Editing NIMBY

{{Short description|Opposition to nearby development projects}}
{{use dmy dates|date=July 2018}}

[[File:Nimby unfinished tower (cropped).jpg|thumb|Unfinished tower in [[Tenleytown, Washington, D.C.|Tenleytown]], Washington, D.C. that was later removed as a result of complaints from the neighborhood]]

'''NIMBY''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|n|ɪ|m|b|i}}, or '''nimby'''),<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/nimby |publisher= Macmillan Dictionary |title= Definition of Nimby |access-date= 17 July 2015 |archive-date= 21 July 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150721203623/http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/nimby |url-status= live }}</ref> an [[acronym]] for the phrase "'''Not In My Back<!-- Do not remove this space. --><!-- It is correct, and otherwise would be NIMB, which would clearly be wrong. --> Yard'''",<ref>{{cite web |url= http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/nimby |title= Cambridge Dictionaries Online – meaning of NIMBY |access-date= 17 July 2015 |archive-date= 21 July 2015 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150721155502/http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/nimby |url-status= live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Nimby |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20120729041134/http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Nimby |url-status= dead |archive-date= 29 July 2012 |title= Oxford Dictionaries – definition of Nimby |access-date= 17 July 2015}}</ref> is a characterization of opposition by residents to proposed [[real estate development]] and [[infrastructure]] developments in their local area, as well as support for strict land use regulations. It carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away. The residents are often called '''nimbys''', and their viewpoint is called '''nimbyism'''. The opposite movement is known as [[YIMBY]] for "yes in my back yard".<ref>{{cite news |title=Forget YIMBY vs. NIMBY. Could PHIMBYs Solve the Housing Crisis? |url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11731580/forget-yimby-vs-nimby-could-phimbys-solve-the-housing-crisis |access-date=28 April 2022 |work=KQED |language=en-us |archive-date=28 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220428044828/https://www.kqed.org/news/11731580/forget-yimby-vs-nimby-could-phimbys-solve-the-housing-crisis |url-status=live }}</ref>

Some examples of projects that have been opposed by nimbys include [[housing development]]<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/mayor-of-london/10984944/Boris-Johnson-Nimbies-pretend-to-care-about-architecture-to-block-developments.html |title= Boris Johnson: Nimbies pretend to care about architecture to block developments |author= Matthew Holehouse |date= 23 July 2014 |access-date= 23 January 2016 |newspaper= The Telegraph |archive-date= 13 February 2020 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200213042005/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/london-mayor-election/mayor-of-london/10984944/Boris-Johnson-Nimbies-pretend-to-care-about-architecture-to-block-developments.html |url-status= live }}</ref> (especially for [[affordable housing]]<ref>{{Cite web |last=Axel-Lute |first=Miriam |date=2021-11-17 |title=What Is NIMBYism and How Do Affordable Housing Developers Respond to It? |url=https://shelterforce.org/2021/11/17/what-is-nimbyism-and-how-do-affordable-housing-developers-respond-to-it/ |access-date=2023-09-11 |website=Shelterforce |language=en-US |archive-date=15 October 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231015010525/https://shelterforce.org/2021/11/17/what-is-nimbyism-and-how-do-affordable-housing-developers-respond-to-it/ |url-status=live }}</ref> or [[trailer park]]s<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.kplctv.com/2022/04/28/westlake-council-approves-moratorium-manufactured-homes-portion-city/?outputType=amp | title=Westlake council approves moratorium on manufactured homes in portion of city | date=28 April 2022 }}</ref>), [[high-speed rail]] lines,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2011-06-28 |title=Fast rail critics 'rich nimbys' |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-13943014 |access-date=2023-06-09 |website=BBC News |language=en-GB |archive-date=9 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230609201241/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-13943014 |url-status=live }}</ref> [[homeless shelters]],<ref>{{cite news |url= http://digitalissue.ocweekly.com/article/News/1800742/223650/article.html |title= Anywhere but here |date= 28 August 2015 |access-date= 23 January 2016 |author= Andrew Galvin |newspaper= OC Weekly |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160130210045/http://digitalissue.ocweekly.com/article/News/1800742/223650/article.html |archive-date= 30 January 2016 |url-status= dead |df= dmy-all }}</ref> [[day care]]s,<ref name="VancouverSun2023" /> [[school]]s, [[University|universities]] and [[college]]s,<ref>{{Cite news |date=2022-03-17 |title=In Berkeley, it's the NIMBYs versus the university |url=https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/03/17/in-berkeley-it-s-the-nimbys-versus-the-university_5978795_4.html |access-date=2024-02-28 |work=Le Monde.fr |language=en |archive-date=28 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240228212343/https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/03/17/in-berkeley-it-s-the-nimbys-versus-the-university_5978795_4.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=UC Berkeley forced to cap enrollment after NIMBY lawsuit |url=https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2022/03/04/uc-berkeley-forced-to-cap-enrollment-after-nimby-lawsuit |access-date=2024-02-28 |website=Morning Brew |language=en-us |archive-date=28 February 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240228212344/https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2022/03/04/uc-berkeley-forced-to-cap-enrollment-after-nimby-lawsuit |url-status=live }}</ref> [[bike lane]]s and [[transportation planning]] that promotes [[Road traffic safety|pedestrian safety]] infrastructure,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Vargas |first=Theresa |date=2023-02-05 |title=Perspective {{!}} Meet Nimbee, the mascot who scorns bike lanes, development and change |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/04/nimbee-bee-mascot-satire/ |access-date=2024-02-28 |newspaper=Washington Post |language=en-US |issn=0190-8286 |archive-date=30 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230330101214/https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/02/04/nimbee-bee-mascot-satire/ |url-status=live }}</ref> [[solar farms]],<ref name=BB_2021-07-29 >{{cite news | url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-29/san-francisco-bay-area-solar-farm-opposed-by-nimbys?sref=R8NfLgwS | title=California Nimbys Threaten Biden's Clean Energy Goals - Ranchers, farmers and environmentalists are coming together to oppose what would be the largest solar plant built in the San Francisco Bay area, a project local officials say is critical to the state meeting its climate goals. | last=Chediak | first=Mark | newspaper=[[Bloomberg News]] | date=2021-07-29 | access-date=6 March 2023 }}</ref> [[wind farms]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Boyle |first1=Kevin J. |last2=Boatwright |first2=Jessica |last3=Brahma |first3=Sreeya |last4=Xu |first4=Weibin |date=2019-08-01 |title=NIMBY, not, in siting community wind farms |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765518303002 |journal=Resource and Energy Economics |volume=57 |pages=85–100 |doi=10.1016/j.reseneeco.2019.04.004 |bibcode=2019REEco..57...85B |s2cid=159139028 |issn=0928-7655|url-access=subscription }}</ref> [[Incineration|incinerators]], [[sewage treatment]] systems,<ref name="charlestown">{{cite news |title=Charlestown City Council tables sewer ordinance after public backlash |url=https://www.wlky.com/article/charlestown-city-council-tables-sewer-ordinance-after-public-backlash/30095649 |access-date=26 September 2020 |work=WLKY-TV |date=December 2, 2019 |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925020041/https://www.wlky.com/article/charlestown-city-council-tables-sewer-ordinance-after-public-backlash/30095649 |url-status=live }}</ref> [[fracking]],<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/04/fracking-resistance-southern-nimbys-minister |title= Fracking will meet resistance from southern nimbys, minister warns |author= Patrick Wintour |date= 4 August 2013 |access-date= 23 January 2016 |newspaper= The Guardian |archive-date= 20 January 2020 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20200120110708/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/aug/04/fracking-resistance-southern-nimbys-minister |url-status= live }}</ref> and [[Deep geological repository|nuclear waste repositories]].<ref>{{cite news |url= https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/businessspecial3/07nuke.html?_r=0 |title= Radioactive Nimby: No one wants nuclear waste |author= James Kanter |date= 7 November 2007 |newspaper= The New York Times |access-date= 23 January 2016 |archive-date= 16 November 2018 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20181116022501/https://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/business/businessspecial3/07nuke.html?_r=0 |url-status= live }}</ref>

[[File:Tour group entering North Portal of Yucca Mountain.jpg|alt=|thumb|295x295px|Proposed [[Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.yuccamountain.org/|title=Eureka County, Nevada – Yucca Mountain.org|website=www.yuccamountain.org|access-date=2020-04-25|archive-date=21 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200421092444/http://yuccamountain.org/|url-status=live}}</ref> {{convert|80|mi|km|-1|abbr=on|order=flip}} northwest of Las Vegas, was approved by the government and then opposed by the citizens of Nevada. Federal funding ended in 2011.]]

==Rationale==
Developments likely to attract local objections include:

* Infrastructure development, such as new roads and [[rest areas]], [[railway]], [[light rail]] and [[rapid transit|metro]] lines, airports, [[power plant]]s, retail developments, sales of public assets, [[Electric power transmission|electrical transmission lines]], [[Sewage treatment|wastewater treatment plants]], [[landfill]]s, [[sewage treatment|sewage outfalls]] and [[prison]]s;
* Waste facility development, e.g. exploration of disposal sites for nuclear/radiation waste;
* The extraction of mineral resources including ore, aggregates and hydrocarbons from [[mining|mines]], [[quarries]] and [[oil well]]s or [[gas well]]s, respectively;
* [[Renewable energy]] generators, such as [[wind farm]]s and [[solar panel]]s;
* Businesses trading in goods perceived as [[immoral]], such as [[pornographic film|adult video]], [[Distilled beverage|liquor]] [[liquor store|stores]], and [[medical cannabis|cannabis]] [[dispensaries]];
* Accommodations perceived as primarily benefiting disadvantaged people, such as [[subsidized housing]] for the [[poverty|financially disadvantaged]], [[supportive housing]] for the [[mental illness|mentally ill]], congregate living care homes (as for the [[developmentally disabled]]), [[halfway house]]s for drug addicts and [[criminal]]s, and [[homeless shelter]]s.
* Services catering to certain stigmatized groups (for example, [[addiction|injection drug users]]), such as [[methadone clinic]]s, [[syringe exchange programme]]s, [[drug detoxification]] facilities, [[supervised injection site]];
* Large-scale developments of all kinds, such as [[big-box store]]s and housing [[subdivision (land)|subdivision]]s.

The claimed reasons against these developments vary, and some are given below.

* Increased traffic: more jobs, more housing or more stores correlates to increased traffic on local streets and greater demand for parking spots. Industrial facilities such as warehouses, factories, or [[landfill]]s often increase the volume of truck traffic.
* Harm to locally owned [[small business]]es: the development of a big box store may provide too much competition to a locally owned store; similarly, the construction of a new road may make the older road less traveled, leading to a loss of business for property owners. This can lead to excessive relocation costs, or to loss of respected local businesses.
* Loss of residential property value: homes near an undesirable development may be less desirable for potential buyers. The lost revenue from property taxes may, or may not, be offset by increased revenue from the project.
* [[Environmental pollution]] of land, air, and water: power plants, factories, chemical facilities, [[crematorium]]s, [[sewage treatment facilities]], airports, and similar projects may—or may be claimed to—contaminate the land, air, or water around them. Especially facilities assumed to smell might cause objections.
* [[Light pollution]]: projects that operate at night, or that include security lighting (such as street lights in a parking lot), may be accused of causing light pollution.
* [[Noise pollution]]: in addition to the noise of traffic, a project may inherently be noisy. This is a common objection to [[Windmill syndrome|wind power]], [[Mitigation of aviation's environmental impact#Methods of mitigating aviation's noise emissions|airports]], roads, and many industrial facilities, but also stadiums, [[music festival|festivals]], and [[nightclub]]s which are particularly noisy at night when locals want to sleep.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.todayszaman.com/national_nightclub-music-needs-restricting-to-reduce-noise-pollution-say-environmentalists_215054.html |title=Nightclub music needs restricting to reduce noise pollution, say environmentalists |access-date=12 May 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518102034/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_nightclub-music-needs-restricting-to-reduce-noise-pollution-say-environmentalists_215054.html |archive-date=18 May 2015 }}</ref>
* Visual blight and failure to "blend in" with the surrounding architecture: the proposed project might be ugly or particularly large, or cast a [[shadow]] over an area due to its height.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://ny.curbed.com/2014/2/20/10141252/hundreds-fret-about-superscrapers-shadows-as-extell-rebuts|title=Hundreds Fret About Superscrapers' Shadows As Extell Rebuts|last=Curbed|date=20 February 2014|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-date=28 July 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160728101949/http://ny.curbed.com/2014/2/20/10141252/hundreds-fret-about-superscrapers-shadows-as-extell-rebuts|url-status=live}}</ref>
* Loss of a community's small-town feel: proposals that might result in new people moving into the community, such as a plan to build many new houses, are often claimed to change the community's character.
* Strain of public resources and schools: this reason is given for any increase in the local area's population, as additional school facilities might be needed for the additional children, but particularly to projects that might result in certain kinds of people joining the community, such as a [[group home]] for people with disabilities, or immigrants.
* Disproportionate benefit to non-locals: the project appears to benefit distant people, such as investors (in the case of commercial projects like factories or big-box stores) or people from neighboring areas (in the case of regional government projects, such as airports, highways, sewage treatment, or landfills).
* Increases in crime: this is usually applied to projects that are perceived as attracting or employing low-skill workers or racial minorities, as well as projects that cater to people who are thought to often commit crimes, such as the mentally ill, the poor, and drug addicts. Additionally, certain types of projects, such as [[Bar (establishment)|pubs]] or [[medical marijuana]] dispensaries, might be perceived as directly increasing the amount of crime in the area.
* Risk of an (environmental) disaster, such as with drilling operations, chemical industry, [[dams]],<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=esydBAAAQBAJ|title=Nimby Is Beautiful: Cases of Local Activism and Environmental Innovation Around the World|first1=Carol|last1=Hager|first2=Mary Alice|last2=Haddad|year=2015|publisher=Berghahn Books|access-date=15 September 2016|via=Google Books|isbn=978-1782386025|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925020543/https://books.google.com/books?id=esydBAAAQBAJ|url-status=live}}</ref> or nuclear power plants.
* [[Historic district]]s: the affected area is on a [[heritage register]], because of its many older properties that are being preserved as such.<ref name="Millsap">{{cite web |last1=Millsap |first1=Adam |title=Cities Should Think Twice About Expanding Historic Districts |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2021/03/17/cities-should-think-twice-about-expanding-historic-districts/?sh=7dcb7229192f |work=Forbes |access-date=29 March 2022 |archive-date=29 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220329173331/https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2021/03/17/cities-should-think-twice-about-expanding-historic-districts/?sh=7dcb7229192f |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Washington |first1=Emily |title=Historic Preservation and Its Costs |url=https://www.city-journal.org/html/historic-preservation-and-its-costs-11014.html |website=www.city-journal.org |date=23 December 2015 |publisher=City-Journal |access-date=29 March 2022 |archive-date=16 February 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220216212846/https://www.city-journal.org/html/historic-preservation-and-its-costs-11014.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Freishtat-2022">{{cite web |last1=Freishtat |first1=Sarah |title=Are landmark districts linked to affordable housing and segregation? A Chicago lawsuit makes the connection, but a historic preservationist disputes it |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-chicago-landmarks-lawsuit-affordable-housing-20220214-ljtegdd6zrhs7mkrm7l2xdrxbu-story.html |website=www.chicagotribune.com |date=14 February 2022 |publisher=Chicago Tribune |access-date=29 March 2022 |archive-date=29 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220329173900/https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-chicago-landmarks-lawsuit-affordable-housing-20220214-ljtegdd6zrhs7mkrm7l2xdrxbu-story.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

The cause of NIMBYism is seen by some due to spatially concentrated costs and diffuse benefits together with regulatory transaction costs which result in a failure of [[conflict resolution]].<ref>{{cite journal | url=https://doi.org/10.1177/09516298211044852 | doi=10.1177/09516298211044852 | title=The NIMBY problem | date=2022 | last1=Foster | first1=David | last2=Warren | first2=Joseph | journal=Journal of Theoretical Politics | volume=34 | pages=145–172 | access-date=2 June 2024 | archive-date=25 September 2024 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925020544/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09516298211044852 | url-status=live | url-access=subscription }}</ref>

As hinted by the list, protests can occur for opposite reasons. A new road or shopping center can cause increased traffic and work opportunities for some, and decreased traffic for others, harming local businesses.

