Two renderings of a proposed tower at Kingsway and Broadway in Vancouver. On left is the official version presented to City Council (by proponent, Rize Alliance), and on right a version by an independent expert for local group RAMP Vancouver (Credit: Stephen Bohus).
Community activist responds to our earlier post about the Rize development at Kingsway & Broadway
This essay is in response to a real estate marketer's recent article in City Caucus, entitled "Why NIMBYs could be calling the shots on how Vancouver is planned and built."
The use of NIMBY (acronym for "Not In My Back Yard") and name-calling in general really catch my attention, because name-calling is not confined to the school yard, and the accusation of being a NIMBY happens not only in our own city, province, or country — it's a global phenomenon. These are forms of bullying, and the only way to fight bullying is to expose it, stand up to it and get down to the real issues.
Decades ago, some people in Fukushima didn't want a nuclear power plant in their back yard. Perhaps, they were NIMBYs. But since the nuclear disaster in 2011, their descendants are banished from their homes for what may be generations. They were forced to pay a heavy price. A local Vancouver example of people who were considered NIMBYs is the citizens' uprising in the 1970s that rejected a concept in vogue at the time across North America — a freeway running along the waterfront and through our downtown The result is this beautiful city not blighted by a freeway through its heart.
The point is that communities know that decisions made by governments have serious implications for them. They know that long after the individual politicians have gone, public servants retired, consultants paid, developers have sold their properties and speculators moved on, communities are left to deal for generations with the consequences of decisions made by their governments. Neighbourhoods have a deep and inherent interest in the health, livability and sustainability of the community.
The accusation of being a NIMBY is a playground putdown. It's an attack word used to belittle local concerns about the harmful effects of a proposed change in land use. Playing the "NIMBY" card is often a desperate tactic intended to delegitimize an individual or group by insinuating selfishness and opposition to "progress" or types of change that proponents and supporters of project claim are inevitable. But turn this on its head, and a NIMBY is someone who values an existing neighbourhood asset more than the name-caller does.
"Why NIMBYs could be calling the shots…" is not the first example of name-calling and unfairness around here in the context of development and urban planning. I have witnessed many examples, convincing me that something is wrong in mindset at every level regarding respect for communities. This mindset needs to change.
Two years ago the mayor was caught swearing about and mocking members of the public who were simply asking for further discussion before the creation of a politically-appointed advisory body they felt could harm the community ("Arrogance," and "Pssst, Mayor…"). Then there was a case of cyber-bullying apparently directed out of his office and paid by public money ("Blogger scandal"). Our main city newspapers and airwaves cover industry experts accusing groups and citizens of being NIMBYs and attack dogs.
Shall I go on? Local and national papers carry opinions and inaccurate information, verbatim, from developers (who also pay for advertising), yet requests for corrections were refused are ignored (West End). Meanwhile, neighbourhood groups often have a hard time getting fair (or any) coverage of their concerns (Shannon Mews).We have witnessed a legally-flawed policy highly favourable to developers yet deleterious to neighbourhoods adopted with virtually no public consultation (Short Term Incentive for Rental Housing, or STIR), and rezonings approved based on it. Then there was a politically-affiliated pollster conducting an ethically-challenged "push-poll" apparently intended to build support for a controversial rezoning ("Push-poll"). A social housing community demolished and scattered (Little Mountain). A pubic consultation process on a major rezoning slammed by a UBC researcher as being flawed (Marpole Safeway). Gentrification of low-income neighbourhoods ("Downside of gentrification"). Meanwhile, hundreds who spoke at a public hearing last year against a controversial casino expansion were overjoyed, only to have the originally-satisfactory outcome circumvented (Vancouver Not Vegas). Important and complex land-use policies and decisions withheld from the public until just days before they are to be adopted (STIR, "Vancouver Views," Procedural bylaw amendments for public hearings). City staff reports and images have been presented to City Council and the public, with apparent flaws or misrepresentations (view from Spanish Banks, Rize tower proposal). A billion-dollar mortgage with funds owed by a developer to the City (i.e., taxpayers) was released without a clear explanation to the public (Millennium mortgage). We know of cases where numbered companies hide behind the screen of anonymity. A real estate consultancy firm holds secret (ahem, "by invitation only" meetings) apparently intended to urge people to lobby council to approve a rezoning. These are just a few examples of things that seem unfair for local communities, taxpayers, and citizens. Accusations of being a NIMBY are a just one part of a bigger picture.
The motives and resources of community groups and developers are vastly different. By the stroke of a pen, a rezoning can add tens of millions of dollars in value for a private developer. The prospect of these profits gives developers the financial power to pay for advertising, publicity, media experts, lawyers, and consultants, and the boldness to accuse anyone resisting the proposed form of development of being a NIMBY. Meanwhile, many active members of the community are motivated out of deep care for their communities and their city, not just their "back yard." Their involvement in civic issues comes at a considerable sacrifice of personal time and money.
