Why YIMBYs, NIMBYs, BIMBYs and YIGBYs matter to democracy and our future cities

The right of everyone to have a say on development is at the heart of modern urban planning. But as houses become more and more expensive, questions are being asked about whether it’s okay to oppose housing developments in cities. The battle lines are being drawn between so-called NIMBYs — people who say “No in my backyard” — and YIMBYs, who say “yes” to new housing in their neighborhood.

The debate has focused on the right to participate in the public planning process and not on the merits of the development.

However, a healthy planning system celebrates broad debate, rather than seeking to silence inappropriate voices. Urban democracy is essential to achieve the best outcomes for our cities and all who live in them.

Debate has always been part of the process

Australians have always complained about their neighbors.

Colonists complained of “nuisance” from the smell, noise, and obstructions emanating from nearby land uses. As cities grew larger in the 20th century, residents began to protest against dense housing that encroached on sanitary or transportation infrastructure. They also objected to uses of the land, such as pubs and brothels, which they considered conducive to immorality.

Some of the opposition to denser housing came from middle-class suburbanites who wanted to protect their lifestyles and land values. Others opposed the housing density because of concerns for the welfare of slum dwellers.

In the early 20th century, urban planners such as Raymond Unwin argued that “nothing is gained by overcrowding”. Wide “garden fringes” were designed as an antidote to congestion.

Urbanists like Jane Jacobs, planners like Paul Davidoff, and philosophers like Henri Lefebvre and David Harvey all argued that citizens, not just engineers and planners, have a key role in creating great cities.

Putting theory into practice, civic activists in Sydney joined trade unionists in the world’s first green ban. They stopped work on projects that threatened to displace low-income families and destroy the built and natural heritage.

The right of citizens to have their say on neighboring land uses became a feature of the new planning laws.

The debate is now framed as NIMBY vs. YIMBY

Industry groups such as the Urban Taskforce, the Property Council and the Urban Development Institute of Australia have argued that over time, conservative voices seeking to exclude new development have used their right to be heard to dominate the outcomes of urban planning. Framing the need for housing as a “crisis” has enabled industry groups to characterize public participation in development assessment as unnecessary bureaucracy.

At the same time, developers argue that these NIMBYs have stifled hard-won rights to include diverse voices in urban planning. They are portrayed as selfish suburban homeowners intent on maintaining the status quo.

The influence of NIMBYs has spawned YIMBY, BIMBY (Beauty in My Backyard) and even YIGBY (Yes in God’s Backyard) groups. They use rights to participate in planning to advocate for, not against, higher-density forms of housing such as high-rise apartments.

Violations are no substitute for substance

So far, so good. But the debate is turning personal. NIMBY is now a subjective insult, not an objective definition.

Labeling development critics NIMBYs calls into question their motivation, avoiding the need to examine the substance of their criticism. A healthy debate about the urban future must acknowledge the differences between unreasonable and reasonable objections to development.

And citizens may oppose a development proposal for many reasons, some baseless but others reasonable. Sociologist Robert Lake argued that NIMBYs are best defined as natives who stand in the way of capital, not social goals.

It’s better to ask what a NIMBY is saying “no” to – or a YIMBY is saying “yes” to – and on what grounds, rather than questioning their right to participate in the debate altogether. Opposing development that would cause pollution or destroy biodiversity seems a valid reason to be a NIMBY. Opposition to development on the basis of class, race or religion is not.

The purpose of planning is to enable citizens to collectively choose the future for their city. A healthy debate between YIMBYs, NIMBYs and everyone in between strengthens urban democracy and, in doing so, shapes our cities in ways that better serve all who live in them.