Beyond the Backyard -- The NIMBY of Today

Al Maiorino, Public Strategy Group Inc.
October 08, 2009 | 12 Comments

"Not in my backyard," or NIMBY, is a term used to describe a person or a group of people who strongly oppose new development in their communities. Whether it's a new housing complex, retail development, casino or power plant, NIMBYs – as they are commonly referred to – will actively organize to communicate their opposition to a local project in an effort to curb development.

These days, the “backyard” in NIMBY has grown so vastly that residents often oppose airplane flight paths, offshore wind and liquefied natural gas terminals.

More often it seems that NIMBY activists are simply in it to win it. They speak out, without taking the time to educate themselves with accurate information pertaining to the development at hand. While NIMBY groups may protest loud and proud, their motives often stem from misinformation and poor communication between project representatives and the community.

So how should companies relay factual information regarding their projects to the general public? Simple. They hire a grassroots public affairs firm to enlist community support and engage conversation relating the project.

One of the most common phrases we hear from a company facing strong NIMBY opposition is “they have everything under control” or “we have a public relations firm in place”. Fast forward two weeks later, and it is front-page news that their project has been defeated.

The fact of the matter is, most PR firms are not experienced with the grassroots techniques needed to find local supporters to speak out on projects and win a campaign. Rallying this local support is a key component to any contentious proposal. By finding these local allies and forming a supporter coalition, developers are able to build support for their project from day one.

Coalition building creates social change in a community that is being flanked with negativity. If supporters have a common goal of building and bettering their community they can bring a logical voice and a positive attitude to any new development project. Instead of focusing on the picketers outside of a public hearing, developers need to concentrate on gaining this type of community support through a variety of tactics commonly used to battle the NIMBY issue.

Create a Supporter Database — Obtaining supportive reinforcement means knowing who to target. Preliminary research of the town is pertinent in the first stages of a development project. This not only includes a thorough analysis of the demographics of the area, but also the opinions and political agendas of leading local officials and legislators.

Researching third-party organizations, including non-profit agencies and business groups, will help identify a potential support network. If any of these organizations stand to gain from the development, they may offer a helping hand to move the project through.

Send the Message — Once the developer has filed an application with the town, a press release announcing the basic facts about the development can often eliminate rumors and misinterpretations from NIMBY groups. Soon after the release hits, an introductory mail piece can be distributed to all households to keep the idea of the new development fresh in mind; materials like direct mailers, e-mail reminders and newspaper ads remind potential supporters of the advantages that a new development will bring.

Band Together — Local residents who want to see economic development or positive change in their community will help out in any way they can. Of course, some may be more vocal than others. A good tactic may be to pinpoint those “super supporters” who are willing to write letters to local newspapers and decision makers, both in support of the project and as a rebuttal to any NIMBY arguments.

Perhaps these residents in favor are willing to participate, and even help with the planning of meetings that reinforce the coalition and allow other supporters to come out for the cause. Benefits of the “super supporter” are invaluable. This includes their willingness to post lawn signs addressing the issue at hand, gather petition signatures or simply make phone calls that render further support.

Grassroots professionals can help get all of this done smoothly and successfully. Companies often mistake the services of a general PR firm as being enough to win over a community, but in today’s NIMBY reality, that is simply not the case.

Al Maiorino started Public Strategy Group Inc. in 1995. He has developed and managed multiple corporate public affairs campaigns in a variety of industries such as gaming, cable television, retail development, auto racing, power plant/wind farm projects, and housing/residential projects. Al received his BA in political science and a MA in American Studies from the University of Connecticut.

12 Comments

ANONYMOUS
October 11, 2009

Here is one of the best yarns yet . The Town of Dartmouth Massachusetts told its residents that if two proposed wind turbines created shadow flicker they would put the turbines on a daily timer ! Who do they pay to watch for shadow flicker ?
Here is the news from s-t.com

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090902/PUB02/909020417

September 02, 2009 12:00 AM

"If it's a problem of flicker, we can just turn it off" two hours a day, Mr. Race suggested to concerned neighbors. Timers could be easily programmed to protect neighbors an hour or two per day, he said, and "I have no problem with that.

"Studies indicated up to 244 homes might be affected by shadow/flicker up to nine hours a year; eight residences might see 10-19 hours per year; and only one home would be potentially subject to 20-29 hours per year. The Pembroke, Longmeadow, and Meadowbrook neighborhoods are in the impact zone, along with a section of Russells Mills Road.

Chairman Dr. Ronald DiPippo felt the same way as Race. "I don't want to impose an impact on anybody living near this turbine; I've said that from the beginning," the chairman said. "If it's a problem for even one or two houses, we'll just shut the bloody thing off," the retired physicist told neighbors at the meeting Wednesday night"

ANONYMOUS
October 9, 2009

Tyranny is Alive and Well in Massachusetts
Re: the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act of 2009
Whether you are for or against wind farms in Massachusetts you should be aware that the pending Wind Energy Siting Reform Act of 2009 is a threat to your freedom and constitutional rights. This Act is currently being fast tracked through the State Legislature with virtually no on-the-record public debate at the insistence of Governor Patrick, the wind energy industry and their financiers.