Name-callers try to emphasize what people they label "NIMBYs" don't want. But what DO they want? Most people probably want a fair government, a healthy democracy, and a livable, sustainable city. Most can acknowledge the need for ongoing development to meet future growth. They can support sustainable development in a scale, pace and form that provides affordable rental and owned housing, protects heritage and neighbourhood character, and is implemented through genuine grassroots neighbourhood-based planning processes.
These things above are all hot issues in this city. Each case and issue is unique, complex and involves many interests, but for decisions, all roads lead back to city hall. It is up to the elected officials and public servants to balance all interests fairly.
The next imminent rezoning decision in Vancouver is a proposal by Rize Alliance for a 19-storey tower at Kingsway and Broadway. Over a hundred people have signed up to speak at the public hearing. Residents Alliance Mount Pleasant should not be just criticized as NIMBYs. The discussion should focus on their well-thought out and critical examination of the process and information provided by the City and proponent. Let's get down to work and have fair and honest discussions, in good faith.
Name-calling and accusations of NIMBYism need to stop. Yes, balanced conversations are a must if we want to improve the way we plan and build our city, our country, and our world. Trying to discredit people who care about their home community by calling them NIMBYs is not the way to accomplish this.
- post by Randy Helten
Print 
PDF
Randy
Thank you for this post. Well said!
Randy:
Thanks for the post. A few points of clarification, as the author of the post previous:
1. I am not, nor have I ever been, paid by Rize Alliance. I am in no way connected to this project in Mount Pleasant. I think some people who read my post assume that because I work with real estate developers I must be working on this real estate project. Nope. Not true.
2. I have never considered the term NIMBY as a slur. I’ve been a NIMBY (and proud of it) from time to time myself. I consider it a handy acronym, like YUPPIE (Young Urban Professionals) or DINKS (Double Income No Kids). I’ll wear a NIMBY T Shirt to work if it makes people happy. No insult intended.
3. My point seems to have been missed by many who read my post. Simply put, I don’t think neighbourhood groups should be allowed to bully the city into making planning decisions, because neighbourhood groups are only thinking about their neighbourhood. We have a Mayor and Council to make these decisions based on what’s good for the whole city. The decisions they make may not always be popular with the neighbours, but proximity to a thing doesn’t make your voice any more important than anyone else.
Density needs to go somewhere. If all the neighbourhood groups reject it, and density requirements therefore go unaddressed, we will be in a pickle. The population of Vancouver is set to double by 2050. All those people will create a huge unmet demand for housing unless we build a lot more homes. And huge demand means — you guessed it — higher prices.
So, apologies to anyone who feels that my use of the word NIMBY Is a slight — it wasn’t meant to be. But as an UNpaid “shill” (love being called that) my opinion is unchanged. We need big towers everywhere that they make sense. They make sense at busy intersections. Kingsway and Broadway is a busy intersection. A 19 floor tower at that location seems like the very least Mayor and Council should approve, for the benefit of the entire city.
Thought of The Night
“Kings and Queens… What are they good for?”
David, I too do not have a problem with acronyms, abbreviations, initialism… LOL!
What I do have a problem with, is when someone says to leave it to the Beaver…
“We have a Mayor and Council to make these decisions based on what’s good for the whole city. ”
See what I mean? May I ask you what’s your rationale for saying that, because IMHO, right now (as for the past three years) the Lunatics are running the Asylum.
You wouldn’t want them to make decisions on your behalf now, would you?
Kings and Queens.
Good for having their picture taken, then printed on a coffee mug to show all your friends.
Same with Mayors and Councillors. Only good for a splash.
Between me and you, would you wear a T-shirt with “My Friend went to VANCOUVER and all I got was this lousy NIMBY Vision Vancouver advice?”
I didn’t think so.
We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.
Randy I agree,I don’t like acronym’s because they are almost always used to cast someone in a negative light.Another thing I don’t like is exaggeration in order to instill a panic to further an agenda………. ” The population of Vancouver is set to double by 2050. All those people will create a huge unmet demand for housing unless we build a lot more homes. And huge demand means — you guessed it — higher prices”. This 2050 statement seemed unrealistic to me so I had a look. http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/stats/futurepopgrowth/index.htm It would seem that David was off by about 75% unless population explodes by 450000 after 2041.Of course David may have taken his numbers from somewhere else.But I guess you could say it sounds like a developers wet dream.
Demographic information for Metro Vancouver population growth was inaccurate on my part, it’s actually bigger/faster than I stated. I was rounding down.