People in an area affected by plans sometimes form an organization which can collect money and organize the objection activities. NIMBYists can hire a lawyer to file formal [[appeal]]s, and contact media to gain public support for their case.

==Origin and history==
The acronym first appeared in a February 1979 newspaper article in [[Virginia]]'s ''[[Daily Press (Virginia)|Daily Press]]''. {{blockquote|agencies need to be better coordinated and the "nimby" (not in my backyard) syndrome must be eliminated.}}
The article may have been quoting Joseph A. Lieberman, a member of the [[United States Atomic Energy Commission]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Radioactive Waste: National Regulations Needed |url=https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-press-earliest-instance-of-acronym/22400826/ |access-date=29 January 2024 |work=[[Daily Press (Virginia)|Daily Press]] |date=13 February 1979 |pages=23 |archive-date=29 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240129171521/https://www.newspapers.com/article/daily-press-earliest-instance-of-acronym/22400826/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The phrase '"not in my back yard" syndrome,' without the acronym, also appeared in an environmental journal in February 1980.<ref>{{cite journal |quote=The 'not in my back yard' syndrome is a compound of fears about health, safety, and environmental quality |page=5 |url=https://archive.org/details/enviroviews2n6/page/4 |title=Hazardous Wastes |first=Gillian |last=Sniatynski |journal=Environment Views |volume=2 |issue=6 |date=February–March 1980 }}</ref> The ''[[Oxford English Dictionary]]'''s earliest citation is a ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'' article from November 1980, although even there the author indicates the term is already used in the [[hazardous waste]] industry.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wordspy.com/words/nimby.asp|title=NIMBY – Word Spy|first=Word|last=Spy|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-date=14 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814104136/http://www.wordspy.com/words/NIMBY.asp|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/1980/1106/110653.html|title=Hazardous waste|first=Emilie Travel|last=Livezey|date=6 November 1980|access-date=15 September 2016|journal=Christian Science Monitor}}</ref>
The concept behind the term, that of locally organized resistance to unwanted land uses, is likely to have originated earlier. One suggestion is it emerged in the 1950s.<ref>Maiorino, Al. (22 March 2011)  [http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5384/do-you-have-control-over-nimbyism/ "Do You Have Control Over NIMBYism?"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110518175304/http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5384/do-you-have-control-over-nimbyism |date=18 May 2011 }} ''Biomass Magazine''</ref>

In the 1980s, the term was popularized by British politician [[Nicholas Ridley, Baron Ridley of Liddesdale|Nicholas Ridley]], who was the [[Conservative Party (UK)|Conservative]] [[Secretary of State for the Environment]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Heywood|first=Andrew|date=March 1, 2015|title=Short memories?|journal=Housing Finance International|issue=Spring 2015|pages=4–5. 2|via=Business Source Complete}}</ref> Comedian [[George Carlin]] used the term in 1992 for his ''[[Jammin' in New York]]'' special, implying that people had already heard of it.<ref>Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/43Egm0j_p1A Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20111120232139/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Egm0j_p1A&gl=US&hl=en Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43Egm0j_p1A |title=George Carlin on N.I.M.B.Y. |date=5 October 2008 |publisher=YouTube |format=video |access-date=25 April 2012 |quote=We <nowiki>{{sic}}</nowiki> got somethin' in this country (you've heard of it) – it's called NIMBY – n-i-m-b-y – Not In My BackYard!}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

The NIMBY acronym has also been used by social scientists since the early 1980s to describe the resistance of communities to the siting of controversial facilities and land use.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Borell |first1= Klas |last2= Westermark |first2= Åsa |date= 31 October 2016 |title= Siting of human services facilities and the not in my back yard phenomenon: a critical research review |journal= Community Development Journal |volume= 53 |issue= 2 |pages= 246–262 |doi= 10.1093/cdj/bsw039 |url= http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-34235 |access-date= 28 August 2019 |archive-date= 25 September 2024 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20240925020552/https://hj.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1054817&dswid=-3958 |url-status= live }}</ref>

The term's connotation has harshened since its introduction in the 1980s.<ref name="NYTimesTwilightOfTheNIMBY">{{cite news |last=Dougherty |first=Conor |date=June 5, 2022 |title=Twilight of the NIMBY |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/business/economy/california-housing-crisis-nimby.html |work=New York Times |access-date=June 27, 2022 |quote=NIMBY stands for “Not in my backyard,” an acronym that proliferated in the early 1980s to describe neighbors who fight nearby development, especially anything involving apartments. The word was initially descriptive (the Oxford English Dictionary added “NIMBY” in 1989 and has since tacked on “NIMBYism” and “NIMBYish”) but its connotation has harshened as rent and home prices have exploded. Nimbys who used to be viewed as, at best, defenders of their community, and at worst just practical, are now painted as housing hoarders whose efforts have increased racial segregation, deepened wealth inequality and are robbing the next generation of the American dream. |archive-date=28 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220628065818/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/05/business/economy/california-housing-crisis-nimby.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Beyond their impact on any single development or neighborhood, NIMBY organizations and policies are now painted as worsening [[racial segregation]], deepening [[economic inequality]], and limiting the overall supply of [[affordable housing]].<ref name="NYTimesTwilightOfTheNIMBY"/> There have been a variety of books and articles on how to address NIMBY perspectives. One such article discussing NIMBY opposition to affordable housing by the [[National Low Income Housing Coalition]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-05-24 |title=Shape the Future of Tamarac: Give Your Vision a Voice at Upcoming Workshops • Tamarac Talk |url=https://tamaractalk.com/shape-future-tamarac-2040-comp-plan-workshops-44140 |access-date=2023-05-27 |website=tamaractalk.com |language=en-US |archive-date=27 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230527221036/https://tamaractalk.com/shape-future-tamarac-2040-comp-plan-workshops-44140 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Variations==
''NIMBY'' and its derivative terms ''nimbyism'', ''nimbys'', and ''nimbyists'', refer implicitly to debates of development generally or to a specific case. As such, their use is inherently contentious. The term is usually applied to opponents of a development, implying that they have narrow, selfish, or myopic views. Its use is often [[pejorative]].<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1968870.ece You can't park here: it's my retreat, says ‘Nimby’ Clooney] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925025232/https://www.thetimes.com/ |date=25 September 2024 }} (''[[The Times]]'')</ref>

===Not in my neighborhood===
{{See also|Redlining}}
The term ''Not in my neighborhood'', or ''NIMN'', is also frequently used.<ref>{{cite magazine | first = Jon | last = Hull
 | url = http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966534,00.html
 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080725095112/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966534,00.html
 | url-status = dead
 | archive-date = 25 July 2008
 | magazine = Time | publisher = Time Inc | title = Not In My Neighborhood
 | date = 25 January 1988 | access-date=20 May 2010}}</ref> "NIMN" additionally refers to legislative actions or private agreements made with the sole purpose of maintaining racial identity within a particular neighborhood or residential area by forcefully keeping members of other races from moving into the area.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Scharper|first1=Diane|title=Ex-Sun author traces bigotry's role in shaping Baltimore|journal=The Baltimore Sun|date=21 March 2010|url=http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-03-21/entertainment/bal-ae.bk.neighborhood21mar21_1_blacks-and-jews-rouse-white-woman|access-date=13 August 2015|archive-date=6 August 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150806122319/http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-03-21/entertainment/bal-ae.bk.neighborhood21mar21_1_blacks-and-jews-rouse-white-woman|url-status=dead}}</ref> In that regard, "Not in My Neighborhood," by author and journalist Antero Pietila, describes the toll NIMN politics had on housing conditions in Baltimore throughout the 20th century and the systemic, racially based citywide separation it caused.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Pietila|first1=Antero|title=Not in my neighborhood : how bigotry shaped a great American city|date=2010|publisher=Ivan R. Dee|location=Chicago|isbn=978-1566638432|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/notinmyneighborh0000piet}}</ref>

===BANANA and CAVE {{anchor|BANANA}}{{anchor|NIABY}}{{anchor|CAVE}}===
{{About|the attitude to development|prehistoric humans|Caveman}}
''BANANA'' is an acronym for "build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" (or "anyone").<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/23/opinion/l-absolute-banana-756593.html|title=Absolute Banana|date=23 December 1993|work=The New York Times|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-date=9 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170909004948/https://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/23/opinion/l-absolute-banana-756593.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.planetizen.com/node/152|title=From NIMBYs To DUDEs: The Wacky World Of Plannerese|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-date=19 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160919163231/http://www.planetizen.com/node/152|url-status=live}}</ref> The term is most often used to criticize the ongoing opposition of certain [[advocacy groups]] to [[land development]].<ref>[http://www.wordspy.com/words/banana.asp BANANA] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100915023045/http://www.wordspy.com/words/banana.asp |date=15 September 2010 }} at Wordspy</ref> The term is commonly used within the context of [[Land use planning|planning]] in the United Kingdom. [[Sunderland City Council]] lists the term in their online dictionary of jargon.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/apps/gobbledygook/Define.asp?ItemId=126|title=Sunderland City Council|access-date=15 September 2016|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080508043826/http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/apps/gobbledygook/Define.asp?ItemId=126|archive-date=8 May 2008}}</ref>

In the United States, the related phenomenon '''CAVE people''' or "CAVE dwellers" serves as an acronym for "citizens against virtually everything."<ref name="Barrett2006">{{cite book|author=Grant Barrett|title=The Oxford Dictionary of American Political Slang|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hc7x96jE5EcC&pg=PA76|year=2006|publisher=OUP US|isbn=978-0195304473|pages=76–77|access-date=9 September 2019|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925021149/https://books.google.com/books?id=hc7x96jE5EcC&pg=PA76#v=onepage&q&f=false|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="RossPerry1999">{{cite book|author1=Joel E. Ross|author2=Susan Perry|title=Total Quality Management: Text, Cases and Readings|url=https://archive.org/details/totalqualitymana0000ross|url-access=registration|edition=Third|year=1999|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1574442663|page=[https://archive.org/details/totalqualitymana0000ross/page/65 65]}}</ref> It is a [[pejorative]] term for citizens who regularly oppose any changes in their community, organization or workplace.<ref name="Barrett2006"/><ref name="RossPerry1999"/>{{rp|65}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://opensource.com/open-organization/17/1/escape-the-cave|title=A 5-step plan to encourage your team to make changes on your project &#124; Opensource.com|website=opensource.com|access-date=2 December 2023|archive-date=6 December 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231206140010/https://opensource.com/open-organization/17/1/escape-the-cave|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=How to Deal With 'CAVE People' — Citizens Against Virtually Everything - Rotman School of Management |url=https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/Connect/Rotman-MAG/IdeaExchange/Spring2019-Methot |website=www.rotman.utoronto.ca |access-date=2 December 2023 |archive-date=16 December 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231216081734/https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/Connect/Rotman-MAG/IdeaExchange/Spring2019-Methot |url-status=live }}</ref> A reference to the term "CAVE dwellers" can be found in the September 30, 1990, edition of the ''Orlando Sentinel''.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Turchin |first1=Peter |title=CAVE Dwellers |url=https://blog.harmonycr.com/cave/ |website=Harmony |publisher=Orlando Sentinel |access-date=20 September 2006 |archive-date=7 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210507225537/https://blog.harmonycr.com/cave/ |url-status=live }}</ref> The term apparently existed before the publication of the article.

CAVE/BANANA people are characterized by implacable opposition to change in any form, regardless of what other local residents and stakeholders feel. This attitude is manifested in opposition to changes in [[public policy]] as varied as [[Tax levy|tax levies]], [[Sewage treatment|sewer rates]], [[public transport]]ation routes, [[parking]] regulations and [[municipal]] mergers or [[annexation]]s.  CAVE/BANANA people often express their views publicly by attending [[Local government|community meetings]],<ref name="Beyle1998">{{cite book|author=Thad L. Beyle|title=State Government: CQ's Guide to Current Issues and Activities 1998–99|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TGi_m_3fbqgC|year=1998|publisher=Congressional Quarterly, Inc.|isbn=978-1-56802-098-3|page=129|access-date=2 December 2023|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925021201/https://books.google.com/books?id=TGi_m_3fbqgC|url-status=live}}</ref> writing letters to the local newspaper, or calling in to [[talk radio]] shows, similar to NIMBYs.

The terms "CAVE people" and "BANANAs" were used in a 2022 op-ed to describe the populace of [[Stamford, Connecticut|Stamford]], Connecticut.<ref>{{cite news |last=Augustyn |first=Arthur |title=Stamford is a cultural hellhole |url=https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Stamford-is-a-cultural-hellhole-17491946.php |newspaper=Stamford Advocate |date=7 October 2022 |publisher=Hearst |access-date=7 October 2022 |archive-date=7 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221007131713/https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/opinion/article/Stamford-is-a-cultural-hellhole-17491946.php |url-status=live }}</ref> The op-ed was written by a former municipal employee and described CAVE people as seeing "no issue [[doublethink|simultaneously arguing conflicting points]] so long as nothing changes."

Similar is "NIABY" or "not in anyone's backyard".

