Why NIMBY is Often Irrelevant

NIMBY -- "not in my back yard" -- is a reaction to anything proposed to be near you.  It could be something small like a business, church, school, road improvement, or zoning change, or it could be something big like a prison, refinery, or nuclear power plant.  NIMBY is considered in decisions every day, and it often affects the outcome, as it should.

But wait a minute.  Some things will be opposed by someone no matter where they proposed to be.  I doubt you could propose to build an oil refinery anywhere without opposition, for example.  The question is, in such a case what do we do with NIMBY?  Is it a valid reason, of itself, on which to base a decision?

I say it is not, and here's why.

First, if a factor is the same everywhere, we routinely disregard it as logic dictates we should.  Gravity, for example, would not be a consideration in locating an oil refinery because it is essentially the same everywhere (in detail it is not, as some of you realize, but the differences are negligible).  Similarly, if NIMBY is everywhere, it can be ignored in the decision-making process.

Second, it is likely that some of the reasons brought up by the NIMBYs (the people in opposition) are legitimate and should be considered; however, it is vital to realize that  the logic and reasons of the argument are distinct and different from the opposition itself.  Some opposition is gut reaction and not based on valid reasons or evidence, and that kind of opposition should be summarily dismissed.

If our society is to continue to thrive and grow, we must base decisions on valid logic, reason, and evidence, and not on emotional reactions.  That is why NIMBY is often irrelevant.