NIMBY America Archive

According to Forbes Magazine, Al Norman is “Wal-Mart’s #1 Enemy” and 60 Minutes has called him “the guru behind the anti-Wal-Mart movement.” Mr. Slevin originally interviewed Al Norman for the July 2006 edition of the Slevin Report, which was the predecessor of NIMBY America Newsletter. In the interview, Mr. Norman shares tactics and perspectives on how he conducts NIMBY warfare, which will greatly educate and benefit our readers. Norman’s insights are more revealing and prevalent now then they were 3 years ago. Mr. Slevin appreciates Mr. Norman’s willingness to share his expertise for our readers to consider and learn.

Slevin: What was it that got you into the NIMBY (Not-In-My-Back-Yard) business? When?

Norman: First, let’s look at this acronym: NIMBY. This is a derogative term invented by developers, who themselves might be called DUMBIs: “Developers Undermining My Biggest Investment.” Homeowners, who fight to protect their land and property, feel that developers are threatening the largest investment they make in their life. Just as a business person would fight protect the equity in his or her business, homeowners fight to protect their business interests. They view developers as DUMBIs.

In 1993, I got involved in fighting one of the most egregious DUMBIs around: the Wal-Mart corporation. I remember one DUMBI in New England who was doing business as “Infinity Properties.” His name was emblematic of his vision: he saw land as unlimited, and with almost everything sprawling development he proposed, the neighbors organized to stop it. For both parties, it was a business decision. But for the homeowner, it was a battle with very deep personal significance. If a home is your castle, DUMBIs are trying to break down the castle gates. Most DUMBI’s would never live near the projects they try to foist on NIMBYs.

Slevin: Who is the average NIMBY?

Norman: I would never use the word NIMBY or DUMBI at a land use hearing. What I see there are competing business interests. The homeowner is there, usually not by choice, to defend his or her property from commercial intrusions. The developer is there to make a profit on his or her investment. They are really very similar-except the homeowner lives in the affected area, and spends 85% or more of their time there, the developer does not. We are all homeowners, or renters. And we resent the idea of someone barging into our home with an enormous, oversized project that threatens to change the character and quality of life where we have chosen to live.

Slevin: You see NIMBYism on a daily basis. Why is it so prevalent?

Norman: Yes, I see NIMBYs and DUMBIs every day. We have thousands of homeowners today trying to hold bake sales and car washes to ward off the largest retail corporations in the world. We are seeing more of these battles because citizens are being pushed into a corner by developers, and like caged animals, they have no recourse except to claw back. The developers rarely, if ever, have a meaningful conversation with the people who would be their neighbors.

Slevin: How many NIMBY conflicts have you been involved in or counseled?

Norman: I have written nearly 2,400 stories on the Newsflash page on my website, www.sprawl-busters.com. I have listed more than 300 communities that have stopped big box stores at least once in their community. I have fought the mammoth IKEA projects, down to the Rite Aid store at 12,000 square feet. My only rules are 1) that I only help communities when the residents invite me to help them, and 2) if they believe a commercial project is unhelpful-regardless of the size-I am prepared to help teach them how to stop it.

Slevin: What are the circumstances that set off a neighborhood into action opposing projects?

Norman: Because developers generally don’t sit down with their neighbors until they have submitted a site plan to the town, most residents get involved when they read about a project in the newspaper, or they hear rumors that trees are being cleared on the land. They almost never hear directly about it from developers. Ignoring the basic civility of sitting down with the people who may oppose your project, is the proverbial “first wrong step” that developers make, and the path only goes downhill from there.

Slevin: Is the playing field level for residents when it comes to elected bodies hearing their voices when deciding whether to approve a land use application? Why?

Norman: Land use development in America is the ultimate insider’s game. The rules were written by, and tailored to, the needs of developers. Our zoning codes were written by real estate and development interests, and when cases come before local boards, the developer arrives with his land use attorney, civil engineer, traffic engineer, and hydrologist. The citizens show up clutching a petition. The developer has pre-development funds to spend on PR and site studies, the citizens are holding a bake sale. Elected officials are intimidated by developers. These local officials–often appointed, not elected—are not experts in their field, and are afraid of potential litigation. Given this description, it is remarkable that citizens ever win—but we do, and more often than most developers would care to admit.