===PIBBY===
{{Redirect|PIBBY|the Adult Swim character and related media|2021 in animation#October|and|Adult Swim#April Fools' Day stunts}}
''PIBBY'' is an acronym for "place in blacks' back yard." This principle indicates that the people with perceived social, racial, and economic privileges object to a development in their own back yards, and if the objectionable item must be built, then it should be built so that its perceived harms disproportionately affect poor, socially disadvantaged people. Economically disadvantaged people might not be willing or able to hire a lawyer to appeal the right way, or might have more immediate troubles than a new nearby construction project. The [[environmental justice]] movement has pointed out nimbyism leads to [[environmental racism]]. [[Robert D. Bullard]], Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, has argued that official responses to NIMBY phenomena have led to the PIBBY principle.<ref>Stewart, James B. (5 April 2002) [https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF02689929 Book Reviews: "Dumping in dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925021202/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1007/BF02689929 |date=25 September 2024 }} ''The Review of Black Political Economy'' Volume 20, Number 2, 105–107, {{doi|10.1007/BF02689929}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Wh9qiXueaL0C|publisher=Westview Press|year=2008|isbn=978-0813344270|language=en|first=Robert D.|last=Bullard|page=4}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Beyond Resistance! Youth Activism and Community Change: New Democratic ... edited by Pedro Noguera, Julio Cammarota, Shawn Ginwright|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M2rlphlkdLMC&q=PIBBY+black+-libby+-piggy&pg=PT119|isbn=978-1135927790|last1=Noguera|first1=Pedro|last2=Cammarota|first2=Julio|last3=Ginwright|first3=Shawn|year=2013|publisher=Routledge|access-date=27 October 2020|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925021056/https://books.google.com/books?id=M2rlphlkdLMC&q=PIBBY+black+-libby+-piggy&pg=PT119#v=snippet&q=PIBBY%20black%20-libby%20-piggy&f=false|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Black environmentalists go after PIBBY – 'put it in blacks' backyards'|url=http://www.athensnews.com/news/local/black-environmentalists-go-after-pibby---put-it-in/article_8d5a097f-b8b8-53c1-9845-7aca7421a816.html|website=AthensNews|date=4 September 2001|access-date=22 November 2015|archive-date=14 May 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170514022004/http://www.athensnews.com/news/local/black-environmentalists-go-after-pibby---put-it-in/article_8d5a097f-b8b8-53c1-9845-7aca7421a816.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=Integrating Environment and Economy: Strategies for Local and RegionalGovernment edited by Andrew Gouldson, Peter Roberts|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IyyEAgAAQBAJ&q=PIBBY+black+-libby+-piggy&pg=PA48|isbn=978-1134703685|last1=Gouldson|first1=Andrew|last2=Roberts|first2=Peter|year=2002|publisher=Routledge|access-date=27 October 2020|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925021057/https://books.google.com/books?id=IyyEAgAAQBAJ&q=PIBBY+black+-libby+-piggy&pg=PA48#v=snippet&q=PIBBY%20black%20-libby%20-piggy&f=false|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=PIBBY|url=http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/PIBBY|website=The Free Dictionary|access-date=22 November 2015|archive-date=11 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130611225303/http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/PIBBY|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title = Book Reviews: American Politics The Evolving Citizen: American Youth and the Changing Norms of Democratic Engagement. By Jay P. Childers. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press|issue = 1|pages = 237–238|url = http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9243055|journal = Perspectives on Politics|volume = 12|doi = 10.1017/S1537592714000358|last1 = Andolina|first1 = Molly W.|date = March 2014|s2cid = 145733215|access-date = 22 November 2015|archive-date = 22 November 2015|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151122232304/http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9243055|url-status = live|url-access = subscription}}</ref>

===Reverse NIMBY===
Reverse NIMBY is a phenomenon opposite to the widely known concept of NIMBY. Instead of arguing that it is troublesome that a hazardous facility is located in my backyard, proponents and people who exploit the concept of reverse NIMBY would say that "If it happens in my backyard, it matters more because, well, it's my backyard."<ref name="Cillizza-2013">{{Cite news|last=Cillizza|first=Chris|date=May 21, 2013|title=Jim Inhofe and the "reverse NIMBY" phenomenon|newspaper=The Washington Post|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/05/21/jim-inhofe-and-the-reverse-nimby-phenomenon/|access-date=December 6, 2021|archive-date=22 March 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230322221628/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/05/21/jim-inhofe-and-the-reverse-nimby-phenomenon/|url-status=live}}</ref> It appears within the U.S. Congress where politicians actively use the mentality after major catastrophic events to garner recovery funds from the federal government.<ref name="Cillizza-2013" /> This is a viable strategy for members of Congress to garner benefits for their constituents because it is difficult for the federal government to understand needs at the local level.<ref>{{Cite news|last=Woolcock|first=Nicola|title=The reverse Nimby effect|newspaper=[[The Times]]|language=en|url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/education/article/the-reverse-nimby-effect-5lnd3xhcdbj|access-date=2021-12-07|issn=0140-0460|archive-date=7 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211207141222/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-reverse-nimby-effect-5lnd3xhcdbj|url-status=live}}</ref>

==Points of debate==
Although often used rather pejoratively, the use of the concept NIMBY and similar terms have been critiqued by those who have been called NIMBYs. For instance, the term is frequently used to dismiss groups as selfish or ill-informed, even though these same groups claim to have virtues that are overlooked.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mcclymont|first1=Katie|last2=O'hare|first2=Paul|date=1 June 2008|title="We're not NIMBYs!" Contrasting local protest groups with idealised conceptions of sustainable communities|journal=Local Environment|volume=13|issue=4|pages=321–335|doi=10.1080/13549830701803273|bibcode=2008LoEnv..13..321M|s2cid=143704483|issn=1354-9839|url=http://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/575264/2/McClymont%20%26%20OHare_We%27re%20not%20NIMBYs.pdf|access-date=10 April 2019|archive-date=7 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190607155332/http://e-space.mmu.ac.uk/575264/2/McClymont%20%26%20OHare_We%27re%20not%20NIMBYs.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

===In favor of development===
{{main|YIMBY}}
[[YIMBY]], an acronym for "yes, in my back yard", is a pro-development movement in contrast and opposition to the NIMBY phenomenon.<ref name="SemuelsYIMBY">{{cite magazine | last1=Semuels | first1=Alana | title=From 'Not in My Backyard' to 'Yes in My Backyard' | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/yimby-groups-pro-development/532437/ | access-date=5 July 2017 | magazine=[[The Atlantic]] | date=5 July 2017 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180325163835/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/yimby-groups-pro-development/532437/ | archive-date=2018-03-25 | url-status=live | quote=Out of a desire for more-equitable housing policy, some city dwellers have started allying with developers instead of opposing them. }}</ref>

Frequently argued debate points in favor of development include higher employment, tax revenue, marginal cost of remote development, safety, and environmental benefits. Proponents of development may accuse locals of [[egotism]], [[elitism]], parochialism, [[drawbridge mentality]], [[racism]] and anti-[[Multiculturalism|diversity]], the inevitability of criticism, and misguided or unrealistic claims of prevention of [[urban sprawl]]. If people who do not want to be disturbed see the general need of an establishment, such as an airport, they generally suggest another location. But seen from society's perspective, the other location might not be better, since people living there get disturbed instead.<ref>Gerdner, A. & Borell, K. 2003. Neighbourhood Reactions toward Facilities for Residential Care: A Swedish Survey Study. ''Journal of Community Practice'' 11(4):59–81</ref> Strict land use regulations are an important driver of racial [[housing segregation in the United States]].<ref name="Trounstine-2020">{{Cite journal|last=Trounstine|first=Jessica|date=2020|title=The Geography of Inequality: How Land Use Regulation Produces Segregation|journal=American Political Science Review|language=en|volume=114|issue=2|pages=443–455|doi=10.1017/S0003055419000844|issn=0003-0554|doi-access=free}}</ref> White communities are more likely to have strict land use regulations (and white people are more likely to support those regulations).<ref name="Trounstine-2020"/>

===In favor of local sovereignty===
Those labeled as NIMBYs may have a variety of motivations and may be unified only because they oppose a particular project. For example, some may oppose any significant change or development, regardless of type, purpose, or origin. Others, if the project is seen as being imposed by outsiders, may hold strong principles of [[self-governance]], local [[sovereignty]], local autonomy, and [[Municipal home rule|home rule]]. These people believe that local people should have the final choice, and that any project affecting the local people should clearly benefit themselves, rather than corporations with distant investors or central governments. Still others may object to a particular project because of its nature, e.g., opposing a nuclear power plant over fear of radiation, or opposing a local apartment complex due to worries about overcrowding or crime, but accepting a local [[waste management]] facility as a municipal necessity.{{Opinion|date=April 2021}}

==Effects==
===Housing prices===
[[File:Supply-demand-right-shift-demand.svg|thumb|Increase of [[demand curve]] towards higher demand increases both the equilibrium price and quantity]]
[[File:Supply-demand-right-shift-supply.svg|thumb|Shift of [[Supply (economics)|supply curve]] towards higher supply reduces equilibrium price and increases equilibrium quantity]]
Studies show that stricter land use regulation, such as the kind that arises from NIMBY advocacy, raises the price of housing, and consequently increases [[cost of living]].<ref name="Tan-2020">{{Cite journal |last1=Tan |first1=Ya |last2=Wang |first2=Zhi |last3=Zhang |first3=Qinghua |date=2020-01-01 |title=Land-use regulation and the intensive margin of housing supply |journal=Journal of Urban Economics |series=Cities in China |language=en |volume=115 |pages=103199 |doi=10.1016/j.jue.2019.103199 |issn=0094-1190 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Housing prices are affected by [[demand and supply]] of housing.<ref name="Tan-2020"/><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Gyourko |first1=Joseph |last2=Molloy |first2=Raven |date=2014 |title=Regulation and Housing Supply |journal=Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics |doi=10.3386/w20536 |doi-access=free}}</ref> The effect of moving chains is shown for change of housing prices.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Li |first=Xiaodi |title=Do new housing units in your backyard raise your rents? |journal=Journal of Economic Geography |publisher=Oxford University Press (OUP) |date=2021-09-02 |volume=22 |issue=6 |pages=1309–1352 |issn=1468-2702 |doi=10.1093/jeg/lbab034 |url=https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf |access-date=24 February 2024 |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925025734/https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/7fc2bf_ee1737c3c9d4468881bf1434814a6f8f.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Social effects===
Homelessness is connected to lower housing supply and higher rents.<ref name="Glynn Byrne Culhane">{{cite journal |last1=Glynn |first1=Chris |last2=Byrne |first2=Thomas H. |last3=Culhane |first3=Dennis P. |title=Inflection points in community-level homeless rates |journal=The Annals of Applied Statistics |publisher=Institute of Mathematical Statistics |volume=15 |issue=2 |date=2021-06-01 |issn=1932-6157 |doi=10.1214/20-aoas1414 |s2cid=128356047 |url=https://g-lynn.github.io/files/GlynnByrneCulhane_2019+.pdf |access-date=24 February 2024 |archive-date=24 May 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230524201427/https://g-lynn.github.io/files/GlynnByrneCulhane_2019+.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Strict land use regulations contribute to racial [[housing segregation in the United States]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Trounstine |first=Jessica |date=2020 |title=The Geography of Inequality: How Land Use Regulation Produces Segregation |journal=American Political Science Review |language=en |volume=114 |issue=2 |pages=443–455 |doi=10.1017/S0003055419000844 |issn=0003-0554 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Trounstine |first=Jessica |date=2018 |title=Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/segregation-by-design/9CEF629688C0C684EDC387407F5878F2 |access-date=2020-06-16 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/9781108555722 |isbn=9781108555722 |s2cid=158682691 |language=en |archive-date=31 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831165644/https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/segregation-by-design/9CEF629688C0C684EDC387407F5878F2 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Economy===
A study by economists [[Chang-Tai Hsieh]] and [[Enrico Moretti]] estimated that the housing restrictions brought on by NIMBY activists are costing US workers $1 trillion in reduced wages  (several thousand dollars per worker) by making it unaffordable to relocate to higher-productivity cities.<ref name=VOX_2014-07-15 >{{cite news | url=https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5901041/nimbys-are-costing-the-us-economy-billions | title=NIMBYs are costing the US economy billions | last=Lee | first=Timothy | newspaper=[[Vox (website)|Vox]] | date=2015-01-22 | quote=Hsieh and Moretti estimate that moving American workers to higher-productivity cities could increase the income of Americans by a stunning amount: more than $1 trillion. That amounts to a raise of several thousand dollars for every American worker. ... Hsieh and Moretti's analysis suggests that housing restrictions—and the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) activists who lobby for them—are costing the American economy tens—perhaps hundreds—of billions of dollars per year. If we want to ensure the American economy grows robustly in the coming decades, a high priority should be figuring out ways to allow more people to live in America's most productive metropolitan areas. | access-date=21 July 2021 | archive-date=11 August 2021 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210811223810/https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5901041/nimbys-are-costing-the-us-economy-billions | url-status=live }}</ref>

===Opposition by type of use===
A 1994 paper by [[Michael Gerrard]] found that NIMBY movements generally oppose three types of facilities: waste disposal, low-income housing, and social services (such as homeless shelters).{{ r | :3 }}  While opposition to waste disposal may have community benefits by encouraging recycling, it has also perpetuated the existence of those facilities in minority communities, while opposition to low-income housing and social services facilities has significant negative effects for society at large.<ref name="Gerrard-1994">{{Cite journal|last=Gerrard|first=Michael|author-link=Michael Gerrard|date=1994-01-01|title=The Victims of Nimby|url=https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/707|journal=Fordham Urb. L. J.|volume=21|pages=495|quote=NIMBY, in its various forms, has three principal types of targets. The first is waste disposal facilities, primarily landfills and incinerators. The second is low-income housing. The third is social service facilities, group homes and shelters for individuals such as the mentally ill, AIDS patients, and the homeless. ... Conclusion: ... All forms of local opposition are often lumped together under the pejorative and trivializing label NIMBY. There is a key difference, however, between opposition to waste disposal facilities on the one hand, and to low-income housing and social service facilities on the other hand. Battles against waste disposal facilities often have significantly positive environmental impacts, not only for the particular sites, but for society at large, because they spur sounder, less wasteful modes of production. In contrast, opposition to housing and social-service facilities has overwhelmingly negative consequences for society.|access-date=8 December 2021|archive-date=8 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211208025808/https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/707/|url-status=live}}</ref>

==Examples==
===Australia===
An Australian politician, [[Zali Steggall]], representing Sydney [[Manly Beach]], advocates action on [[climate change]], including the installation of wind turbines.<ref name="ClimateChange">{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/26/zali-steggall-to-challenge-tony-abbott-warringah-nsw-seat |title=Zali Steggall to challenge Tony Abbott for Warringah seat |first1=Anne |last1=Davies |first2=Paul |last2=Karp |date=27 January 2019 |work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=28 August 2019 |archive-date=26 January 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190126202535/https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/26/zali-steggall-to-challenge-tony-abbott-warringah-nsw-seat |url-status=live }}</ref> Suspecting the political proposal is to install wind turbines, Not In My Backyard, a [[tongue-in-cheek]], [[online petition]] was set up to assess support for the establishment of [[wind farm]]s on the Manly Beach.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/manly-daily/petition-for-wind-turbines-on-manly-beach-and-along-northern-beaches-has-20000-signatures/news-story/f56da415ae1380f1af7374cba32f320c |title=Petition for wind turbines on Manly Beach and along northern beaches has 20,000 signatures |work=[[Manly Daily]] |author=Cross, Julie |date=29 May 2019 |access-date=28 August 2019 |archive-date=3 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240503163059/https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/manly-daily/petition-for-wind-turbines-on-manly-beach-and-along-northern-beaches-has-20000-signatures/news-story/f56da415ae1380f1af7374cba32f320c |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/abbott-calls-wind-turbines-the-dark-satanic-mills-of-the-modern-era-20190719-p528sf.html | title=Abbott calls wind turbines 'the dark Satanic Mills' of the modern era | date=19 July 2019 | access-date=2 May 2022 | archive-date=2 May 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220502102038/https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/abbott-calls-wind-turbines-the-dark-satanic-mills-of-the-modern-era-20190719-p528sf.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

===Canada===
====British Columbia====
In [[Vancouver]], the city hall's licensing department rejected a [[day care]]'s expansion from 8 to 16 kids after a small number of neighbors attended public meetings in 2023 to discuss the parking issues, noise, and traffic the additional children would bring to the neighborhood.<ref name="VancouverSun2023">{{cite news |last=Fumano |first=Dan |date=August 17, 2023 |title=Vancouver parents desperate for daycare slam city hall rejection |url=https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/dan-fumano-during-child-care-crisis-city-hall-rejects-daycare |work=[[Vancouver Sun]] |access-date=August 17, 2023 |quote=City hall’s licensing department rejected the application in May, after a handful of neighbours expressed worries about parking, noisy kids, and traffic. The daycare was rejected a second time by the board of variance, after eight neighbours showed up to a public meeting in June to oppose it. |archive-date=28 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240128044508/https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/dan-fumano-during-child-care-crisis-city-hall-rejects-daycare |url-status=live }}</ref> According to city projections, Vancouver has a shortfall of 14,911 licensed child-care spaces.<ref name="VancouverSun2023"/>

