halfway house in someone else's backyard, please" (or "no halfway house at
all, please").

------
lnanek2
Ah, I'd always wondered what was with all the blocked off roads in California.
This explains it.

------
sehugg
I got lost when the author talked about moving the speed limit from 35 to 25
mph would increase property values by $100k. Seriously?

------
raldi
> _Hmmm... anybody have a guess as to what they have in mind?_

I don't, actually. Anyone wanna clue me in?

~~~
mhb
OK. What they have in mind is that what they think is an accurate
representation of what is best for everyone and represents the majority's
preference. So no need for further research or polls.

------
1veteran
I love this HTML.* If only all the web could follow this simple way to convey
information. CONTENT. Heck, that's what makes HN interesting. It's the lack of
web developer fluff. Just text. CONTENT.

*But why the reference to tags.js? Javascript is not used.

~~~
dangrossman
It's a web stats program. Tags.js is sending the document URL and referrer
back to some server, and injecting a click tracking script into the page.

~~~
1veteran
That's assuming the user has js enabled. What I like about this is that it's
just one line. No inline script (that would be just bloat for the user with js
turned off.)

------
michaelochurch
High house prices are a moral and economic disaster, as the post-2008
recession has shown us. The problem at the root of NIMBY is that real estate
prices and behaviors have a few positive-feedback loops:

1\. Because real estate "always goes up", and because Americans are delusional
in general and seem to have a housing fetish, people have the deluded belief
that they aren't _paying_ for housing but investing in something that will
always appreciate. This mentality creates bubbles. By the way, we're still in
a real estate bubble-- just in a valley of one, and the "star" locations have
barely dipped (yet).

2\. Because people have absurd quantities (often over 30% of income and 80% of
wealth) of their resources invested in housing, they have strong economic
incentives toward NIMBYism. If I were going to lose 50c/dollar on 90% of my
net worth (assuming I had any, but that's another story... don't work for
shitty startups, kids) because of a speed limit change, I'd be pretty pissed
too. The real problem is not locational change (necessary) but overinvestment
in an asset that is highly sensitive to such change. It's simply not wise to
invest 90% of your wealth in an asset whose value can plummet because some
piece of shit decides to clear-cut a nearby hill and ruin your view... but
some people have no other choice because housing is so stupidly expensive.

3\. NIMBYism actually forces property values to stay high. Housing should be
worth about $100-125 per square-foot, with about a 50-100% premium for top
locations (urban areas) due to increased construction costs and reduced
transportation costs (proximity to desirable places). Housing over $250/ft^2
would be an extreme anomaly were it not for outright regulatory corruption
(read: NIMBY). However, due to the extreme price inelasticity of housing, even
slight scarcities (1-2 percent) cause huge upward movements in prices. Hence
the price levels observed in Manhattan and Silicon Valley.

The end result of all this is that NIMBYism creates scarcity (due to
transportation inefficiency and by retarding new development) that makes
houses expensive, and that causes people to be economically extremely
sensitive to real estate changes (which are out of their control) which causes
more NIMBYism. It's also yet another generational fuck-over of which we're on
the losing side, the assholes pulled the ladder up behind them.

People also tend to inappropriately overvalue land, given how easily its value
can be reduced to near-zero by nearby goings-on over which one has no control.
For most land-- a very small set of trophy locations being excepted-- the
value is a function of proximity and the fair value can be determined from
transportation costs for an average working person in that area, and land
would be pretty close to free (in comparison to the construction costs for the
house itself) except for the artificial scarcity imposed by NIMBYism.

It ends very badly. Bubbles, cultural rot, and urban decay. People associate
expensive real estate with success, but the most expensive city (real estate
wise) is Luanda, where more than half of the residents are in poverty. Moscow
and Sao Paulo aren't cheap, either, even though those cities have massive
poverty problems.

~~~
dkasper
>> Housing should be worth about $100-125 per square-foot, with about a
50-100% premium for top locations (urban areas) due to increased construction
costs and reduced transportation costs (proximity to desirable places)

How'd you arrive at this number? Citation needed?

~~~
blahedo
I'd be curious to hear this as well. There are many parts of the country (a
vast majority by area, and a not-insignificant minority by population) where
housing is way less than $100/sqft. In the (small) city I just moved from,
$30-40/sqft was more like it, and that was higher than the entire surrounding
area.

