|
|
|
NIMBYism will no longer prevail
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
cacruden
Senior Member
No great projects (great wall of china, pyramids, etc.) were completed by leaders that were weak..... so I hope he is actually going to show some backbone....
wonderboy416
Active Member
Ironically NIMBY's don't go to bat for other communities, just their own when something threatens their precious lifestyle and property value.
It's refreshing to see a politician take such a stance. We are nearing the tipping point of climate change and drastic measures are needed before it's too late. If Dalton's viewpoint doesn't reflect the will of the people may he be replaced next election. Until then keep it up. As much as I hated Mike Harris, he had the balls to make changes that weren't popular and it sounds like Dalton has finally grown a pair himself, good for him and Ontario.
It's refreshing to see a politician take such a stance. We are nearing the tipping point of climate change and drastic measures are needed before it's too late. If Dalton's viewpoint doesn't reflect the will of the people may he be replaced next election. Until then keep it up. As much as I hated Mike Harris, he had the balls to make changes that weren't popular and it sounds like Dalton has finally grown a pair himself, good for him and Ontario.
lead82
Senior Member
Amen!
All I can say it's about time. Community activism is good, but in our case the community seems to only get active to stop projects from changing, even improving their current way of life.
Where is the mass activism in favour of projects? Until such exists, I'm glad McGuinty is finally stuffing socks in these people's proverbial mouths.
All I can say it's about time. Community activism is good, but in our case the community seems to only get active to stop projects from changing, even improving their current way of life.
Where is the mass activism in favour of projects? Until such exists, I'm glad McGuinty is finally stuffing socks in these people's proverbial mouths.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
In San Francisco, they were forced to do a environmental review of their Bicycle Plan. They had to produce a 1,353 page review (scroll down to 2007.0347E), because someone objected.
It is problems like that, which we do not need.
It is problems like that, which we do not need.
lead82
Senior Member
It goes down to the fact that democracy is the most inefficient form of government. Using democratic processes for infrastructure projects wastes millions of dollars on consultants.
It would be cheaper for the government to just give the money to an agency such as Metrolinx, hire some professional planners and transportation experts and provide them with funding and the tools to plan, and execute on projects. Some public opinion is needed but NYMBYISM should be banned outright.
Many people object to projects on the simple basis that they don't want change.
It would be cheaper for the government to just give the money to an agency such as Metrolinx, hire some professional planners and transportation experts and provide them with funding and the tools to plan, and execute on projects. Some public opinion is needed but NYMBYISM should be banned outright.
Many people object to projects on the simple basis that they don't want change.
khris
Senior Member
lead82
Senior Member
Admiral Beez
Superstar
We always seem to use the term NIMBY when locals object to a project outsiders think is the right thing to do. However, when the Beach(es) and east Toronto residents protested against the Express Way extension into Scarborough, they're cheered as heros. These folks were the classic NIMBYs in that the greater province wanted an expressway, but the local residents didn't want an expressway in their backyard.
It's the same for many of today's so called NIMBY protests. Who would want a drug and mental illness infested homeless shelter in their community, but anyone who complains is a NIMBY because, like the Beaches/Scarborough Expressway before it, the greater province and city deems it as necessary.
We must be careful labelling any neighbourhood protest as NIMBYism, since what makes perfect sense today may seem like a terribly thought out idea when looking back in the future.
It's the same for many of today's so called NIMBY protests. Who would want a drug and mental illness infested homeless shelter in their community, but anyone who complains is a NIMBY because, like the Beaches/Scarborough Expressway before it, the greater province and city deems it as necessary.
We must be careful labelling any neighbourhood protest as NIMBYism, since what makes perfect sense today may seem like a terribly thought out idea when looking back in the future.
nfitz
Superstar
There's a huge difference. We live in a city, and need shelters. They have to be in some neighbourhood, and then the NIMBYs come out in droves (and I say this after objecting to my neighbours objecting to a facility being constructed very close to my house). Things like the Spadina and Gardiner Expressway extensions were not necessary, and the city has survived quite well without them.
T-Squared
Active Member
The article is not clear on specifics either. What the province was saying 'no' to is not all NIMBYism, but the NIMBYs towards environmental assessments on energy projects that just make plain sense for the City and the Province.
Public input and consultation is important to all development processes, but the Province is making the right call in this case in tipping the balance of power to ensure energy facilities (and in particular wind turbines) are built for the greater good.
Public input and consultation is important to all development processes, but the Province is making the right call in this case in tipping the balance of power to ensure energy facilities (and in particular wind turbines) are built for the greater good.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
The article focussed on environmental issues. It would appear that if one can package something within the confines of being "environmentally friendly" or "green" the government will ram it down your throat because they've deem it to be good. Screw how it affects the people living in that community.
NIMBY is a label that gets tossed around far too easily. As Beez notes, people have an interest in the welfare of their neighbourhood. The fact that they are labeled as somehow being small-minded because they have concerns for the place they live can undermine the idea idea of community.
I'm not thrilled by this type of approach. To my mind it looks like nothing more than a kind of environmental OMB. It essentially states that an ideology holds greater sway than the concerns of citizens.
cacruden
Senior Member
A city may need shelters - but there are times that the city will put all x in one area - creating a ghetto of sorts. So one shelter good, five .... bad.
There is a difference between public consultation, and allowing consultation to kill a project through procedural means rather than through decisiveness. You can find some glaring holes in plans very quickly through a consultative process, but too much dependancy on it is often a sign of a weak leader that is afraid of making hard choices. I expect a reasonable amount of consultation, transparency, but then someone has to make a decision - and that should not take years.... in most cases.
There is a difference between public consultation, and allowing consultation to kill a project through procedural means rather than through decisiveness. You can find some glaring holes in plans very quickly through a consultative process, but too much dependancy on it is often a sign of a weak leader that is afraid of making hard choices. I expect a reasonable amount of consultation, transparency, but then someone has to make a decision - and that should not take years.... in most cases.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
From The Star of February 14th:
The trouble for me is that the Leslieville development is NOT Transit Oriented Development. It is Auto Oriented, which makes it anti-environmental.
The trouble for me is that the Leslieville development is NOT Transit Oriented Development. It is Auto Oriented, which makes it anti-environmental.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
Bingo.
I think we can all agree that we don't want irrational opposition to prevent things that are good and progressive for our society from getting built. But, we do want rational and well-thought-out arguments to be heard so that we can make improvements to the proposal.
What separates a nimby from a valid critic, in my opinion, is the nature of the argument.
I remember watching a rebroadcast of a news report from the 1980s on CP24 where the reporter asked a city official why shelters keep going in Parkdale and never in upscale places like Rosedale. He turned to the reporter and said something that made so much sense to me that is was actually kind of creepy...
"We can't afford to buy property in Rosedale."
Take from that what you will...
Last edited: