It’s human nature to be skittish when news comes that a housing development is proposed for your community.
Change is hard. And, yes, if you’re a property owner, that little real estate valuation machine in your head starts spinning.
So being a tad “NIMBY” – that’s ‘Not In My Backyard” if you didn’t know – is a natural reaction to any development. Meanwhile, a sense of “greater good” – or what’s best for your community outside of your personal desires – may bubble up, too.
More broadly speaking, meeting California’s housing needs also requires deft give-and-take between conflicted forces – especially the slice of the populace with a knee-jerk “no” to almost any construction plan.
As a public service, I thought we could measure our level of NIMBYism. So I’ve constructed a 12-question survey that looks at common objections to planned housing developments.
It’s a simple exercise. The goal is to gauge your general emotions about, say, say a housing proposal in your town but not right next door. (Those projects can make folks extra sensitive!)
For these 12 possible objections, tell us if they are typically a “major worry” for you compared with a “minor” worry. And keep a tally of the “big worry” answers. (Or go to bit.ly/nimbynumber to take the survey.)
Let’s get busy
1. Bad deal: “Who’d want to live there?” Objectors question the value of the proposed housing based on location, size, style and/or price point. (Note: That’s why “luxury” projects are seemingly easier to approve.)
2. Greenery: “Can’t we turn that land into a park instead?” is a common critique of new housing. And what’s an acceptable level of public spaces is a grand debate. (Note: Many cities now realize that parks are expensive and challenging to operate.)
3. History: The project will alter or end the community’s long-standing ties to part of its heritage. Rehabilitation of old commercial districts frequently runs into such objections. (Note: There’s probably a good reason why the land is available for redevelopment.)
4. Home values: New housing – especially if it’s somewhat “affordable” – can raise concerns about one’s personal real estate investment in the community. (Note: If so, can you then question the “greed” of the developers?)
5. Look: A project seems not to “fit” the feel of the surrounding community. Such upsetting variances can be design, size, density, or price point. (Note: So you like those one-look, bland, and overly planned master-planned communities?)
6. Master plans: A city’s “master plan” shouldn’t change to accommodate new housing. That’s local leaders breaking a “promise” to existing homeowners. (Note: Master plans, zoning, etc. are living documents designed to change over time.)
7. Public services: Water. Electricity. Public safety. Numerous folks worry we’ve spread these basic needs too thin already before adding more inhabitants. (Note: California’s stagnant population suggests new housing is more for current residents, not new ones.)
8. Renters: New rental complexes add folks not invested in the community. And renters tend to have weaker finances than homeowners. (Note: Well, think about the investment the landlord is making in your town.)
9. Retail retreat: Conversions of shopping centers to housing increase anxieties about the loss of consumer options. Or that new housing will further pack local malls. (Note: Much of California is wildly over-retailed by national standards.)
10. Schools: New housing often means more families. And you fear added educational demand will stress local school districts. (Note: An aging California population hints schools are running out of customers. New housing might keep them open.)
11. Traffic: You think of your own congestion nightmares and wonder what roads – local or regional – will handle the driving needs of these new residents. And where will they park? (Note: More housing closer to job opportunities can cut commutes and traffic.)
12. Wildfires: Projects in more remote terrains face questions about the safety of those residents. And if there’s a need for an evacuation, they’ll clog the streets everyone needs for a safe exit. (Note: New communities can serve as firebreaks for older neighborhoods.)
Bottom line
So, to get to your NIMBY standing, count the number of these concepts are “major worries” … then divide by 12.
The resulting score is your “NIMBY share” – and, by the way, I’m 17% NIMBY. My consistent major worries are does the look fit and will the project spreading civic services too thin.
Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com