The name of this Act belies its true intent. It is not an act of reform. It is an act of tyranny. The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act of 2009 will allow the State to usurp our democratic freedoms, our laws and our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It gives unlimited power to unelected, and unaccountable, state officials to determine the future of publicly owned natural resources, and to determine the future of our communities, our local economies and our personal lives. It is an open invitation to corruption. If approved by the Massachusetts Legislature the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act of 2009 will violate every moral and ethical principle of our democratic society.

Proponents of this Act argue that we must make a choice between our freedom and global warming. This is nothing more than pandering to fear politics. In fact, the solution to global warming depends on our freedoms and the rule of law. A clean energy future depends on respecting local governance and the laws that protect human habitation and natural resources. Local governance ensures that energy policy is based on the common good as defined by generations of citizens who have fought to improve their circumstances in their communities, not as defined by special interests that have the ear of our politicians and a short-term profit motive.

Robert Godfrey
October 9, 2009

This article paints all development as good development, as in the following statement:

"If supporters have a common goal of building and bettering their community they can bring a logical voice and a positive attitude to ANY new development project" (emphasis added).

US LNG projects are a good example of such false glorification. Most shore-side LNG terminals in the US violate the industry's own terminal siting best practices, as published by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO). SIGTTO represents virtually the entire world LNG industry. (For more on this topic, visit LNG Terminal Siting Standards Organization -- http://www.LNGTSS.org/ .)

Projects that violate best practices, regardless of whom developers convince to support it, is irresponsible.

William Fitch
October 9, 2009

Hi Mary:

Very valid and good points. The only way a green revolution can succeed is if it has no defined focus. Yes I did say that. What I mean is this. Once you organize and structure a movement into a hierarchical form with leaders or people of focus, you now are subject to the, "standard rules of the game" i.e. capitalism with all its defined gold coins and leverages, plus and minus. The only way to beat the game is not to play. People must do green as a motive without profit. I DO NOT mean that green companies must be without profit. My remarks are directed to the buying side. ROI must stop being the reason for change. The MAIN, MAIN, MAIN reason must be because the green choices are simply the way you do it. Conventionals must be viewed as a non choice, without existence. I know this must be seen as a radical view, to say the least. But, it is 100% logical. If buyers do not except conventionals as a choice, the mega corporations will have no alternative but to give way to the demands of the people. They will be forced to change or perish. I know that readers must be thinking, what does this have to do with this thread? But it is all tied together. The way we as a society view social success, the value we put on ethics and real justice over immorality or political expediency, money over truth, on and on, are all intricately tied to how all these "pieces" function on a day to day basis. The REAL problem being expressed here has NOTHING to do with green solutions as it does not specifically and or only relate to RE projects. It could be a wind turbine, an LNG storage facility, a new rail line, a shopping mall, a co-gen plant, a nuke...it doesn't matter. This is all about pushing a project for power and profit even in cases where it hurts allot of people or the planet.... AND how WE as a society view and act on the above types of mentioned social behaviors and values, determines the frequency and outcome of business attempts that are in the end, BAD FOR US...

Mary Saunders
October 9, 2009

Distributed energy, micro-grids, and some other kinds of projects can be organized as YIMBY's.

Giving people close to point of use a sense of participating also can make a more resilient community. Projects that aim to help neighbors connect in case of need are far better than huge remote projects that make them all serfs.

Neighbors can agree to help if other parts of the grid go out, ahead of the actual need. This makes a stronger community in other respects as well, notably crime prevention, as outlined by Jane Jacobs in the Death and Life of Great American Cities.

As unemployment goes up, the ability and the willingness of residents to be passive consumers goes down. I'm not sure the seriousness of this is yet getting through to large organizations.

Companies that sell inverters and monitoring equipment get it, because it is in their interests for micro-gridding to go to scale. Some cooperatives probably get it. For-profits could get it, but I don't see any evidence of that yet. I would love it if somebody would find a for-profit doing some micro-gridding and post it on REW. It's got to be possible, though likely from a start-up rather than a grandfather.

Ben Peters
October 9, 2009

I think we are losing sight of what is truly important here...

If sea level rise means your home is now on the ocean floor, then the location of the wind turbine does not matter anymore. Property rights will be meaningless if there is no food to eat or clean air to breathe.

The trouble is that most of the NIMBYS will be dead long before the true fault of their actions has been realized.

Think about the future generations when considering opposition to clean energy projects. This is not about YOU, it is about the future.

It is very sad that past and current generations are squabbling over crumbs of dirt and soil while the earth burns...

NIMBYS -- don't forget your fiddles!

Cliff Goudey
October 9, 2009

Funny that LNG terminals were included in the abbreviated list of things that spawn NIMBY action, particularly given the audience here is people interested in renewable energy.