Slevin: As a consultant, what do you do to help communities level the playing field?

Norman: I help residents understand how the land use game is played, what the rules are, and what kind of expertise they will need. I essentially help them to think and act like developers, to use the same resources that developers would use-just turning those resources against a project instead of for it. These “accidental activists” are very bright, and learn quickly, but it is not an area of expertise they have developed. The learning curve has to be very fast, because many of these projects move on a greased track.

Slevin: What makes developers easy targets to NIMBY?

Norman: Developers often present themselves as their own worse caricatures: They dress like developers, they behave like developers, they are armed with a “row of suits” like developers. They are often arrogant, they alienate local residents by ignoring them or minimizing their concerns, and they patronize just about everyone they encounter. But their main weakness is that the product they are pushing-a large scale, windowless, dead piece of architecture-is something the neighbors can’t buy. For most developers, there is no flexibility, and no give and take. They will only negotiate the color of the building, or some minor façade treatment-but size and intensity of use-never.

Slevin: Is all development bad?

Norman: Many forms of development “add value” to a community. But if they add no value, and simply are being built to expand market share and keep shareholders on Wall Street happy, then people on Main Street will not be happy. Adding a fourth grocery store to a trade area that has a static population and income base, is not adding value. We have too much redundant development today, sort of a game of retail musical chairs. This is terrible land use policy, because every unneeded project consumes 20 or 30 acres at a time, causes economic dislocation, and offers little to the health, safety and welfare of local residents. Wal-Mart has more than 24 million square feet of “dark stores” today-a colossal testament to wasteful development excesses in this nation.

I see land use development like joining a family already in progress. If I sit down to eat at your family table, I should just sit for a while and listen to the conversation. Learn something about your family. What they like, what they don’t like. If I have a plan that will have a major impact on where you live, I should sit down and talk it over with you, get your reactions, listen to your concerns. Developers omit this entire first step. They are in a big rush to get to the bottom line, and the neighbors are seen as an obstacle to overcome. That’s where the trouble starts.

Slevin: What was the worst (negative) action you’ve seen a developer take to overcome conflict?

Norman: It’s very unpleasant when a developer has his lawyer start calling up neighbors threatening them with the lawsuit. These so called SLAPP suits (strategic litigation against public participation) are very ugly to watch, especially with elderly and disabled homeowners. I am also appalled when developers with deep pockets try to get taxpayers to underwrite the cost of roads, sewers, and water to their site. We don’t need to give companies like Wal-Mart and Home Depot corporate welfare-and developers should not ask for it. I also find it remarkable that developers will try to call their 500,000 square foot project “The Village Centre” or “River Oaks,” when its nothing but a sea of asphalt surrounded by a wall of concrete.

Slevin: What was the best (positive) action you’ve seen a developer take to overcome conflict?

Norman: I’ve seen developers try to build into their project timetable a period of meaningful discussion with residents, and be flexible with design, before everything is cast in stone. This is unusual, and often not done well, but it is one of the most important strategies that would help developers cut down on the other end of their project months of costly litigation and delay.

Slevin: Is the media part of your tactics? If so, does the news media help or hinder your efforts? How?

Norman: Use of the media is one of the essential tools that citizens must learn how to use. We can’t activate people until we educate people. Developers will simply hire a PR firm to generate a full-color brochure with an architect’s drawing resembling Shangri-La. But residents can use low-tech media approaches, like letters to the editor or op-ed columns, to get out their point of view.

Slevin: What makes a new Wal-Mart less appealing than let’s say a Target?

Norman: In my book, a Super Target and a Wal-Mart supercenter are indistinguishable. People think of Target as being more upscale, less threatening. But these companies operate the same at a land use level. They don’t talk to neighbors, they often pick inappropriate sites for their projects, and they use the same high-handed approach with local permitting boards and residents. The logo on the side of the building means little. My bumper sticker says: “I don’t shop at Sprawl-Marts.”

Slevin: If you were counseling a developer who was planning to build in a new community, what would you advise him to do to avoid NIMBY attacks?