====Nova Scotia====
[[File:Lighthouse DGJ 3876 - Pubnico Harbour Lighthouse (6085165371).jpg|thumb|Wind generator in Nova Scotia]]
In July 2012, residents of [[Kings County, Nova Scotia|Kings County]] rallied against a bylaw, developed over three years of consultation and hearings, allowing wind generators to be constructed nearby.<ref>{{cite web|last=Delaney |first=Gordon |url=http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/114564-which-way-does-the-wind-blow |title=Which way does the wind blow? |work=The Chronicle Herald |date=7 July 2012 |access-date=7 March 2014}}</ref> A similar theme arose in September 2009, where residents there rallied against a wind generator in [[Digby Neck, Nova Scotia|Digby Neck]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://contrarian.ca/2009/09/09/nimby-neck/ |title=NIMBY Neck – updated : Contrarian |publisher=Contrarian.ca |date=9 September 2009 |access-date=7 March 2014 |archive-date=7 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140307072750/http://contrarian.ca/2009/09/09/nimby-neck/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In January 2011, residents of [[Lawrencetown, Halifax County, Nova Scotia|Lawrencetown]] in [[Halifax County, Nova Scotia|Halifax County]] openly opposed a cellular telephone tower being built.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cell-tower-opposed-in-lawrencetown-1.1057010 |title=Cell tower opposed in Lawrencetown |publisher=CBC News |date=25 January 2011 |access-date=7 March 2014 |archive-date=16 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140316180723/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cell-tower-opposed-in-lawrencetown-1.1057010 |url-status=live }}</ref> A proposed development of downtown [[Dartmouth, Nova Scotia|Dartmouth]] in August 2012 was also contested by residents.<ref>{{cite web |last=Croucher |first=Philip |url=http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/352477/public-hearing-thursday-for-planned-downtown-dartmouth-development/ |title=Public hearing Thursday for planned downtown Dartmouth development &#124; Metro |publisher=Metronews.ca |date=29 August 2012 |access-date=7 March 2014 |archive-date=7 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140307074738/http://metronews.ca/news/halifax/352477/public-hearing-thursday-for-planned-downtown-dartmouth-development/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In February 2013, some residents of [[Lunenburg County, Nova Scotia|Lunenburg County]] opposed wind farms being built in the area, saying, "It's health and it's property devaluation" and "This is an industrial facility put in the middle of rural Nova Scotia. It does not belong there."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/lunenburg-county-debates-province-s-largest-wind-farm-1.1332475 |title=Lunenburg County debates province's largest wind farm |publisher=CBC News |date=5 March 2013 |access-date=7 March 2014 |archive-date=16 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140316192331/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/lunenburg-county-debates-province-s-largest-wind-farm-1.1332475 |url-status=live }}</ref>

In March 2013, some residents of the community of [[Blockhouse, Nova Scotia|Blockhouse]] opposed the building and development of a recycling plant, referred to by one business owner as a "dump." The plant would offer 75 jobs to the community of roughly 5,900 people.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/negative-feedback-towards-new-development-in-n-s-community-1.1191335 |title=Negative feedback towards new development in N.S. community |publisher=CTV Atlantic News |date=11 March 2013 |access-date=7 March 2014 |archive-date=7 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140307081941/http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/negative-feedback-towards-new-development-in-n-s-community-1.1191335 |url-status=live }}</ref> In the same month, the municipal councilors of [[Chester, Nova Scotia|Chester]] approved the building of wind turbines in the area in a 6–1 vote, despite some local opposition.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/chester-approves-nova-scotia-s-largest-wind-farm-1.1332473 |title=Chester approves Nova Scotia's largest wind farm |publisher=CBC News |date=15 March 2013 |access-date=7 March 2014 |archive-date=16 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140316192325/http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/chester-approves-nova-scotia-s-largest-wind-farm-1.1332473 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===China===
There have been successful NIMBY movements in China over the last few decades. In May 2014, in the city of [[Yuhang District|Yuhang]] in [[Zhejiang]] Province, a NIMBY movement prevented the construction of a giant refuse incinerator.<ref name="Olesen-2014">{{Cite web|last=Olesen|first=Alexa|title=Do Chinese NIMBY Protests Actually Work?|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/05/13/do-chinese-nimby-protests-actually-work/|access-date=2021-12-08|website=Foreign Policy|date=13 May 2014|language=en-US|archive-date=8 December 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211208013221/https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/05/13/do-chinese-nimby-protests-actually-work/|url-status=live}}</ref> The victory came at enormous costs with many grassroot leaders arrested and many government infrastructures destroyed.<ref name="Olesen-2014" /> However, in the case of China, many socially harmful projects simply continue their operation or relocate once media attention subsides and government authorities start to {{Ill|Weiwen|lt=suppress the protestors|zh|维稳}}.<ref name="Olesen-2014" />

The [[Government of China|Chinese government]] has also been accused of "weaponizing" NIMBY movements abroad through [[influence operations]] that drive opposition against perceived economic threats such as the development projects that compete with the [[rare earth industry in China]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Tucker |first=Patrick |date=2022-06-29 |title=China's Disinformation Warriors May Be Coming for Your Company |url=https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2022/06/chinas-disinformation-warriors-may-be-coming-your-company/368791/ |access-date=2023-09-02 |website=Defense One |language=en |archive-date=2 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230902154321/https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2022/06/chinas-disinformation-warriors-may-be-coming-your-company/368791/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Ireland===
In 2020, there was significant opposition to the development of 650 apartments in the grounds of [[St Paul's College, Raheny|St Paul's College school]] in the Dublin suburb of [[Raheny]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=McGrath |first1=Dominic |title=Hundreds gather to oppose plan for over 650 apartments beside St Anne's Park in Dublin |url=https://www.thejournal.ie/raheny-st-annes-park-apartments-4895055-Nov2019/ |website=TheJournal.ie |date=17 November 2019 |access-date=2 September 2020 |language=en |archive-date=28 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201128120409/https://www.thejournal.ie/raheny-st-annes-park-apartments-4895055-Nov2019/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Halpin |first1=Hayley |title=Dublin City Council opposes plans for over 650 apartments beside St Anne's Park |url=https://www.thejournal.ie/st-annes-park-apartments-dublin-city-council-4977828-Jan2020/ |website=TheJournal.ie |date=24 January 2020 |access-date=2 September 2020 |language=en |archive-date=15 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200815000917/https://www.thejournal.ie/st-annes-park-apartments-dublin-city-council-4977828-Jan2020/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Planning permission granted for 657 apartment block next to St Anne's Park |url=https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/planning-permission-granted-for-657-apartment-block-next-to-st-annes-park-39476711.html |website=independent |date=25 August 2020 |access-date=2 September 2020 |language=en |archive-date=15 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415013815/https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/planning-permission-granted-for-657-apartment-block-next-to-st-annes-park-39476711.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Power |first1=Jack |title=Residents protest proposed housing beside St Anne's Park |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/residents-protest-proposed-housing-beside-st-anne-s-park-1.4085764?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fresidents-protest-proposed-housing-beside-st-anne-s-park-1.4085764 |newspaper=The Irish Times |access-date=2 September 2020 |language=en |archive-date=2 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201202233844/https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/residents-protest-proposed-housing-beside-st-anne-s-park-1.4085764?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/residents-protest-proposed-housing-beside-st-anne-s-park-1.4085764 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Makk |first1=Katie |title=St Anne's Park Protesters Accused Of "NIMBY-Ism" |url=https://www.98fm.com/podcasts/98fm-39-s-dublin-talks/st-annes-park-protesters-accused-nimby-ism |website=www.98fm.com |access-date=2 September 2020 |archive-date=24 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124225840/https://www.98fm.com/podcasts/98fm-39-s-dublin-talks/st-annes-park-protesters-accused-nimby-ism |url-status=live }}</ref> 650 individual objections were received against the planning submission as well as several protests held.<ref>{{cite web |title=Raheny apartment development gets green light |website=[[RTÉ.ie]] |url=https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0218/1116034-st-annes-park-development/ |access-date=2 September 2020 |language=en |date=18 February 2020 |archive-date=28 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201128173129/https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2020/0218/1116034-st-annes-park-development/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Court challenges were taken by residents groups against the permission which was granted on the basis of not adequately addressing the EU habitats directive.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Carolan |first1=Mary |title=Permission for 657 apartments near St Anne's Park overturned on consent |url=https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/permission-for-657-apartments-near-st-anne-s-park-overturned-on-consent-1.4276709?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fhigh-court%2Fpermission-for-657-apartments-near-st-anne-s-park-overturned-on-consent-1.4276709#:~:text=Board%20had%20not%20adequately%20addressed%20requirements%20of%20the%20habitats%20directive&text=An%20Bord%20Plean%C3%A1la%20has%20consented,Anne's%20Park%20in%20north%20Dublin. |newspaper=The Irish Times |access-date=2 September 2020 |language=en |archive-date=31 August 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831121306/https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/permission-for-657-apartments-near-st-anne-s-park-overturned-on-consent-1.4276709?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fcrime-and-law%2Fcourts%2Fhigh-court%2Fpermission-for-657-apartments-near-st-anne-s-park-overturned-on-consent-1.4276709#:~:text=Board%20had%20not%20adequately%20addressed%20requirements%20of%20the%20habitats%20directive&text=An%20Bord%20Plean%C3%A1la%20has%20consented,Anne's%20Park%20in%20north%20Dublin. |url-status=live }}</ref> Following a revised submission with a report on the effects to light-bellied Brent geese and other protected birds, the development was finally granted permission in August 2020.

===Italy===
[[File:No tav5.jpg|thumb|No TAV protest in 2005]]
The [[No TAV]] opposition to the [[Turin–Lyon high-speed railway]] is often characterized as a NIMBY movement.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Monella|first=Lillo Montalto|date=2019-03-26|title=What is happening with the Lyon-Turin high speed line?|url=https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/26/what-is-happening-with-the-lyon-turin-high-speed-line-euronews-traces-the-route-to-find-ou|access-date=2021-08-08|website=euronews|language=en|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925025738/https://www.euronews.com/2019/03/26/what-is-happening-with-the-lyon-turin-high-speed-line-euronews-traces-the-route-to-find-ou|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Japan===
====Narita Airport====
Starting in 1966, the [[Sanrizuka Struggle]] movement opposed the construction of [[Narita International Airport]]. Originally the plan for the airport also included a [[Narita Shinkansen|high speed railway]] line that was later scrapped.<ref name="ando200805">{{Cite book |author=安藤健二 |title=封印されたミッキーマウス |date=2008-05-22 |publisher=洋泉社 |isbn=978-4-86248-261-7 |edition=初版 |pages=68から73ページ |chapter=未完の巨大建造プロジェクト}}</ref> NIMBYs also prevented extension of the airport's short second runway (unusable for anything but short-haul [[narrow-body aircraft]]) until the late 2000s, when cross-town [[Haneda Airport]] was opened to international traffic, as additional runways on landfill were completed at an extra cost of billions of dollars; the second runway was extended to {{Convert|2,500|metre||abbr=}}.

====Odakyu Double Tracking====
[[Odakyu Electric Railway]], now providing transit along a corridor with 5 million people living in walking distance of its rail and feeder bus service area,<ref name="odakyu"/> was originally built in the pre-war era, and as the city of Tokyo's population ballooned, rail demand in suburbs exploded. By the 1960s, [[Passenger pusher|''oshiya'' pushers]] were required to squash people into packed trains, and Odakyu Railway sought to expand its two-track lines to four,<ref name="jtkuchi">{{cite web|url=https://japantoday.com/category/features/kuchikomi/How-do-railways-figure-out-congestion-on-their-trains-|title=How do railways figure out congestion on their trains?|website=Japan Today|date=6 December 2017|access-date=17 January 2018|archive-date=17 January 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180117131614/https://japantoday.com/category/features/kuchikomi/How-do-railways-figure-out-congestion-on-their-trains-|url-status=live}}</ref> thus allowing more passing trains and faster run times as well as less crowding and congestive wait and hold of trains. NIMBY residents living near the line in the [[Setagaya]] ward fought attempts by the railway to acquire land; Odakyu attempted to buy each piece of land individually, offering high prices. The Setagaya Residents' opposition established a long-term and remarkable{{According to whom|date=February 2021}} NIMBY case in the courts and legislature.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://science-train.com/w/Odakyu_Electric_Railway/History.html |title=Odakyu Electric Railway – History |access-date=12 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180421144201/https://science-train.com/w/Odakyu_Electric_Railway/History.html |archive-date=21 April 2018 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}</ref> By 1993, after three decades of trying, it was apparent this plan was failing, and the company decided to go for a multi-billion dollar solution: tunneling two lines underground, and then adding back two new lines stacked on top, to make four tracks in each direction for 12 stations and 10.4&nbsp;km, instead of acquiring the land.<ref name="odakyu"/> The company's decision began in 1993 and completed in 2004 for one critical section, meanwhile, for the second smaller section, this same decision was made in 2003 with project completion finally approaching fruition in March 2018, nearly six decades later.<ref name="jtkuchi"/><ref name="odakyu">{{Cite web |url=http://www.odakyu.jp/ir/shared/pdf/annual/2015/fukufuku.pdf |title=Benefits of Completion of Multiple Double Tracks |access-date=12 December 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180117131933/http://www.odakyu.jp/ir/shared/pdf/annual/2015/fukufuku.pdf |archive-date=17 January 2018 |url-status=dead |df=dmy-all }}</ref>{{Clarify|reason=|date=February 2021}}

===Serbia===

There is mounting opposition to the exploitation of lithium at the [[Jadar mine]] site by [[Rio Tinto (corporation)|Rio Tinto]] in Western Serbia.<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Staff|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/20/serbia-scraps-plans-for-rio-tinto-lithium-mine-after-protests|title=Serbia scraps plans for Rio Tinto lithium mine after protests|date=2022-01-22|work=The Guardian|access-date=2022-02-02|last2=agencies|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|archive-date=21 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220121011306/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/20/serbia-scraps-plans-for-rio-tinto-lithium-mine-after-protests|url-status=live}}</ref> The local residents are concerned about the impact of lithium mining on the local environment including water pollution with no regard to the economic and other environmental benefits including battery production reducing reliance on oil, less air pollution and lower {{CO2}} emissions.{{Citation needed|date=July 2024}}. Opposition to lithium mining has been expressed by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and most Serbian opposition parties and organisations
.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://rtv.rs/sr_lat/ekonomija/aktuelno/akademici-sanu-kopanje-litijuma-bi-devastiralo-srbiju-raselilo-stanovnistvo%E2%80%A6_1318836.html | title=Akademici SANU: Kopanje litijuma bi devastiralo Srbiju, raselilo stanovništvo… }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.euronews.rs/srbija/drustvo/39320/zbornik-radova-sanu-eskploatacija-litijuma-ostavila-bi-velike-posledice-na-zivotnu-sredinu/vest|title=Zbornik radova SANU: Eskploatacija litijuma ostavila bi velike posledice na životnu sredinu|first=Euronews Srbija, Marko|last=Subotić|date=1 March 2022|website=Euronews.rs|access-date=14 July 2024|archive-date=14 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714122807/https://www.euronews.rs/srbija/drustvo/39320/zbornik-radova-sanu-eskploatacija-litijuma-ostavila-bi-velike-posledice-na-zivotnu-sredinu/vest|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ozonpress.net/politika/pitanje-rio-tinta-tacka-okupljanja-opozicije-u-srbiji/|title=Pitanje Rio Tinta tačka okupljanja opozicije u Srbiji|first=Stojan|last=Marković|date=2 July 2024|website=Ozonpress :: internet portal|access-date=14 July 2024|archive-date=14 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714122807/https://www.ozonpress.net/politika/pitanje-rio-tinta-tacka-okupljanja-opozicije-u-srbiji/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://n1info.rs/vesti/ujedinjenje-opozicije-i-pokreta-protiv-rio-tinta-goruci-ekoloski-problem/|title=Ujedinjenje opozicije i pokreta protiv Rio Tinta: Gorući ekološki problem|first=Jelena|last=Mirković|date=5 October 2021|website=N1|access-date=14 July 2024|archive-date=14 July 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240714122807/https://n1info.rs/vesti/ujedinjenje-opozicije-i-pokreta-protiv-rio-tinta-goruci-ekoloski-problem/|url-status=live}}</ref> In September 2021, a series of [[2021–2022 Serbian environmental protests|environmental protests]] began in Belgrade and other locations in Serbia. Protesters demanded the rejection of Rio Tinto's mine investment and the withdrawal of proposed changes to the Expropriation and Referendum Laws.

