State of Cape Cod

Call Me NIMBY!

The term NIMBY, an acronym for Not In My Backyard, has been bandied about with great frequency and derision. It has often been aimed at the opponents of the proposed wind farm in Nantucket Sound, whether or not it applies, and at those who oppose affordable housing projects in their neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, it is generally used in a most derogatory, even insulting, manner by those who live far from the areas involved and who therefore won't be effected by them. Why, you have to wonder, is NIMBY something to be ashamed of? What’s wrong with not wanting something you consider to be undesirable in your neighborhood? Why should you not try to safeguard your piece of the pie?

People work hard to be able to live in a nice area and enjoy pleasant surroundings. It's certainly not selfish to try to protect that. It’s bad enough when the disruption under discussion is absolutely essential, but it’s especially galling when the project in question is unnecessary, impractical, annoying, unsightly, or any combination thereof. Whatever the undertaking, it will be irrevocable. Things can never, ever, be restored to the way they used to be. Remember, no matter how altruistically a project is portrayed, and whether or not any benefits will actually accrue from it, the primary reason it’s being proposed is for someone to make a profit. Money is always the bottom line.

The so-called NIMBYs who are opposed to the Nantucket Sound wind farm are accused of standing in the way of clean energy and contributing to global warming, a theory still very much disputed by many reputable scientists. They are generally considered to be wealthy folk who want to protect their ocean views. Consider this: people move to Cape Cod for the quality of life. The sea around us and the recreational, esthetic, and economic advantages it provides are a large part of why most of us are here, whether or not we actually live near the water. Nantucket Sound is still part of our ambience and vital to our tourist oriented economy. Many who don't live within miles of the sound want to protect it for those reasons.

Surely there's nothing wrong with trying to protect all that from a hundred or more unsightly wind turbines, each over four hundred feet tall, whomping away day and night, that may or may not provide enough electricity to make a dent in satisfying the needs of the Cape Cod population. The wind is a capricious thing. Sometimes it blows, and sometimes it doesn't.  Everyone wants clean energy, but many believe the money and effort would be better spent on nuclear plants, fuel cells, and solar panels, instead of something as old-fashioned as windmills. It’s like bringing back the horse-and-buggy in order to alleviate high gasoline prices.

Sometimes, too, the wind blows too hard. Evidence: recent cyclones and hurricanes across the country. How long do you think it would take to remove a gigantic mass of twisted metal from Nantucket Sound in the event of a natural disaster? Meteorologists are continually  warning us that “the big one is coming one of these days”. What do we do with the mess all those downed towers will create when it finally arrives?

The destructon of woodland for so-called affordable housing is another case in point. Just twenty-five percent of any project is usually designated as affordable. In return, the developer is permitted to exceed the normal density requirements, which greatly enhances his profits while often overcrowding the site and ruining the area’s appeal. The remaining units are offered at market rates: far from affordable at Cape Cod prices, even these days. Is it NIMBYism to oppose allowing a developer to construct housing units on pristine land? Structures which would exceed the specified density and might require extensive infrastructure expenditures, including roads, already strapped schools, and necessitate sewage facilities? All this just to provide a handful of below market homes while enriching the contractors and doing little to alleviate the high cost of housing.

Holding in abeyance the valid question of whether or not the government should be in the housing business in the first place, why not build only those units necessary to comply with the state mandated affordable housing minimum? Such units need not be palatial, simply utilitarian, and might very well be built on land reclaimed from areas that have fallen into disrepair. Why destroy a dwindling natural treasure when there are many neighborhoods that could use redevelopment?

Opposing either of the examples cited is merely common sense, not, heaven forbid, NIMBYism! When people level the NIMBY charge they're accusing those who don’t share their views of being selfish, when often it is really they who are being self centered. Perhaps those opposed stand between their accusers and an excessive profit, or possibly those in favor of the project have been deceived by the favorable press which such undertakings often receive. On the other hand, there is an excellent chance that those who oppose these projects are simply smarter than those who favor them. Perhaps they’re too wise to be duped by the rhetoric generated by the profiteers, and blindly parroted on behalf of those whose true agenda the supporters might be blissfully unaware.

Visit our sister site, Non Illigitimi Carborundum