High Conflict in urban planning issues; or, Why I'm against calling someone a NIMBY
When discussing new infill, new bylaws, council hearings, or contentious planning topics in general, there is often a labeling of dissenting opinions as being "NIMBYist" or being Not In My BackYard. The stereotyped, quick description of a NIMBY would be a resident who agrees with ideas like walkable communities, denser housing, mixed uses, or safe consumption sites; they just don't want those things in their neighbourhoods.
I believe that the label of NIMBYism should not be brought up in planning spheres anymore, and that it is an outdated ideological push to lump dissenting opinions all into one broad category. Reasons for dissent towards any particular plan, policy, or development can be extremely varied and complex, but in grouping many opinions under the label of NIMBY, these opinions are reduced to the stereotypes without hearing the citizens' case, or at least not properly expressing it.
Having listened to many council meetings, public engagement seminars and forums, I feel that there is a greater divide between community residents and their elected officials and city administration. I believe this is in part due to labels like NIMBY leading to citizens feeling unheard and wanting to dissent further against the establishment. Concurrently, by grouping "complainers" as NIMBYs when discussing feedback, speaking arrangements, etc. planners increase this divide as they are furthering the idea of an "us" who support development, and a "them" who want that development elsewhere.
The inspiration for this YIMBY (lol) was High Conflict, a non fiction work that analyzed political divides, conflict mediation, and how people can feel othered or unheard in political and social situations. When reading this book, I was examining my own biases and reflecting on what modern planning issues have in-groups and out-groups. Some suggestions for improvement on how to bridge the 'backyard divide' on development issues could include changing meeting protocols and asking more insightful questions to opposed speakers.
Many council hearings have public speakers divided in the agenda by being for or against a proposition, which I think furthers the divide in beliefs. A listener, audience member, or god forbid councillor, who has their mind made up on a decision may zone out or stop listening to the side they are opposed to in a hearing. If speakers were not segregated, but rather were all encouraged to voice their opinion of support or dissent solely through their arguments, it could mend some divides and increase the perspectives brought to the table. Further, High Conflict praises the concept of active listening and looping, the repetition of what you believe the argument you heard was, to receive confirmation or clarification. When asking questions of speakers, opponents, or debaters, try to loop their opinion so that you can have a better grasp on what parts of the issue they care most about, and where the root cause of their concerns lies.
In simply labelling an opinion as NIMBYist, a distinction is being made between an "us" and a "them" on a proposed issue. No issue is as simple as two clear sides. Try to think of the world less in black and white, and incorporate the spectrum of greys to listen more, be heard more, and learn more.
References
Ripley, A. (2021). High conflict: why we get trapped and how we get out. Unabridged. Simon & Schuster.
This article was written by GAPSS VP Marketing Eric Prefontaine.