===United Kingdom===
====Oxford Memorial====
[[File:Oxford Spanish War Memorial front.jpg|thumb|The [[Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial]], erected near [[South Park, Oxford|South Park]] after all planning permissions for an anti-fascist memorial in [[Oxford]] city centre were rejected]]
The [[Oxford Spanish Civil War memorial]], built in 2017, is dedicated to locals who served the [[International Brigades]] against Spanish nationalist forces backed by Hitler and Mussolini. The memorial sits outside the city centre because all planning proposals to erect the memorial in the centre were rejected for numerous reasons, with [[Liberal Democrats (UK)|Liberal Democrat]] councillors opposing all the suggested locations. The creation of the monument was also opposed by the [[Oxford Preservation Trust]] and the London Place Residents' Association.<ref name="Oliver-2017">{{Cite news|last=Oliver|first=Matt|date=27 February 2017|title=Plans for Oxford memorial to Spanish Civil War volunteers clears key hurdle|work=Oxford Mail|url=https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15120449.plans-oxford-memorial-spanish-civil-war-volunteers-clears-key-hurdle/|access-date=29 December 2020|archive-date=15 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415013005/https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15120449.plans-oxford-memorial-spanish-civil-war-volunteers-clears-key-hurdle/|url-status=live}}</ref> The current placement of the memorial was the third proposed location, with the previous two having their planning applications rejected by Oxford City Council.<ref>{{Cite news|last=French|first=Andy|date=20 April 2017|title=Date set to unveil Spanish Civil War memorial|work=Oxford Mail|url=https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15235223.date-set-unveil-spanish-civil-war-memorial/|access-date=29 January 2021|archive-date=15 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415013007/https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15235223.date-set-unveil-spanish-civil-war-memorial/|url-status=live}}</ref> The first proposed spot was [[Bonn Square]] which was rejected citing that granite was not a stone native to Oxford.<ref name="James-2016">{{Cite news|last=James|first=Luke|date=6 November 2016|title=Nimbys block nod to heroes of Spain civil war in Oxford: Memorial to anti-fascist fighters 'too triumphalist' for some|work=The Morning Star|url=https://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-69a5-nimbys-block-nod-to-heroes-of-spain-civil-war-in-oxford-1|access-date=29 December 2020|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925025739/https://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-69a5-nimbys-block-nod-to-heroes-of-spain-civil-war-in-oxford-1|url-status=live}}</ref>  The second proposed location was [[St Giles', Oxford|St Giles']] which was also rejected by councillors, claiming that the close proximity of an anti-fascist memorial to current war memorials would insult the memory of people who died during the Second World War.<ref name="James-2016" /> Some objected to the memorial because it did not honour "both sides ... in a spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness", and called the design "aggressive towards the memory of the victims of conflict".<ref>{{Cite news|last=|first=|date=22 February 2017|title=Spanish Civil War memorial stone approved|work=BBC|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39056714|access-date=29 December 2020|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925023137/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-39056714|url-status=live}}</ref>

Liberal Democrat councillor Elizabeth Wade opposed each proposed location for a monument in Oxford, although she claimed she was never opposed in principle. She described the second proposal on St Giles' near Oxford's First and Second World War memorials as “aggressive and triumphalist”.<ref>{{Cite web|last=|first=|date=2016|title=IBMT Newsletter issue 41|url=http://www.international-brigades.org.uk/sites/default/files/IBMT1-16Web.pdf|access-date=29 December 2020|website=international brigades}}</ref> Describing herself as a historian and speaking to the ''[[Oxford Mail]]'', she then opposed the third and current location because she believed a monument with a red flag would glorify communism, despite no red flag ever being proposed to appear on the monument.<ref name="Oliver-2017" /> Her rejection of every proposal led to Britain's largest and longest running left-wing newspaper, the [[Morning Star (British newspaper)|''Morning Star'']], labelling her as a NIMBY.<ref name="James-2016" />

====Ashtead, Surrey====
In 2007, residents of the affluent English village of [[Ashtead, Surrey|Ashtead]], Surrey, which lies on the outskirts of [[London]], objected to the conversion of a large, [[Pound sterling|£]]1.7&nbsp;million residential property into a family support centre for relatives of wounded British service personnel.<ref name="ylg">{{cite web |last=Barnes |first=Kevin |date=19 July 2007 |title=No heroes in my backyard |url=http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/epsomnews/display.var.1558300.0.0.php |access-date=15 September 2016 |website=[[The Guardian]] |archive-date=2 June 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080602160935/http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/epsomnews/display.var.1558300.0.0.php |url-status=live }}</ref> The house was to be purchased by a registered charity, [[SSAFA|SSAFA Forces Help]].<ref name="ylg"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ssafa.org.uk/HeadleyCourt.html |title=Headley Court Families Accommodation |website=ssafa.org.uk |publisher=SSAFA Forces Help |date=1 August 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929090820/http://www.ssafa.org.uk/HeadleyCourt.html |archive-date=29 September 2007 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Local residents objected to the proposal out of fear of increased traffic and noise, as well as the possibility of an increased threat of terrorism.<ref name="ylg" /> They also contended that the SSAFA charity is actually a business, thereby setting an unwelcome precedent.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk/cwi/getDocument?docId=112803&account=planning&amp;ref=MO/2007/0863&filename=Letter%20of%20Representation|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081202080112/http://www.mole-valley.gov.uk:80/cwi/getDocument?docId=112803&account=planning&ref=MO/2007/0863&filename=Letter%20of%20Representation|archive-date=2 Dec 2008|title=Planning Application MO/2007/0863|access-date=15 September 2016}}</ref> British newspapers ran articles titled "No heroes in my backyard".<ref name="ylg" />

Ex-servicemen and several members of the British general public organised a petition in support of SSAFA, and even auctioned the "Self Respect of Ashtead" on [[eBay]].<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3641566/Legless-boys-mammas-Not-in-Ashtead.html | work=telegraph.co.uk | title=Legless boys' mammas? Not in Ashtead | date=28 July 2007 | access-date=7 June 2010 | location=London | first=Vicki | last=Woods | archive-date=25 June 2013 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130625073405/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3641566/Legless-boys-mammas-Not-in-Ashtead.html | url-status=live }}</ref>

====High Speed 2====
Particularly in the time period preceding the final decision on the route of the high-speed railway known as [[High Speed 2]],{{Clarify timeframe|date=February 2021}} BBC News Online reported that many residents of [[Conservative Party (UK)|conservative]] constituencies were launching objections to the HS2 route based on the effects it would have on them, whilst also showing concerns that HS2 is unlikely to have a societal benefit at a macro level under the current economic circumstances.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12037578|title=The farm lying in the path of the new rail route|date=20 December 2010|work=BBC News|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-date=25 September 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150925201527/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12037578|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12002171|title=Tory vs Tory on high speed rail|work=BBC News|access-date=15 September 2016|date=15 December 2010|archive-date=7 September 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170907143605/http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12002171|url-status=live}}</ref> Likewise, Labour MP [[Natascha Engel]]—through whose constituency the line will pass—offered a "passionate defence of nimbyism" in the House of Commons, with regards to the effects the line would have on home- and business-owning constituents.<ref>{{cite hansard|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/chan24.pdf|title=High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill |date=26 June 2013|speaker=[[Natascha Engel]]|house=House of Commons|column_start=378|column_end=380|volume=565|no=24}}</ref> HS2 has also been opposed by residents of the [[Chilterns]] and [[London Borough of Camden|Camden]] who argue that there is an insufficient business case for the line. On 17 March 2014, it was announced that Camden residents were successful in their campaign to prevent the construction of the HS1–HS2 link railway.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/business-26604074|title=Build HS2 more quickly, says boss|date=17 March 2014|work=BBC News|access-date=22 June 2019|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925025740/https://www.bbc.com/news/business-26604074|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Heathrow Airport====
In November 2007, a consultation process began for the [[Heathrow Airport expansion|building of a new third runway]] and a sixth terminal and it was controversially<ref name="Ref_2009">{{cite news | url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/01/15/heathrow.third.runway/index.html | work=CNN.com | title=Britain: Third Heathrow runway approved despite opposition | date=15 January 2009 | access-date=11 May 2010 | archive-date=25 September 2024 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925030244/http://www.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/01/15/heathrow.third.runway/index.html | url-status=live }}</ref> approved on 15 January 2009 by UK government ministers.<ref name="Ref_c">{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm|title=BBC News – Go-ahead for new Heathrow runway|access-date=15 September 2016|date=15 January 2009|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925030244/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7829676.stm|url-status=live}}</ref> The project was then cancelled on 12 May 2010 by the [[Cameron–Clegg coalition|Cameron Government]].<ref name=Cancelled>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8678282.stm|title=BBC News – Heathrow runway plans scrapped by new government|access-date=15 September 2016|date=12 May 2010|archive-date=11 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180411000045/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8678282.stm|url-status=live}}</ref> The project was adopted by the House of Commons in June 2018. NIMBYs and political protestors appealed to the courts,<ref>{{Cite web |date=27 February 2020 |title=Climate activists win Heathrow airport legal battle |url=https://www.dw.com/en/climate-activists-win-heathrow-airport-legal-battle/a-52553561 |access-date=2024-06-08 |website=DW |language=en |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925030401/https://www.dw.com/en/climate-activists-win-heathrow-airport-legal-battle/a-52553561 |url-status=live }}</ref> but lost in the UK Supreme Court in December 2020.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Carrington |first=Damian |last2= |first2= |date=2020-12-16 |title=Top UK court overturns block on Heathrow's third runway |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/16/top-uk-court-overturns-block-on-heathrows-third-runway |access-date=2024-06-08 |work=[[The Guardian]] |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077 |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925023230/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/16/top-uk-court-overturns-block-on-heathrows-third-runway |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Coventry Airport====
[[Coventry Airport]] is owned by CAFCO (Coventry) Limited, a joint venture between Howard Holdings plc<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.howardholdings.com/|title=Howardholdings.com|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-date=7 June 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130607152554/http://howardholdings.com/|url-status=live}}</ref> and Convergence-AFCO Holdings Limited (CAFCOHL). In June 2007, it had its application to build permanent terminal and passenger facilities rejected by the UK government due to public pressure.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.copybook.com/airport/news/shock-rejection-hits-plan-for-coventry-airport-terminal|title=Shock Rejection Hits Plan for Coventry Airport Terminal|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160919043404/http://www.copybook.com/airport/news/shock-rejection-hits-plan-for-coventry-airport-terminal|archive-date=19 September 2016|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grounded-another-victory-in-battle-to-curb-airport-growth-456650.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080422183031/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/grounded-another-victory-in-battle-to-curb-airport-growth-456650.html | url-status=dead | archive-date=22 April 2008 | location=London | work=The Independent | first=Ian | last=Herbert | title=Grounded: Another victory in battle to curb airport growth | date=10 July 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/WDC/Your-Council/News/Warwick+District+Council+Archived+News/News+-+2008/Coventry+Airport.htm |title=High Court decision – Coventry Airport |website=warwickdc.gov.uk |publisher=Warwick District Council |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927181429/http://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/WDC/Your-Council/News/Warwick+District+Council+Archived+News/News+-+2008/Coventry+Airport.htm |archive-date=27 September 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/tm_objectid=16571762&method=full&siteid=50002&headline=brum-airport-s-opposition-is--naked-commercialism--name_page.html|title=Birmingham Post politics news plus reports council and Government issues affecting Birmingham, the Black Country and the West Midlands|work=Birmingham Post |date=11 January 2006 |access-date=15 September 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:suGb6LcN8gwJ:www.aqconsultants.co.uk/AQC-CMS/media/PDF-Documents/Capability-Statement.Airports.pdf+3rd+runway+at+coventry+airport&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShltQpXsU8ET_abP8jJYMebaxew1BLV4mY5TVPrj1B0ymmwhrTDIo9tE_eYcnpiE3aBP1HiBo4TbpTFkiivscukBgxuF476Tjsjv4zJ_YMDT9dujQIl8lIVm0OT9yBX9P8sg7_E&sig=AHIEtbQgH2dFnu1eDY4UVX5eUPVyT550uQ |title=Docs.google.com |access-date=9 November 2016 |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925030404/https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:suGb6LcN8gwJ:www.aqconsultants.co.uk/AQC-CMS/media/PDF-Documents/Capability-Statement.Airports.pdf+3rd+runway+at+coventry+airport&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShltQpXsU8ET_abP8jJYMebaxew1BLV4mY5TVPrj1B0ymmwhrTDIo9tE_eYcnpiE3aBP1HiBo4TbpTFkiivscukBgxuF476Tjsjv4zJ_YMDT9dujQIl8lIVm0OT9yBX9P8sg7_E&sig=AHIEtbQgH2dFnu1eDY4UVX5eUPVyT550uQ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=132195|title=Coventry Airport Goes Bust And Shuts – House prices and the economy|date=8 December 2009|access-date=15 September 2016|archive-date=15 March 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160315143315/http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=132195|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Wimbledon, London====
The [[London Borough of Merton]] did not have enough school places for local children who would be reaching school age in 2012 and 2013. Almost all local schools had expanded, but the group "Save Our Rec" ([[recreation ground]]) (dedicated in the preservation of green areas in the local community) opposed the expansion of Dundonald School as their interest was focused on protecting one of the few green spaces left in the Borough of Merton. Those that disagreed with the "Save our Rec" group labelled the group NIMBYs.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.merton.gov.uk/council/getinvolved/consultation/dundonald_public_consultation_leaflet.pdf|title=Dundonald Primary School and Dundonald Park. Consultation on proposed permanent expansion of school from 1FE to 2FE (30 to 60 pupil places per year) and impact on Dundonald Park|date=2011|website=The London Borough of Merton|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140307070255/http://www.merton.gov.uk/council/getinvolved/consultation/dundonald_public_consultation_leaflet.pdf|archive-date=2014-03-07|url-status=dead|access-date=2018-10-30}}</ref> Despite efforts to protect green spaces, the expansion proceeded onto a portion of the park and the park's [[pavilion]].<ref name="youtube">Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/7YrnRdJKEqs Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20140707082049/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YrnRdJKEqs Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YrnRdJKEqs|title=London's public open space sold off |date=7 March 2012 |publisher=YouTube |access-date=14 September 2014}}{{cbignore}}</ref>

====Portland Migrant Barge====
In April 2023, the [[UK Government]] announced a plan to use the engineless barge, the [[Bibby Stockholm]], to house around 500 asylum seekers in [[Portland Harbour]], in an attempt to save money housing asylum seekers.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Factsheet: Asylum accommodation on a vessel in Portland Port |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/asylum-accommodation-factsheets/factsheet-asylum-accommodation-on-a-vessel-in-portland-port |access-date=2023-08-16 |website=GOV.UK |language=en |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925030406/https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/asylum-accommodation |url-status=live }}</ref> Whilst most of the controversy outside of the town of [[Isle of Portland|Portland]] stemmed from its apparent [[overcrowding]], ethical issues, and economic inefficiency, many protests from the inside of the town were because of impacts on the towns tourism industry, and a possible increase in [[crime]] and [[anti-social behaviour]], with some saying it puts the women of the town at risk.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Specia |first=Megan |date=2023-07-18 |title=Barge to House Asylum Seekers Meets Several Shades of Anger in U.K. |language=en-US |work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/world/europe/asylum-seekers-uk-barge-bibby-stockholm.html |access-date=2023-08-16 |issn=0362-4331 |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925030247/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/18/world/europe/asylum-seekers-uk-barge-bibby-stockholm.html |url-status=live }}</ref> They were dubbed as NIMBYs by some facets of the media.

===United States===
Research shows that conservatives and liberals are equally likely to oppose new housing developments in their localities. White neighborhoods and cities tend to favor more restrictive housing development policy.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/upshot/home-ownership-nimby-bipartisan.html?smid=tw-upshotnyt&smtyp=cur|title=The Bipartisan Cry of 'Not in My Backyard'|newspaper=The New York Times|date=21 August 2018|access-date=2018-08-21|language=en|last1=Badger|first1=Emily|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925023135/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/upshot/home-ownership-nimby-bipartisan.html?smid=tw-upshotnyt&smtyp=cur|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Trounstine-2020"/><ref>{{Cite book|last=Trounstine|first=Jessica|date=2018|title=Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/segregation-by-design/9CEF629688C0C684EDC387407F5878F2|access-date=2020-06-16|publisher=Cambridge University Press|doi=10.1017/9781108555722|isbn=978-1108555722|s2cid=158682691|language=en|archive-date=31 August 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831165644/https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/segregation-by-design/9CEF629688C0C684EDC387407F5878F2|url-status=live}}</ref> A study in ''[[Perspectives on Politics]]'' found that "individuals who are older, male, longtime residents, voters in local elections, and homeowners are significantly more likely to participate" in local government, and that "these individuals overwhelmingly (and to a much greater degree than the general public) oppose new housing construction."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dropbox.com/s/k4kzph3ynal3xai/ZoningParticipation_Perspectives_Final.pdf?dl=0|title=ZoningParticipation_Perspectives_Final.pdf|website=Dropbox|access-date=21 August 2018|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925023135/https://www.dropbox.com/s/k4kzph3ynal3xai/ZoningParticipation_Perspectives_Final.pdf?dl=0|url-status=live}}</ref> Nimbys tend to be homeowners, and have been described as acting to keep home prices high in self-interest<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Einstein|first1=Katherine Levine|last2=Glick|first2=David M.|last3=Palmer|first3=Maxwell|date=2019|title=Neighborhood Defenders and the Power of Delay|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/neighborhood-defenders/neighborhood-defenders-and-the-power-of-delay/C338A46612D7E454D5355A87DD3D6409|access-date=2020-06-19|website=Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America's Housing Crisis|pages=24–57|language=en|doi=10.1017/9781108769495.002|isbn=978-1108769495|s2cid=216525554|archive-date=21 June 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200621184439/https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/neighborhood-defenders/neighborhood-defenders-and-the-power-of-delay/C338A46612D7E454D5355A87DD3D6409|url-status=live}}</ref> and as working against their financial interests.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-07-26/how-to-bridge-the-nimby-vs-yimby-housing-battle |title=The NIMBY Principle |last=Bliss |first=Laura |date=26 July 2019 |work=Bloomberg News |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200805164644/https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-07-26/how-to-bridge-the-nimby-vs-yimby-housing-battle |archive-date=5 August 2020 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Some economists believe that this is due to a public misunderstanding of how the new construction of housing affects housing prices.<ref name="Nall-2022">{{Cite journal |url=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4266459 |title=Folk Economics and the Persistence of Political Opposition to New Housing |date=November 15, 2022 |ssrn=4266459 |last1=Nall |first1=Clayton |last2=Elmendorf |first2=Christopher S. |last3=Oklobdzija |first3=Stan |doi=10.2139/ssrn.4266459 |s2cid=253605636 |access-date=2 December 2022 |archive-date=30 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221130212325/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4266459 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref> For example, only 30-40% of Americans believe that new housing construction reduces housing prices, and meanwhile a comparable amount of Americans believe that new construction increases housing prices.<ref name="Nall-2022"/>

According to a 2017 report from the [[National Low Income Housing Coalition]], there is a shortage of 7.4 million affordable homes available for rent to extremely low income (ELI) households in the United States. As a result, seventy-one percent of ELI households are forced to spend over half of their income on housing costs, leading to severe financial burdens.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Gap-Report_2017.pdf|title=The Gap: A Shortage of Affordable Homes|access-date=2018-11-20|language=en|archive-date=25 September 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925023639/https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/Gap-Report_2017.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/assessing-the-severity-of-rent-burden-on-low-income-families-20171222.htm|title=Assessing the Severity of Rent Burden on Low-Income Families|date=22 December 2017|access-date=2018-11-20|language=en|last1=Larrimore|first1=Jeff|archive-date=24 January 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190124152424/https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/assessing-the-severity-of-rent-burden-on-low-income-families-20171222.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> Despite this apparent need for more affordable housing, opposition from NIMBY activists presents significant challenges to affordable housing developments, resulting in costly design changes, construction delays, and permit denials.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Democracy in Action?: NIMBY as Impediment to Equitable Affordable Housing Siting|journal=Housing Studies|volume=30|issue=5|pages=749–769|language=en|doi = 10.1080/02673037.2015.1013093|year = 2015|last1 = Scally|first1 = Corianne Payton|last2=Tighe|first2=J. Rosie|s2cid=153564064}}</ref> However, research suggests that proactive outreach and communication by affordable housing developers and proponents through the leveraging of social marketing and positive messaging can overcome common NIMBY barriers.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Beben|first=Robert|title=The Role of Social Marketing in Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome|journal=Housing Studies|volume=30|issue=5|pages=749–769|language=en|doi=10.1080/02673037.2015.1013093|year=2015|s2cid=153564064}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Rockne|first=Anna|title=Not in My Backyard: Using Communications to Shift "NIMBY" Attitudes about Affordable Housing|url=https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/198187/ARockne%20Capstone%206.28.18.pdf?sequence=1|access-date=2018-11-20|language=en|archive-date=21 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121072713/https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/198187/ARockne%20Capstone%206.28.18.pdf?sequence=1|url-status=live}}</ref>

====California====
Activism from both individuals and organizations opposed to new housing construction has been cited as a major reason for the state's ongoing [[California housing shortage|housing shortage]] and high cost of living. <ref name="cal_homeless25">{{cite web |last1=Kendall |first1=Marisa |title=New homelessness data: How does California compare to the rest of the country? |url=https://calmatters.org/housing/homelessness/2025/01/hud-pit-count-2024/ |website=CalMatters |publisher=CalMatters |access-date=12 April 2025 |ref=cal_homeless25}}</ref>

Many local residents (including farmers) in [[Hanford, California|Hanford]], California and surrounding areas are opposed to the [[California High-Speed Rail Authority]] building high-speed rail near farmland, citing that it will bring environmental and economic problems.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/opposition-grows-at-hanford-rail-meeting/article_b3d401ba-8879-11e0-8574-001cc4c03286.html|title=Opposition grows at Hanford rail meeting|date=27 May 2011|access-date=11 April 2021|archive-date=11 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210411094559/https://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/opposition-grows-at-hanford-rail-meeting/article_b3d401ba-8879-11e0-8574-001cc4c03286.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Wealthy residents of southern [[Orange County, California|Orange County]], California defeated a local measure that proposed to convert the decommissioned El Toro Marine Base into a commercial airport, claiming that the airport would be "unsafe" during landings and takeoffs, as well as create air quality issues. The real issue was the FAA planned the flight paths for the airport over expensive neighborhoods of south Orange County and residents feared that their property values would decrease. The airport proposal, however, was strongly supported by northern Orange County residents. The defeat of the local measure resulted in the creation of the [[Orange County Great Park]].{{Citation needed|date=August 2021}}

For over 60 years, environmentalists, historic preservationists and long-time residents of [[South Pasadena, California|South Pasadena]], California have been opposing the completion of the highly controversial [[Interstate 710 and State Route 710 (California)#The South Pasadena gap|State Route 710]] through the cities of Los Angeles (El Sereno), South Pasadena and Pasadena.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-11-22 |title=The ghost of dead 710 Freeway extension in Pasadena haunts drivers' map apps |url=https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2022/11/22/the-ghost-of-dead-710-freeway-extension-in-pasadena-haunts-drivers-map-apps/ |access-date=2023-10-24 |website=Pasadena Star News |language=en-US |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925030248/https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2022/11/22/the-ghost-of-dead-710-freeway-extension-in-pasadena-haunts-drivers-map-apps/ |url-status=live }}</ref> In 1973, a federal injunction was granted, halting the construction of the surface freeway pending an environmental impact analysis.<ref name="Scauzillo-2019">{{Cite web |last=Scauzillo |first=Steve |date=2019-06-14 |title=The untold story: How a South Pasadena-based group successfully fought the 710 Freeway extension — twice |url=https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/the-untold-story-how-a-south-pasadena-based-group-successfully-fought-the-710-freeway-extension-twice/ |access-date=2024-06-08 |website=Pasadena Star News |language=en-US}}</ref> The [[Federal Highway Administration]] withdrew support for the surface freeway in 2003.<ref name="Scauzillo-2019" />

On 29 September 2017, 15 housing bills were signed into law by [[Jerry Brown|Governor Jerry Brown]] to combat the state's housing shortage. Many of these bills are considered direct attempts to reduce the ability of private citizens to suppress housing construction, even being referred to by some as "Anti-NIMBY" bills.<ref>{{Cite web|date=18 September 2017|title=The Legislature's "Year Of Housing" Produces Broad Package of Bills to Stimulate Affordable Housing Construction – Meyers {{!}} Nave|url=http://www.meyersnave.com/legislatures-year-housing-produces-broad-package-bills-stimulate-affordable-housing-construction/|access-date=18 April 2018|website=www.meyersnave.com|language=en-US|archive-date=18 April 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180418225427/http://www.meyersnave.com/legislatures-year-housing-produces-broad-package-bills-stimulate-affordable-housing-construction/|url-status=live |last1=Hill |first1=Stephanie }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Dillon|first=Liam|date=29 September 2017|title=Gov. Brown just signed 15 housing bills. Here's how they're supposed to help the affordability crisis|url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-legislation-signed-20170929-htmlstory.html|access-date=18 April 2018|website=[[Los Angeles Times]]|archive-date=1 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171101001018/http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-legislation-signed-20170929-htmlstory.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2022, California governor [[Gavin Newsom]] declared that "nimbyism is destroying the state" and promised to hold cities and counties accountable for stopping new housing development.<ref name="NIMBYismDestroyingState">{{cite news |last=Bollag |first=Sophia |date=May 22, 2022 |title='NIMBYism is destroying the state.' Gavin Newsom ups pressure on cities to build more housing |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/newsom-housing-17188515.php |newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle |publication-place=San Francisco |place=Sacramento |access-date=June 6, 2022 |quote="NIMBYism is destroying the state," [Newsom] told the editorial board in an interview seeking the paper’s endorsement in his upcoming re-election bid. "We're gonna demand more from our cities and counties." |archive-date=6 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220606073439/https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/newsom-housing-17188515.php |url-status=live }}</ref>

=====San Francisco=====
Nimbyism in San Francisco, including several members of the [[San Francisco Board of Supervisors]], has led to a [[San Francisco housing shortage|suppression of new housing construction]], transit expansion, bike infrastructure, and new retail stores in the city. Nimbys have cited negative impact on local communities, low affordable housing quotas, restrictions on buildings' shadows, increased car traffic, and concerns with parking as reasons for opposing projects.<ref>{{cite news|last=Dineen|first=J.K.|title=NIMBYs are back: S.F. builders face growing backlash|url=http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2013/07/nimbys-are-back-sf-builders-face.html|publisher=Biz Journals|access-date=6 January 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Perigo |first=Sasha |date=2020-02-20 |title=Who are the Bay Area's NIMBYs—and what do they want? |url=https://sf.curbed.com/2020/2/20/21122662/san-francisco-bay-area-nimbys-history-nimby-development |access-date=2024-06-01 |website=Curbed SF |language=en |archive-date=2 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220402230237/https://sf.curbed.com/2020/2/20/21122662/san-francisco-bay-area-nimbys-history-nimby-development |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Placzek |first=Jessica |date=2019-03-11 |title=Forget YIMBY vs. NIMBY. Could PHIMBYs Solve the Housing Crisis? {{!}} KQED |url=https://www.kqed.org/news/11731580/forget-yimby-vs-nimby-could-phimbys-solve-the-housing-crisis |access-date=2024-06-01 |website=www.kqed.org |language=en |archive-date=28 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220428044828/https://www.kqed.org/news/11731580/forget-yimby-vs-nimby-could-phimbys-solve-the-housing-crisis |url-status=live }}</ref> Those who favor housing developments argue that new housing construction makes housing more affordable, thereby reducing displacement, personal property tax burdens, and homelessness. Examples of nimbyism in San Francisco include 8 Washington housing project, 1846 Grove Street housing, 1060 Folsom housing, 1979 Mission housing, 2675 Folsom housing, 250 Laguna Honda Boulevard housing, 770 Woolsey, UCSF Parnassus Heights hospital expansion, and the Polk Street bike lane.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2016-03-03|title=8 Washington Is Over; Developer Gives Up On Agreement For Seawall Lot [Updated]|url=https://hoodline.com/2016/03/8-washington-is-over-developer-gives-up-on-agreement-for-seawall-lot/|access-date=2020-12-28|website=hoodline.com|language=en|archive-date=21 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210121184644/https://hoodline.com/2016/03/8-washington-is-over-developer-gives-up-on-agreement-for-seawall-lot/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Deutsch|first=Sam|date=2020-08-25|title=Four Homes, Four Years: The saga to build four homes at 1846 Grove St.|url=https://medium.com/yimby/four-homes-four-years-the-saga-to-build-four-homes-at-1846-grove-st-cbfae60133a7|access-date=2020-12-28|website=Medium|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Brinklow|first=Adam|date=2020-02-25|title=The biggest canceled or delayed SF housing projects|url=https://sf.curbed.com/maps/map-sf-housing-delayed-cancelled-monster-mission-projects|access-date=2020-12-28|website=Curbed SF|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=2015-09-03|title=Aaron Peskin Consulted With Polk Street Bike Lane Opponents on Lawsuit|url=https://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/09/02/aaron-peskin-consulted-with-polk-street-bike-lane-opponents-on-lawsuit/|access-date=2020-12-28|website=Streetsblog San Francisco|language=en-US|archive-date=16 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210116061348/https://sf.streetsblog.org/2015/09/02/aaron-peskin-consulted-with-polk-street-bike-lane-opponents-on-lawsuit/|url-status=live}}</ref>

San Francisco nimbys have also been described as "housing conservatives".<ref>{{Cite news|date=2021-01-23|title=San Francisco is one of California's most conservative cities – when it comes to housing|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/San-Francisco-is-one-of-California-s-most-15891810.php|access-date=2021-01-24|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|language=en-US|last1=Knight|first1=Heather|archive-date=24 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210124160425/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/San-Francisco-is-one-of-California-s-most-15891810.php|url-status=live}}</ref>{{Synthesis inline|date=February 2021|reason=The source title states that San Francisco residents are conservative regarding housing. Please verify that it specifically refers to them as 'housing conservatives'.}}

=====Marin County=====
Many residents of [[Marin County, California|Marin County]], an affluent [[bedroom community]] in the San Francisco Bay Area, have for many years exemplified the idea of nimbyism through their ardent resistance to housing developments and housing quotas.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Dillon |first1=Liam |title=Marin County has long resisted growth in the name of environmentalism. But high housing costs and segregation persist |url=https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-marin-county-affordable-housing-20170107-story.html |website=Los Angeles Times |access-date=14 April 2022 |date=7 January 2018 |archive-date=14 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220414072657/https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-marin-county-affordable-housing-20170107-story.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Walters |first1=Dan |title=Marin NIMBYs not alone in pushing back on housing mandates |url=https://www.marinij.com/2021/02/06/dan-walters-marin-nimbys-not-alone-in-pushing-back-on-housing-mandates/ |website=Marin Independent Journal |access-date=14 April 2022 |date=6 February 2021 |archive-date=6 December 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211206032837/https://www.marinij.com/2021/02/06/dan-walters-marin-nimbys-not-alone-in-pushing-back-on-housing-mandates/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Walters |first1=Dan |title=Marin County's guerrilla war against housing |url=https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/05/marin-county-housing-water-quota/ |website=CalMatters |access-date=14 April 2022 |date=31 May 2021 |archive-date=25 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220625145823/https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/05/marin-county-housing-water-quota/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Perigo |first1=Sasha |title=Who are the Bay Area's NIMBYs – and what do they want? |url=https://sf.curbed.com/2020/2/20/21122662/san-francisco-bay-area-nimbys-history-nimby-development |website=Curbed SF |access-date=14 April 2022 |language=en |date=20 February 2020 |archive-date=2 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220402230237/https://sf.curbed.com/2020/2/20/21122662/san-francisco-bay-area-nimbys-history-nimby-development |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="NYTimesTwilightOfTheNIMBY"/> Residents believe housing developments will lead to increased population density which can lead to increased traffic, increased pollution, crowded schools, a lack of open space, and a poor quality of life.

In 2018, some Marin residents started the NIMBY group [[Livable California]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ellickson |first=Robert C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=c7yHEAAAQBAJ |title=America's Frozen Neighborhoods: The Abuse of Zoning |date=2022 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0-300-26856-0 |pages=241 |language=en |quote=In 2018, California NIMBYs created an umbrella organization, Livable California. |access-date=23 August 2024 |archive-date=23 August 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240823165651/https://books.google.com/books?id=c7yHEAAAQBAJ |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Florida====
A minority of residents in [[St. Lucie County]], Florida have vehemently opposed the construction of wind turbines in the county. The construction of the wind turbines was strongly supported by over 80% of county residents according to a 2008 [[Florida Power and Light]] (FPL) poll.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/content/tcoast/epaper/2008/04/03/m1b_slwind_0402.html|title=Survey supports turbines, FPL says|last=Quinlan|first=Paul|date=2008-04-03|website=The Palm Beach Post|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110617010520/https://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/content/tcoast/epaper/2008/04/03/m1b_slwind_0402.html|archive-date=2011-06-17|url-status=dead|access-date=2018-10-30}}</ref> Additionally, the power company proposed building the turbines in a location on a beach near a prior existing nuclear power plant owned by the company.<ref>{{Cite web |date=March 18, 2008 |title=FPL Proposes Six Wind Turbines on Company-Owned Land |url=https://newsroom.fpl.com/2008-03-18-FPL-Proposes-Six-Wind-Turbines-on-Company-Owned-Land |access-date=2024-06-08 |website=Florida Power & Light Company (FPL): FPL Newsroom |language=en-US |archive-date=8 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240608103924/https://newsroom.fpl.com/2008-03-18-FPL-Proposes-Six-Wind-Turbines-on-Company-Owned-Land |url-status=live }}</ref>

In the 1980s, plans were made to develop a series of east/west highways to connect [[Palm Beach County, Florida|Palm Beach County]]'s suburbs with downtown [[West Palm Beach, Florida|West Palm Beach]].<ref name="Gelston-1987">{{cite web |last=Gelston |first=Sally |date=February 18, 1987 |title=Authority drops expressway proposal |url=http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1987-02-18/news/8701100952_1_expressway-route-authority-members |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141008184748/http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1987-02-18/news/8701100952_1_expressway-route-authority-members |archive-date=2014-10-08 |access-date=2010-11-30 |website=Sun Sentinel |publisher=}}</ref> Many residents in the area opposed the plan, largely due to the highway expansion requiring the demolition of over 100 homes.<ref name="Gelston-1987" /> Ultimately, the plan was revised to transform the existing [[Florida State Road 80|SR-80]] (Southern Boulevard) into a full expressway to minimize disruptions to local residents and businesses,<ref>{{cite web |last=Gelston |first=Sally |date=January 21, 1987 |title=Highway review urged engineer revives expressway plan |url=http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1987-01-21/news/8701050057_1_expressway-toll-road-southern-boulevard |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181028225649/https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1987-01-21-8701050057-story.html |archive-date=October 28, 2018 |access-date=June 8, 2024 |work=Sun Sentinel}}</ref> however all of the proposals were later abandoned.<ref>{{cite web |last=Grogan |first=John |date=March 10, 1988 |title=Authority Offers To Drop Tollway Plans |url=http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1988-03-10/news/8801150162_1_expressway-authority-members-authority-meeting |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181028225800/https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1988-03-10-8801150162-story.html |archive-date=October 28, 2018 |access-date=June 8, 2024 |work=Sun Sentinel}}</ref>

====Illinois====
In 1959, when [[Deerfield, Illinois|Deerfield]] officials learned that a developer building a neighborhood of large new homes planned to make houses available to [[African Americans]], they issued a stop-work order. An intense debate began about racial integration, property values, and the good faith of the residents, community officials and builders. For a brief time, Deerfield was spotlighted in the national news as "the Little Rock of the North."<ref name="ros001">{{cite book | last = Rosen | first = Harry | author-link = Harry Rosen (author) |author2=David Rosen | title = But Not Next Door | publisher = Astor-Honor Inc | year = 1962 | isbn = 978-0-8392-1007-8}}</ref> Supporters of integration were denounced and ostracized by residents. Eventually, the village passed a referendum to build parks on the property, thus putting an end to the housing development. Two model homes already partially completed were sold to village officials.<ref name="ros001" /> Otherwise, the land lay dormant for years before it was developed into what is now Mitchell Pool and Park and Jaycee Park. The first black family did not move into Deerfield until much later, and in years since Deerfield has seen a greater influx of minorities, including Jews, Asians, Greeks and others. This episode in Deerfield's history is described in ''But Not Next Door'' by Harry and David Rosen, both residents of Deerfield.

====Minnesota====
[[File:"Developers Win! Neighborhoods Lose! Stop Mpls 2040" - Minneapolis for Everyone Lawn Signs (30194071478).jpg|thumb|300px|alt=A lawn sign reads, "Developers Win, Neighborhoods Lose! Stop MPLS 2040"|Minneapolis's plan to end [[single-family zoning]] faced years of legal challenges]]
In the late 1990s a proposal for [[commuter rail]] on the [[Dan Patch Corridor]] between [[Minneapolis]] and [[Northfield, Minnesota|Northfield]] was studied. In 2002, due to opposition from neighborhoods along the corridor, two state representatives from the suburbs of [[Bloomington, Minnesota|Bloomington]] and [[Edina, Minnesota|Edina]] passed a legislative ban that prohibited further study, discussion, funding, and construction of the project. Several attempts have been made to lift the ban, and in 2023 it was finally lifted.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-05-24 |title=Dan Patch rail line gag order lifted after two decades |url=https://www.swnewsmedia.com/savage_pacer/news/government/dan-patch-rail-line-gag-order-lifted-after-two-decades/article_dd909498-f9df-11ed-b9c4-4fffaf1acb4c.html |access-date=2023-08-16 |website=SWNewsMedia.com |language=en |archive-date=7 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230607184603/https://www.swnewsmedia.com/savage_pacer/news/government/dan-patch-rail-line-gag-order-lifted-after-two-decades/article_dd909498-f9df-11ed-b9c4-4fffaf1acb4c.html |url-status=live |last1= Malm|first1= Alex}}</ref> As of 2023 the communities along the route have no official position on the Dan Patch Corridor except [[Lakeville, Minnesota|Lakeville]], Minnesota, which is opposed.<ref>[https://www.lakevillemn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/696/Legislative-Priorities-PDF 2024 Legislative Priorities] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230725122715/https://www.lakevillemn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/696/Legislative-Priorities-PDF |date=25 July 2023 }} lakevillemn.gov</ref>

In 2018, Minneapolis became the first US city to end [[single-family zoning]], with a guiding framework called the "Minneapolis 2040 Comprehensive Plan". The plan faced years of legal challenges, and eventually required intervention from the state legislature to proceed.<ref name=McVanReformer>{{cite news|last=McVan|first=Madison|work=Minnesota Reformer|url=https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/legislature-passes-law-protecting-minneapolis-2040-plan/|title=Legislature passes law protecting Minneapolis 2040 Plan|access-date=20 August 2024|archive-date=20 August 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240820102809/https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/legislature-passes-law-protecting-minneapolis-2040-plan/|url-status=live}}</ref>

====New York====
In 1858, a group of residents in [[Staten Island]] burned down the [[The Staten Island Quarantine War (1858)|New York Marine Hospital]], at the time the largest quarantine facility in the United States, citing its negative effect on local property values.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stephenson|first=Kathryn|date=January 1, 2004|title=The Quarantine War: the Burning of the New York Marine Hospital in 1858|journal=Public Health Reports|volume=119|issue=1|pages=79–92|doi=10.1177/003335490411900114|pmid=15147652|pmc=1502261}}</ref>

On [[Long Island]], various electrification and expansion projects of the [[Long Island Rail Road]] (LIRR) were substantially delayed due to the protests of people living near the railroad. For example, the [[Metropolitan Transportation Authority]] built a [[Third Track Project|third track]] on the [[Main Line (Long Island Rail Road)|Main Line]] from [[Floral Park station]] to [[Hicksville station]] in order to increase capacity.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://web.mta.info/lirr/News/2008/MainLineCorridorImprovements.pdf|title=MTA Long Island Rail Road East Side Access and Third Track – Main Line Corridor Improvements|publisher=[[Metropolitan Transportation Authority]]|access-date=4 July 2018|page=5|archive-date=25 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160125170537/http://web.mta.info/lirr/News/2008/MainLineCorridorImprovements.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | last=Rather | first=John | title=Third-Track Project Finds Its Nemesis | website=The New York Times | date=10 July 2005 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/nyregion/thirdtrack-project-finds-its-nemesis.html | access-date=4 July 2018 | archive-date=4 July 2018 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180704182832/https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/nyregion/thirdtrack-project-finds-its-nemesis.html | url-status=live }}</ref> Although most communities along the route supported [[grade crossing]] eliminations as part of the project, there was fierce opposition for building a third track from the villages of [[Floral Park, New York|Floral Park]], [[New Hyde Park, New York|New Hyde Park]], and [[Garden City, New York|Garden City]], which said the construction and the resulting increased train service will reduce the quality of life in their neighborhoods.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gcnews.com/news/2005/1111/Front_Page/001.html |title=Floral Park Mayor To Address LIRR Expansion |author=Stephanie Mariel Petrellese |date=11 November 2005 |access-date=23 December 2006 |publisher=The Garden City News |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060322080533/http://www.gcnews.com/news/2005/1111/Front_Page/001.html |archive-date=22 March 2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.antonnews.com/illustratednews/2005/06/24/news/ |title=Residents: MTA/LIRR Needs to Get on Right Track |author=Carisa Keane |date=24 June 2005 |access-date=23 December 2006 |publisher=New Hyde Park Illustrated News |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927195104/http://www.antonnews.com/illustratednews/2005/06/24/news/ |archive-date=27 September 2007 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.gcnews.com/news/2006/1215/Front_Page/001.html |title=Village Meets With LIRR On "Third Track" Project |author=Stephanie Mariel Petrellese |date=15 December 2006 |access-date=23 December 2006 |publisher=The Garden City News |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070112195001/http://www.gcnews.com/news/2006/1215/Front_Page/001.html |archive-date=12 January 2007 }}</ref> The third track project was suspended indefinitely in 2008,<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/14lirrli.html |title=Third-Track Plan Isn't Dead, L.I.R.R. Insists |last=Nardiello |first=Carolyn |date=16 September 2008 |access-date=31 July 2012 |work=[[The New York Times]] |archive-date=19 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419210655/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/14lirrli.html |url-status=live }}</ref> but new funding for the project was included in a 2016 infrastructure improvement plan announced by [[Governor of New York|New York Governor]] [[Andrew Cuomo]], which included measures intended to mitigate locals' concerns.<ref name="Newsday 2016-01-05">{{cite news |last=Madore |first=James T. |url=http://www.newsday.com/business/andrew-cuomo-at-long-island-association-meeting-pushes-for-lirr-third-track-li-sound-tunnel-1.11291571 |title=Andrew Cuomo tells Long Island Association he'll push LIRR third track, LI Sound tunnel |publisher=[[Newsday]] |date=5 January 2016 |access-date=7 January 2016 |archive-date=7 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160107000539/http://www.newsday.com/business/andrew-cuomo-at-long-island-association-meeting-pushes-for-lirr-third-track-li-sound-tunnel-1.11291571 |url-status=live }}</ref> Despite the promise of mitigation efforts, several local politicians denounced the governor's plan within a day of its announcement.<ref name="NYTimes 2016-01-05">{{cite news |last=Fitzsimmons |first=Emma G. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/nyregion/cuomo-revives-long-stalled-plan-to-add-track-to-lirr.html |title=Cuomo Revives Long-Stalled Plan to Add Track to L.I.R.R. |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=5 January 2016 |page=A18 |access-date=7 January 2016 |archive-date=7 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160107043947/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/nyregion/cuomo-revives-long-stalled-plan-to-add-track-to-lirr.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.theislandnow.com/great_neck/news/cuomo-revives-lirr-third-track-plans/article_99079a58-b557-11e5-b993-c36504fe0a4a.html |title=Cuomo revives LIRR third track plans |last=Manskar |first=Noah |publisher=The Island Now |date=7 January 2016 |access-date=8 January 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160110100553/http://www.theislandnow.com/great_neck/news/cuomo-revives-lirr-third-track-plans/article_99079a58-b557-11e5-b993-c36504fe0a4a.html |archive-date=10 January 2016 }}</ref> In December 2017, the LIRR awarded a contract to build the third track.<ref>{{cite news |last=Berger |first=Paul |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/mta-awards-1-8-billion-contract-to-expand-long-island-rail-road-1513208765 |title=MTA Awards $1.8 Billion Contract to Expand Long Island Rail Road |publisher=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |date=13 December 2017 |access-date=25 January 2018 |archive-date=25 January 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180125011854/https://www.wsj.com/articles/mta-awards-1-8-billion-contract-to-expand-long-island-rail-road-1513208765 |url-status=live }}</ref> It was completed in October 2022 and a new service pattern was ultimately implemented in February 2023, concurrent with the full opening of [[Grand Central Madison]].<ref>{{cite web | last=Duggan | first=Kevin | title='Third' time's the charm: MTA finishes $2.5 billion LIRR Third Track project | website=amNewYork | date=2022-10-03 | url=https://www.amny.com/transit/mta-finishes-lirr-third-track/ | access-date=2022-10-15 | archive-date=14 October 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221014224930/https://www.amny.com/transit/mta-finishes-lirr-third-track/ | url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="ABC7 New York 20230227">{{cite web | title=LIRR full service begins Monday, 2/27, at Grand Central Madison; train schedules to change | website=ABC7 New York | date=February 27, 2023 | url=https://abc7ny.com/lirr-train-schedule-grand-central-madison-opens/12887154/ | access-date=February 27, 2023 | archive-date=25 September 2024 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925024805/https://abc7ny.com/lirr-train-schedule-grand-central-madison-opens/12887154/ | url-status=live }}</ref>