In my experience effective opposition groups develop when the process or the project is flawed. Then and only then does the developer roll out the NIMBY term as a pejorative. Unfortunately, the typical behavior of certain developers (land-based LNG terminal developers, without exception) is to work secretly behind the scenes with whatever politicians, boards, commissions, or authorities are prepared to abandon their public responsibility to maintain an open process. Then when all the deals are made, the project is announced.

Opposition can be motivated by a lot of things, but seldom to simply "curb development" or simply being "in it to win." Normally is it because there is a justified fear of an illegal or an uncompensated taking. Whether it's a loss in property values, a loss of safety, or a loss of place, many people refuse to simply take it, regardless of the project's apparent momentum. I guess one has to have been in that position to understand the gut wrenching that can occur, particular when it is all in the name of profits to a faceless corporation.

No, Mr. Maiorino, you would do well to have your clients ask before taking. Don't start with the politician looking to wave an economic-development flag. Don't secretly fund "grass-roots" support groups populated by people from the other side of town or who will profit personally. But the most important thing is to be honest and not dismiss the concerns of those who would be impacted. Your economic gain comes at their loss. You could start by dropping the term NIMBY.

William Fitch
October 8, 2009

Hi:

I am afraid when it comes to the world anymore, the nature of the business is business and nothing else matters. We as a whole are to blame for that. We put money above all else as the social goal to be achieved, by the numbers (no pun intended), rewarded and revered it in every way imaginable, and still do. I really think it has always been that way and when it seems that it is not, it is just an illusion.
Think of the peaceful and fondly remembered 50's, while the H-Bomb program was going full blast (again, no pun intended) and the military industrial complex was coming to a world dominating immortal maturity. "For man, times of peace are simply those moments when we are preparing for war."
It just seemed there for a while, that we at least made an attempt to hide it and give the people at least a moment for hope...
Ethics, morality and doing the right thing are just words in the language, with occasional actions flirting into reality....

.....Bill
PS: Check out NASA TV starting at 6:15AM EDT for the moon impact.

ANONYMOUS
October 8, 2009

The beneficiaries of the Massachusetts Wind Energy Siting Reform Act are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.
Massachusetts, through the new legislation, chooses to redefine property rights through the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act.

The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act will transfer power from towns, legislators, and the courts to the executive branch, giving the governor and his successors unprecedented power to determine the future landscape and economy of every community. This is similar to the 40B housing laws .

The Wind Energy Siting Reform Act is an assault on our rights.

ANONYMOUS
October 8, 2009

Bill, I am a NIMBY ! They tried to place a 440 foot commercial Vestas V-82 turbine in a residentially zoned location on the SouthCoast of Massachusetts 600 feet behind my house.We hired our own wetlands specialists and an attorney .The result was major flaws were found in the study done by the Massachusetts Technology Colaborative,MTC. The study as it was found only included the positive side of the placing a wind turbine .

The end result now is because of what they call a NIMBY lawsuit the state is preparing to pass the Wind Energy Siting Reform Act . This act allows the governor and a siting board to place commercial wind turbines anywhere in the state .It even takes away our residential property rights .Do you think this could turn into one of the largest class action lawsuits in Massachusetts with all the so called NIMBYs loss of their property rights?

In addition to all this a former State Rep Mark Howland made a few business mistakes with his wind turbine company ,made a million bucks and moved to Hawaii after the Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley gave him the deal of a lifetime . The deal ends this Friday Oct 9,2009

If you want to see why the people of the SouthCoast of Massachusetts are NIMBYs Keyword this : Martha Coakley Mark Howland Fire Hawaii

Wouldn't you think a company like Vestas would not want these turbines sited so close to residential homes . Its too bad the State of New York will not release the Altona wind turbine collapse safety study .

Al Maiorino
October 8, 2009

Bill,
Thank you for your comments. The goal of my piece was to inform readers that it is possible to relay a message to a community before they have a mind set with information that is often untrue about a project. Once the message is accurately delivered to a community, or in this case, a "NIMBY" resident, they can use this before they make a stance for or against a project. We hope the tactics provided will allow readers some insight on how to effectively handle opposition.

Al

William Fitch
October 8, 2009

Hi Al:

Just a small point, sometimes the NIMBY's are right...
I realize your article is just business therefore de-voids itself from right or wrong, for better of for worse... etc... not the focus, merely win your goal.
...and NIMBY just to be NIMBY is as wrong as pursuing a harmful change in itself.... but... the key is knowledge to the problem, for the NIMBY.
NIMBYs exist for the same reason as unions and a 100 other things. They are a reaction to the abusive of power and money, lies displacing truth, a continuance of business as usual..., above the needs of the one or many individuals who are needed to obtain the power and money but not partake in it's fruit. So, NIMBY for the sake of NIMBY... NO... but to resist something that is truly not beneficial or right on the whole... most definitely....
After all, most of the time it is "the people" who have time as their only tool not huge piles of corporate money....

.....Bill

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

Al Maiorino

Mr. Maiorino is a NIMBY expert, writer, and public affairs consultant who has made Public Strategy Group, Inc. a unique firm that goes beyond the traditional public affairs role of many firms. He has successfully run and won corporate campaigns...