Terrell

As the United States population expanded throughout the 20th century, suburbia sprang up — and with it, a unique mindset. Suburbanites clung to a new notion that their lives should be segmented geographically. They adopted an attitude of entitlement to live wholly apart from anything deemed noxious or different. Further, they came to expect their governments to protect them when new, unwanted uses were proposed for land near their homes.

These neighborhood opposition groups have become called NIMBYs — Not in My Backyard. Today, NIMBYs even oppose low-density residential subdivisions. While these neighborhood opposition groups were unheard of 50 years ago, their emergence as a cultural phenomenon was logical. Today, most developers learn the hard way that NIMBYs can be powerful forces. Even if their points seem irrational and their claims unsubstantiated, they sway votes.

Across the Southeast and the country, NIMBYs appear at public zoning hearings with the same complaints: there is too much traffic already, crime will increase, the environment will be further degraded, property values will decline, air quality will suffer and so on. A seasoned developer can write the script before they speak. However, their real concerns usually lie much deeper in unstated, subconscious human fears and emotions.

Communicating with NIMBYs before hearings is the key to discovering the root of the problem. To be successful, one has to address the subconscious emotions that often are the driving forces, even if they never have been placed openly on the table. Consider some common fears:

Fear of Change. Most people fear change. It can be threatening and often requires people to adapt to new routines or to look at the world — and themselves — in ways that hurt. Change breeds anxiety about the discomfort of new relationships and situations.

Fear of the Unknown. People resist confrontations with unknown forces and variables. If they are uncertain of the outcome, they will prefer to avoid the unknown and its potentially uncomfortable consequences.

Fear of Losing Control. People want to control their lives and destinies, from where they live and work to the color of their cars. A new development nearby means someone else will control the character of the neighborhood and the people who come onto their “turf.”

Fear of Invasion. Humans are territorial. People respond negatively to anything or anyone from outside their private domain that threatens their serenity, sense of safety or food stocks. Developers usually are outsiders, and when neighbors perceive them as territorial threats, they are seen as invaders.

Fear of Losing Ground. It is an essential American trait to aspire to greater social and economic success. One way people display their success is by choosing neighborhoods those of lower economic status cannot afford to live in or near. When a developer proposes an adjacent subdivision that will offer less expensive homes, the “successful” are confronted with the possibility of living proximately not with the company owner but with one of his truck drivers or line workers. Sometimes racial and xenophobic feelings become underlying parts of the equation. Neighbors claim they are worried about loss of property values, but what they really fear is loss of self worth.

Fear The “Haves” Could Win Another One. Many neighborhood opponents fight new developments purely for sport and entertainment. Often these citizens see themselves as the noble middle class, untainted by profit motives. Land use battles can be made sensational and thus entertaining. Winning the battle is as or more important than protecting turf.

There are antidotes to these issues. Knowing which of these fears predominates is more art than science. If the fears can be identified, they are easier to address effectively. For example, if the neighbors fear change or the unknown, they need to see photos and architects’ renderings of similar projects. If they fear losing control of their destinies, they should be offered opportunities to suggest architectural motifs, types of landscaping, or changes in buffers and signage. If neighbors feel they are being invaded by “outsiders,” they need to meet the developers and feel comfortable with them as members of the community. If the fear is, “there goes the neighborhood,” buffers and alternate access points can be explored. Finally, if opponents are fighting for sport and entertainment, intensities often wane over time and a slower process may benefit the developer.

Controlling — or at least mitigating — the collateral pressures on zoning boards by NIMBYs often can mean the difference in a close vote. Developers who are sensitive to the human dynamics underlying land use decisions and who learn to listen to what neighbors are not saying can gain an advantage at the neighborhood conference table and, indirectly, in the hearing room.

Tom Terrell is an attorney with Smith Moore LLP in Greensboro, North Carolina. He represents commercial, industrial and residential developers confronted by complex zoning and regulatory approval processes.

©2003 France Publications, Inc. Duplication or reproduction of this article not permitted without authorization from France Publications, Inc. For information on reprints of this article contact Barbara Sherer at (630) 554-6054.