In [[Port Washington, New York]], a dispute broke out between the town of [[North Hempstead, New York|North Hempstead]] and the LIRR over a proposed yard expansion at [[Port Washington station]]. To expand the yard, a parking lot belonging to the town would need to be reduced in size, but a local councilperson stated that the addition of the tracks "will completely ruin the character of the town."<ref name="newsday">{{cite web |url=http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/lirr-plan-would-run-more-trains-to-nyc-1.5263966 |title=LIRR plan would run more trains to NYC |publisher=Newsday |date=14 May 2013 |access-date=7 March 2014 |archive-date=28 March 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140328183728/http://www.newsday.com/long-island/towns/lirr-plan-would-run-more-trains-to-nyc-1.5263966 |url-status=live }}</ref> The LIRR was able to expand the yard without the agreement of North Hempstead by tearing up 140 parking spaces of its own parking lot, also adjacent to the station.<ref name="newsday"/>

Community opposition also led to the cancellation of a [[LaGuardia Airport subway extension|proposed extension]] of the [[New York City Subway]]'s [[BMT Astoria Line|Astoria Line]] (carrying the {{NYCS trains|Astoria}}) to [[LaGuardia Airport]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.qgazette.com/news/2003/0716/Front_Page/002.html|title=N Train Extension To LaG Scrapped|last=Toscano|first=John|date=July 16, 2003|newspaper=Queens Gazette|access-date=July 26, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090525091226/http://www.qgazette.com/news/2003/0716/Front_Page/002.html|archive-date=25 May 2009|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.qgazette.com/news/2007-06-27/Features/Flashback_To_1999_001.html|title=Flashback To 1999 &#124; www.qgazette.com &#124; Queens Gazette|date=June 27, 2007|publisher=www.qgazette.com|access-date=March 25, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160322134801/http://www.qgazette.com/news/2007-06-27/features/flashback_to_1999_001.html|archive-date=22 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> Similarly, opposition has stopped any proposal to build a [[Long Island Sound link|bridge or tunnel across the Long Island Sound]] with some believing it will harm their communities with an influx of unwanted traffic as well as concerns regarding the environment and the number of homes that would be cleared as a result.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Andersen|first1=Steve|last2=Herman|first2=Ralph|last3=Willinger|first3=Douglas A.|last4=Schlictman|first4=Paul|title=Overview: Oyster Bay-Rye Bridge (I-287, unbuilt)|url=http://www.nycroads.com/crossings/oysterbay-rye/}}</ref>

====Tennessee====
In early 2020, in [[Campbell County, Tennessee|Campbell County]], [[Tennessee]], complaints occurred after an out-of-state company began [[Drilling and blasting|controlled blasting]] at a rock quarry in the county.<ref name="wvlt"/> Campbell County Schools had dismissed their schools early due to the quarry, located less than 2,000 feet from the high school, performing a scheduled blast.<ref name="wvlt"/> Residents gathered for pleas to shut down the quarry.<ref name="wvlt">{{cite news |last1=Ducre |first1=Gwendolyn |title="We've all been trying to fight it": Campbell Co. citizens concerned about quarry blasting |url=https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/Campbell-County-Schools-dismiss-early-due-to-quarry-blasting-567526721.html |access-date=26 September 2020 |work=[[WVLT-TV]] |date=February 3, 2020 |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925024657/https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/Campbell-County-Schools-dismiss-early-due-to-quarry-blasting-567526721.html |url-status=live }}</ref> Campbell County officials later passed a resolution banning the development of quarries within 2,000 feet of a public building or power grid structure.<ref name="quarryban">{{cite news |title=Resolution to restrict quarries passes in Campbell County |url=https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/Resolution-to-restrict-quarries-passes-in-Campbell-County--567692361.html |access-date=26 September 2020 |work=[[WVLT-TV]] |date=February 8, 2020 |archive-date=25 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240925030827/https://www.wvlt.tv/content/news/Resolution-to-restrict-quarries-passes-in-Campbell-County--567692361.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2009, [[Norfolk Southern Railway]] released plans of a proposed {{convert|1300|acre|km2}} [[intermodal freight transport]] truck-and-train facility in [[Jefferson County, Tennessee|Jefferson County]], Tennessee as a part of the {{US$|2.5 billion}} [[Crescent Corridor]] project in a {{US$|133 million}} [[private-public partnership]] with state and Jefferson County officials.<ref name="offtherails">{{cite news |last1=Wilson |first1=Robert |title=Are intermodal facility plans on or off the rails in Jefferson County? |url=http://archive.knoxnews.com/business/are-intermodal-facility-plans-on-or-off-the-rails-in-jefferson-county-ep-409942325-359359131.html |access-date=September 2, 2020 |work=[[Knoxville News Sentinel]] |date=June 14, 2009 |archive-date=27 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127202212/http://archive.knoxnews.com/business/are-intermodal-facility-plans-on-or-off-the-rails-in-jefferson-county-ep-409942325-359359131.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="rightthing">{{cite web |last1=Cagle |first1=Frank |title=Do the Right Thing |url=http://www.metropulse.com/news/2009/jun/24/do-right-thing/ |website=[[MetroPulse]] |access-date=September 2, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091027065923/http://www.metropulse.com/news/2009/jun/24/do-right-thing/ |archive-date=October 27, 2009}}</ref> The proposed facility, if completed, would have generated 77 on-site jobs, 1,700 related-industry jobs in [[Jefferson County, Tennessee|Jefferson]] and surrounding counties, and the potential of an annual income of {{US$|60 million}} dollars a year.<ref name="offtherails"/> The project received extensive backlash from an organized group of affected property owners and farmers, citing the massive loss of land as a negative impact on Jefferson County's agricultural industry.<ref name="BLEAT">{{cite web |last1=Matheny |first1=Jim |title=Knoxville residents rail against proposed Norfolk Southern terminal |url=https://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=26317 |website=[[Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen]] |publisher=[[WBIR-TV]] |access-date=September 2, 2020 |date=May 27, 2009 |archive-date=3 December 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201203143336/https://www.ble-t.org/pr/news/headline.asp?id=26317 |url-status=live }}</ref> The project status has remained [[Economic stagnation|stagnant]] since 2015, as Norfolk had no plans of constructing the facility in the short-term future, but plans on having the site property as a "long-term investment" according to a press release by the company's public relations director.<ref name="steam">{{cite news |last1=Depew |first1=Jake |title=Intermodal Project Still Without Steam |url=http://jeffersoncountypost.com/?p=26886 |access-date=September 2, 2020 |work=Jefferson County Post |date=January 18, 2015 |archive-date=15 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210415013053/http://jeffersoncountypost.com/?p=26886 |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Virginia====
In 1994, opposition from residents and historians contributed to the cancellation of the [[Disney's America]] theme park outside of [[Haymarket, Virginia|Haymarket]], Virginia.<ref name="LAT-940227">{{cite news |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-27-mn-27884-story.html |title=Virginians in Civil War Over Disney Park Plans |author=Feinsilber, Mike |agency=[[Associated Press]] |date=February 27, 1994 |newspaper=[[Los Angeles Times]] |access-date=October 15, 2020 |archive-date=5 March 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240305123852/https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-02-27-mn-27884-story.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Washington====
In 1988, residents of Seattle's [[Broadmoor, Seattle|Broadmoor]] golf course and gated community successfully opposed the construction of a [[bike path]] between [[Washington Park Arboretum]] and [[Madison Park, Seattle|Madison Park]].<ref name="GolfClubBikeway1988">{{cite news |last=Lilly |first=Dick |date=April 27, 1988 |title=Golf-Club Bikeway is Opposed in Broadmoor — Residents Call for Alternative Trail Using Arboretum Drive East Route |url= |work=The Seattle Times |quote=City proposals to put a bicycle trail through the marsh at the edge of the Arboretum and Broadmoor Golf Club have prompted Broadmoor residents and the club to suggest another alternative route.}}</ref>

==Political implications==
According to ''[[New York Times]]'' opinion writer [[Farhad Manjoo]], "What Republicans want to do with I.C.E. and border walls, wealthy progressive Democrats are doing with zoning and Nimbyism. Preserving “local character,” maintaining “local control,” keeping housing scarce and inaccessible—the goals of both sides are really the same: to keep people out."<ref name="NYT_Manjoo">{{cite news|last=Manjoo|first=Farhad|author-link=Farhad Manjoo|date=2019-05-22|title=America's Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals. – The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards.|pages=|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html|url-status=live|access-date=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190601071146/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html|archive-date=2019-06-01|quote=It was another chapter in a dismal saga of Nimbyist urban mismanagement that is crushing American cities. Not-in-my-backyardism is a bipartisan sentiment, but because the largest American cities are populated and run by Democrats—many in states under complete Democratic control—this sort of nakedly exclusionary urban restrictionism is a particular shame of the left.}}</ref>

In a 2020 paper exploring the relationship between homeowners' self-interest and pro-NIMBY attitudes among both self-identified liberals and conservatives, William Marble and Clayton Nall note: “Whether they are responding to different housing policies, responding to persuasive political messaging, or evaluating hypothetical proposals for local development, homeowners remain opposed to local development policies that threaten their self-interest.“<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Marble, Nall |first1=William, Clayton |title=Where Self-Interest Trumps Ideology: Liberal Homeowners and Local Opposition to Housing Development |journal=The Journal of Politics |date=February 6, 2020 |volume=83 |issue=4 |pages=1747–1763 |doi=10.1086/711717 |s2cid=225013704 }}</ref>

Historian [[Nancy Shoemaker]] cites "Not-in-My-Backyard Colonialism" as one of twelve types of [[colonialism]], in which an area is colonized to [[penal colony|dispose of convicts]] or conduct dangerous experiments. She cites Australia and the [[Marshall Islands]]—used as a nuclear test site by the United States—as examples.<ref>{{cite web |title=A Typology of Colonialism {{!}} Perspectives on History |url=https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/october-2015/a-typology-of-colonialism |website=[[American Historical Association]] |last=Shoemaker |first=Nancy |date=1 October 2015 |access-date=28 April 2022 |archive-date=24 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220124164022/https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/october-2015/a-typology-of-colonialism |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Overcoming==
Various means to overcome NIMBY opposition to infrastructure or development have been used, including persuasion, leaving the decision to an appointed board, or broadening the decision-making community (such as by overriding municipal zoning rules with countywide or statewide regulations). Another proposal is to pay neighbors of new housing developments, so that they experience benefits as well as costs, giving them an incentive to express political support.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/30/opinion/nimby-yimby/ |title=What if NIMBYs got paid to become YIMBYs? Local zoning rules often give neighbors the power to block new housing. Maybe they need new incentives to say yes. |author=Samuel Sanders |date=December 30, 2023 |newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]] |access-date=5 January 2024 |archive-date=5 January 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240105025551/https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/12/30/opinion/nimby-yimby/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

==See also==
{{portal|Environment}}
<!-- Please keep entries in alphabetical order and add a short description [[WP:SEEALSO]]. -->
{{div col}}
* Specific
** ''[[Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe]]''
** [[Clamshell Alliance]] – local anti nuclear actions
** [[Uruguay River pulp mill dispute]]
* [[Collective action problem]]
* [[Drawbridge mentality]]
* [[Eminent domain]] – the takeover of private land by a government in exchange for financial compensation
* [[Environmental racism]]
* [[Fenceline community]]
* [[Fenno's paradox]]
* [[Freeway revolt]]
* [[Gentrification]]
* [[Limousine liberal]]
* [[Locally unwanted land use]]
* [[Luddite]]
* [[Single-family zoning]]<!-- or downzoning, which is currently a redirect -->
* [[Smart growth]]
* [[Somebody else's problem]]
* [[Technophobia]]
* [[Urban planning]]
* [[Wind farm opposition]]
* [[YIMBY]]
{{div col end}}
<!-- Please keep entries in alphabetical order. -->

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Further reading==
* Brouwer, N. R.; Trounstine, Jessica (2024). "[[doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-041322-041133|NIMBYs, YIMBYs, and the Politics of Land Use in American Cities]]". ''Annual Review of Political Science''. '''27''' (1). [[Doi (identifier)|doi]]:10.1146/annurev-polisci-041322-041133. [[ISSN (identifier)|ISSN]]&nbsp;1094-2939.
* Doughtery, Conor. 2020. ''Golden Gates: Fighting for Housing in America''. Penguin RandomHouse.{{ISBN?}}
* Katherine Levine Einstein, David M. Glick, Maxwell Palmer. 2019. ''[[doi:10.1017/9781108769495|Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America's Housing Crisis]]''. Cambridge University Press.

==External links==
{{Wiktionary|NIMBY}}
* [http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1302007_NIMBY.asp Multifamily Housing Group Targets NIMBY]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070519104252/http://www.tscg.biz/survey/details.html Saint Index strives to measure Nimbyism]
* [http://www.nimbywars.com/ Nimby Wars from Forbes Magazine]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20081221150709/http://www.gcastrategies.com/overcoming-community-opposition/ How to Overcome NIMBY Opposition to Your Project]
* [http://www.housingfinance.com/ahf/articles/2008/jul/specialfocusqa0708.htm Q & A with NIMBY Expert Debra Stein]
* [https://www.proquest.com/docview/277722280 Mention in the ''Orlando Sentinel'', September 30, 1990] 
* [http://www.wordspy.com/words/CAVEs.asp CAVE definition at Word Spy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140717233338/http://www.wordspy.com/words/CAVEs.asp |date=17 July 2014 }}

{{US housing by state}}
{{Developments}}
{{authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nimby}}
[[Category:Environmental sayings]]
[[Category:Urban studies and planning terminology]]
[[Category:Acronyms]]
[[Category:Political pejoratives for people]]
[[Category:Political catchphrases]]
[[Category:Environmental ethics]]
[[Category:Environmental justice]]
[[Category:Environmental social science concepts]]
[[Category:1980s neologisms]]
[[Category:Discrimination against the homeless]]