NIMBY not derogatory - The News Connection

I was struck by the letter supporting Jean Levenick and Steve Dixon written by Patsy Mizeur in last week’s News Connection. In a way I agree that the upcoming election is a “single-issue” election. However, I believe she got the exact issue wrong. The election is not just about gas drilling, but Ms Mizeur’s letter nicely demonstrates what the real issue is. Not surprisingly, she engages in a name-calling campaign against Virginia Jellison and Al Filidoro. She chastises Jellison for the “arrogance” of getting involved and believes Filidoro panders to homeowners. The one I liked the most is “NIMBY” (not in my back yard). I have never understood why NIMBY is a derogatory term. Its antithesis would seem to imply that somehow residents are supposed to take one for the team. In other words, just accept having gas drilling or high density housing in your back yard because it’s “good” for the town or appeals to those supporting conservative spending in our town. You know, take one for the town. If that is the case, then I too am a NIMBY and proud of it.

Ms. Mizeur suggests that we have fair ordinances and restrictions when it comes to urban gas drilling. I also believe we have a very good, albeit not always perfect, roadmap for development in our Town. I would hope for a Town Council who considers my NIMBY concerns before changing ordinances or the roadmap. That is the real philosophical issue of this election. Dixon and Levenick have been on the Planning and Zoning Board for years and have a philosophy that is well-characterized by the spirit of Mizeur’s letter. Both Jellison and Filidoro support responsible ordinances for oil and gas drilling, our Master Plan and the SmartGrowth framework. I prefer a councilperson who panders to the residents of our town rather than developers. Call me a NIMBY.

Brian Casey
Flower Mound

Comments

2 comments for this article

Reverse Comment Order

Added: June 12, 2008. 05:48 PM CST

If not YOUR backyard, whose?

Mr. Casey, in the county where I live, there are a couple of institutions for mentally and physically disabled adults. One group of residents wants these places closed, claiming that these people will fare better "in the community."

Most of them are neighbors to the existing facilities who fear their property values are affected adversely, or their very lives endangered.

Yet another group opposes the "in the community" concept because they don't want those [fill in the derogatory term] in their "backyards."

So with NIMBY at work on both sides of the issue, the county is wrong no matter what it does, and the only other choice would be euthanizing these people, which would be objectionable to almost everyone.

What you call "taking one for the team" is a matter of being mature enough to know that the prisons, the garbage dumps, the police and fire stations, and--yes--the new housing subdivisions will end up being built SOMEWHERE. I certainly would not take pride in that attitude.

Blogger1947

Alert a moderator