The submitted title is "NIMBYs kill privately funded Hudson River floating park."
Is it really NIMBYism if you simply don't want a billionaire to erect an eponymous, quarter-billion-dollar landmark along the Manhattan waterfront?
If a billionaire really wants to see his name on something, he can make a huge philanthropic donation like everyone else.
Similarly to this story, I have to think the tourism value of these properties stands a chance of being significant, and I don't see a huge benefit in blocking them. (The article doesn't do much to explain why the Hudson River park is being opposed, other than a vague mention of environmentalism.) In the case of the Star Wars museum, it's unfortunate something likely to be a future landmark will end up being built somewhere else.