“NIMBY” Nellie is a white cat with a blotchy nose and ears, and a tabby tail. She?s been around the block a few times andhas the battle scars to prove it. She and her two kittens were left behind as a part of the cast-off life of a family that was evicted from a rental property, and were on their way to the local animal shelter when a friend intervened and brought them to me for rescue.
Reluctantly I took them in, fostering them in a spare room until the kittens were weaned and adopted. With no takers for Nellie, I set her loose with my other cats.
It was then that I learned Nellie was a “NIMBY.” For those who may not be familiar with the term, “NIMBY” stands for “Not In My Backyard.” Planners and others often invoke it when referring to citizens who do not embrace development in their neighborhoods. They claim that if such projects are accepted, rural areas will be spared.
Nellie had no more desire to share limited space with her cat cohorts than those NIMBY citizens care to share their already overcrowded schools, failing intersections and limited parking ? all circumstances that have arisen due to the failure of local jurisdictions to enact and uphold adequate facilities laws.
Now one could argue that in NIMBY Nellie?s case, beggars should not be choosers, since the life ? or lack there of ? for which she and her kittens were otherwise headed was anything but cheery. Of course, Nellie doesn?t know that since she is simply an old cat trying to adapt to a new way of life.
I made the NIMBY Nellie analogy last week, after hearing a supporter of the Reality Check Plus project say the strength of neighborhood associations to stop local infill development is pushing it to rural areas, deemed less desirable for growth.
He said we must all be willing to suffer a little for the greater good.
I expect my elected officials to preserve my standard of living, not make me “suffer for the greater good.” Besides, when one considers the run-away development taking place on the rural Eastern Shore, simultaneous to suburban infill, I don?t think my sacrifices are doing anybody any good!
Reality Check Plus is a statewide project aimed at planning for Maryland?s growth over the next 30 years. Phase One, recently completed, included four workshops across Maryland where citizens, elected officials, and community leaders participated in exercises using Legos to determine where growth would be directed. This sounded good to me ? until I heard that the only premise of the exercise was that growth must be accepted.
I forced myself to consider “reality” ? to step out of my NIMBY role for a minute and honestly ask myself, just where would I like to see growth directed? My best suggestion is Baltimore City, but how can you convince young families to settle where the school system is one few would ever consider sending their children to?
According to the Reality Check Plus Participant Guidebook, the U.S. Census Bureau predicts an increase of 1.5 million people, or 580,000 households by 2030. Yet most planners agree that every projection is wrong, and the real question is just how wrong. We know a population increase is coming, though. Unlike in the case of old Nellie and other animal pieces of the throw-away society we live in, euthanasia is not an option.
Missing from most jurisdictions are laws that will effectively protect the standard of living suburban residents are accustomed and yes, entitled to. Each time such laws are proposed, pro-development organizations line up to oppose them, and politicians back off in droves, while we NIMBY citizens watch their campaign tills overflow with developer donations.
Based on what this NIMBY Nellie has seen so far, the outlook is grim. Until I see otherwise, I?m rooting for those NIMBY neighborhood associations made up of the voters who elect the politicians!
Corinne Becker writes about quality-of-life issues in the community. She is president ofRiderwood Hills Community Association in Towson. She can be reached at [email protected].