Norman: The best thing a developer could do is to imagine that they have just purchased a one or two family house in the neighborhood, and to consider how they would view the proposed retail mall from that perspective. Then, they should sit down directly-not filtered through consultants—with residents and hear exactly how they would react to the design and scale of the project. Scale is the big problem with big boxes, and it is the impacts related to scale that will kill a project. Talk early with residents, and often.

Slevin: What can a developer do in the community to make your job harder?

Norman: Listen to people’s needs. Accommodate their desires, and truly behave as if you owned a home near the project.

Slevin: What is your forecast for the future of the NIMBY Nation?

Norman: I am predicting this year that at least one-third of the Wal-Mart superstores proposed will be opposed by local residents. That will turn a 3 month process into potentially a two or three year cycle instead. For every one year that a Wal-Mart superstore is not open, the company forgoes $100 million in sales. Any reduction in the output of new square footage will affect the company’s share price. This is why corporations like Wal-Mart need to begin a real dialogue with community groups, rather than simply talking to them through the media. My two books have been translated into Japanese, and I have traveled to five foreign countries at the request of local groups. So the big box battles are becoming international, and developers will feel increasing pressure to get to know their neighbors—not simply try to blow them away.

###

Mr. Norman is the author of two books, “Slam Dunking Wal-Mart: How You an
Stop Superstore Sprawl In Your Hometown” and “The Case Against Wal-Mart.”

Challenge:  Who coined the word NIMBY?

Answer: Nicholas Ridley (February 17, 1929 to March 4, 1993) was a British Conservative Party politician and government minister*.  As Secretary of State for the Environment from 1987 to 1989, Mr. Ridley was credited with popularizing the phrase NIMBY or Not In My Back Yard for those who as a reflex opposed any building development.

It was soon revealed that Ridley opposed a low cost housing development near a village where he owned a property. The United Kingdom is currently experiencing a widespread epidemic of NIMBYism that recently led to the death of a farmer seeking wind energy for his property.

Be sure to check out the Slevin Group website.  Find out for yourself why Mr. Slevin is considered the best in the nation at helping corporations overcome costly community opposition.

Mr. Slevin can be reached at 850.906.9888 or email him at pslevin@slevingroup.com.

*  Source:  Wikipedia.org

Developers who believe they can just show up, ignore community input, and get approval for their applications need to Get Smart about NIMBY. It’s amazing how many applicants are still attempting to fly under the radar like a secret agent to avoid community detection.

Applicant representatives are spurred on by the notion that they have political cover and procedural acumen, not to mention, legal validation to proceed with a 007 like confidence.

This air of self-assuredness quickly evaporates when the community grapevine exposes their cover and sets them up for ambush during the public hearing with Jerry Springer type precision and timing.

NIMBYism in America isn’t a laughing matter, but we can learn some tenets for overcoming NIMBYism from Get Smart, an American comedy television series that ran from September 18, 1965 to May 1970.

Maxwell Smart

Mel Brooks, writer for Get Smart, assigned the character Maxwell Smart the title of Agent 86. The 86 comes from the saying “to eighty-six something.” Meaning, everything that Agent 86 engaged turned into a disaster. The rise of the NIMBY industry in America has seen countless real estate projects get 86′d. Land use professionals can learn how to prevent more disasters from the Get Smart series.

CONTROL and KAOS

CONTROL was the organization Max worked for as a spy.  In most states, CONTROL would be the notice and hearing process applicants follow.  Notice and hearings provide a legal, logical, and linear mechanism helping applicants navigate with confidence and control over their applications.   However, the process is inept in educating stakeholders i.e. diffusing the NIMBY factor.

KAOS, the organization representing evil led by Conrad Siegfried, empowers the NIMBY world.  NIMBYism is a political, emotional, and non-linear process causing chaos for land use professionals too beholden to the notice and hearing guidelines. When the time comes for elected officials to vote on a project, the political KAOS usually trumps the legal CONTROL.  This is most evident when commissioners are up for re-election and are counting votes in city hall i.e. NIMEY (not-in-my-election-year).

Cone of Silence

One of the show’s recurring gags was the Cone of Silence. Max would insist on following CONTROL’s security protocols (notice & hearing); when in the Chief’s office he would insist on speaking under the Cone of Silence — two transparent plastic hemispheres, which were electrically lowered on top of Max and the Chief —  which invariably malfunctioned, requiring the characters to shout loudly in order to be understood by each other.