Here is the source: the Regional Growth Strategy: http://www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/RGSBackgroundersNew/RGSMetro2040ResidentialGrowth.pdf
Quote: ” Metro Vancouver 2040 – Shaping our Future, Metro’s draft regional growth strategy, was released for public review in November 2009. A fundamental assumption of Metro 2040 is that the region’s 2006 population of 2.2 million will grow by 1.2 million residents to reach a population of 3.4 million by the year 2041. Metro 2040 provides goals and strategies intended to shape growth toward a sustainable region. This backgrounder provides an overview of the policy context and methodology used in the Metro 2040 residential growth projections.” Go to the full document for more, if you like.
David I didn’t misquote you,you specifically said Vancouver not Metro Vancouver.In your reply you dont address your mistake at all but instead spin it by admitting to something that was not included in your original statement but allows you to raise the numbers to even more dizzying heights. Im not looking for a gotcha moment but I was hoping for an honest reply.
Very clearly articulated Randy! Let’s make sure all parties to keep the discussion focused on the real issues at hand and that it’s not derailed.
Vancouver has the best civic government that developer money can buy.
Hooray! At last someone has shouted out “the Emperor has no clothes!” thanks to Mr Helten for clarifying why 100′s of citizens should not be accused of NIMBY-ism.
Who are we designing this City for anyway – the current residents and their families or some dreamed up statistic who might appear in the future?
While we are at it…..Is it necessary to build such monstrosities? How about some wonderful iconic buildings instead of drab, dull glass blocks?
Randy you lost me as soon as you raised the Japanese nuclear tragedy as your best example of neighborhood response to government planning. That is just as bad as the developers badmouthing the NIMBY activists. Just another way of putting down opponents. Try again.
I certainly support the growth of the city. What I don’t suppose is what is clearly developer visions for highrises everywhere. People are not again increased density per se, but rather that going from 3 storey to 20+ storey buildings creates a v. unpleasant feeling, and the community then loses the charm it was known for. I suggest that perhaps the highrises can be in Mayor Robertson’s neighbourhood if he is so intent on increasing density.
Time to tone down the rhetoric too. Even talking about nuclear plants and highways in the same posting as a mixed use development is clearly over the top and ridiculous.
Randy and everyone else, how about sticking to real issues and real problems backed up by evidence instead of rhetoric, name calling and talking points.
I would be happy to see more density and higher buildings along West 4th.
I agree with Randy that local communities should be vocal in representing their interests. I believe that these groups are self selected and represent the people who are most vocal and most concerned and that is fine, such people should be heard.
But I also agree with David, that at the end of the day the city has to have an overall plan and provide guideance.
Are high rises the best way to achive density? I am not sure about this and would like to see other design options.
I send a Email to the mayor and council and point out some great ways to save taxes for the Vancouver home owner , yes they asked me to do this in a fancy press release last week and sure enough the goofs egnored all my suggestions ! 3 more years of not listening to Communities and the public , whats the price of a home in Greenwood B. C. look like ? Terry
WIKIPEDIA on “NIMBY”: “The term (or the derivative Nimbyism) is used pejoratively to describe opposition by residents to a proposal for a new development close to them.”
Words have meanings, and to deny such meaning is to subvert the intent of communication itself. George Orwell called the “reinterpretation” or “dissimulation” of proper denotation–specifically by governmental bodies seeking to mislead the public– “Newspeak” or “doublethink.”
David Allison, please re-read Orwell’s 1984, and try to recognize it correctly as a dystopia.
Secondly, British Common Law–the basis of our legal system and culture in Canada–has long recognized the primary and prior claim of stakeholders, those most directly affected by any phenomenon, occurrence, event, or happening–past or future. To say that “proximity to a thing doesn’t make your voice any more important than anyone else” is a refutation of thousands of years of tort law jurisprudence, legislation at every level of government, and a denial of common sense.
Your argument that density is good and therefore more density is better is also ludicrous and flies in the face of all human experience. I recommend you move to Bangkok or Kolkata to experience the density you so crave and value. Among the most livable cities on earth, according to the Economist, livability and density are inversely correlated. Has Vancouver been dethroned from the top spot because it is irreversibly becoming too dense? Surely falling park and recreational facility space per capita must have some negative effect.
Logic, clarity, and diction are the proper elements of argument. Please use them.
Randy and Rand, you have brought clarity to this issue. NIMBY has been a handy one-word dismissal of the legitimate concerns of neighbours and residents. The use of it should never go unchallenged.
“Randy and Rand, you have brought clarity to this issue.”
LOL, what exactly was the issue please?
Again LOL InMyBackYard!
“My point seems to have been missed by many who read my post. Simply put, I don’t think neighbourhood groups should be allowed to bully the city into making planning decisions, because neighbourhood groups are only thinking about their neighbourhood.”
Dear Mr. Allison,
You’ve obviously missed the point. Simply, put, I don’t think the City and developers should bully neighborhood groups. Period. If you haven’t read the Mount Pleasant Community Plan or been a part of any of the Public Consultation regarding this project from Day 1, you are not informed of the serious issues at play here.