The Cone of Silence can no longer keep the lid on development in the community. Land use professionals who try to keep their projects close to the vest are foolishly underestimating their opponents and usually empowering community grapevines.

Catchphrases

“Don’t tell me… I asked you not to tell me that.” Max didn’t want to hear about his mistakes, and applicants do not want to hear about citizen participation or worse yet, about citizens who are opposed to the project.  Land use professionals need to engage the community during the earlier stages of planning – well before the first notice goes out.

“The old (verbose explanation) trick…that’s the second time I’ve seen it this month.” When land use professionals do not engage in outreach during due diligence and early planning stages, they become subject to numerous NIMBY tricks including community petitions, theatrical public hearings, negative publicity, costly concessions, and possible political rejection of their projects.

“Missed it by that much.” How many commissions started with a majority supporting your application to voting against your project?  In most cases, NIMBYism tipped the scale against you.  It is within this context that investing in civic strategies on the front end secures and protects political capital on the back end.

“Would you believe. . .?” Max used this routine whenever he found himself in a tight spot and hoped to bluff his way out of it. For example, Max would say: “You might as well surrender, because at this very moment, you are being surrounded by 5,000 crack Swiss troops.” – “I find that very hard to believe, Mr Smart.” – “Oh. Well, would you believe 150 Tyrolean skijumpers?”

Once the NIMBY genie has left the bottle and stirred up trouble in the news and city hall, you have forfeited the strategic high ground and any possibility of mediating solutions inexpensively.  More importantly, city hall has now been pulled into the conflict and your credibility is under question due to the effective campaign by the NIMBYists.

“Sorry about that, Chief.” After causing yet another disaster for the Chief, Max apologizes.  The chief is the elected body.  Elected officials do not like surprises, high-profile conflict, and expensive lawsuits.  The developer who generates community goodwill and demonstrates he cares about community concerns will avoid having to apologize for a vocal minority effectively antagonizing city hall.

More often than not, land use professionals simply dismiss the threat of community opposition relying upon their reputations or “political contacts” to overcome the vocal minority.  This thinking is dangerous and is what fuels a NIMBY syndrome that generates thousands of headlines and cost corporations billions of dollars in losses every year.

You can learn more about our civic affairs services by going to our comprehensive services page on this website.  You are encouraged to call Patrick Slevin directly to see how his specialized services can help your financial interest. A 10-minute phone call will show you why he is considered the best in the nation at neutralizing NIMBYism.

By getting smarter about NIMBYism i.e. adopting civic strategies and engagement practices, you can successfully prevent KAOS from eighty-sixing your project.

Phone 850.906.9888 or email pslevin@slevingroup.com to take the KAOS out of your strategic growth plans.

Entitlements, site plans and rezoning applications for new development have dramatically dropped across the nation due to the financial crisis and recession. Understandably, many executives have assumed that the rate of NIMBY activism has also declined.

Nothing can be farther from NIMBY reality. Even though applications have decreased, there has been an increase in community conflicts and activism across America.

Here is a small sample of NIMBY conflicts reported in local papers from around North America in the last few weeks:

• Homeowners in CA opposing a new baseball stadium for the Oakland A’s
• A hotelier’s rezoning request in Boston area is overrun by NIMBY opposition
• Residents in Tampa pressuring their commissioners to deny a new gas station
• Environmentalists have banded together to oppose new reservoirs for Atlanta
• Citizens are rallying to defeat a new gravel pit application in Arizona
• In South Carolina activists are opposing a new recycling center
• In Connecticut 600 homeowners recently mobilized against a new car wash
• In North Carolina residents are also opposing a new car wash
• Activists in AL are accusing city officials of fraud after they approved a shopping center in Mobile

Despite a historic recession, NIMBYism is growing. No corporation or developer is safe from this surging NIMBY phenomenon. Need proof? Just ask Donald Trump who unsuccessfully tried to “fire” a NIMBY group called the SoHo Alliance in Manhattan. His Trump Soho condo hotel project is currently under attack and is one of countless projects exposed to citizens opposed to development.

So what’s happening out there? We believe that when the market was hot a few years ago, development applications were overwhelming communities in volume. Citizen activists would NIMBY higher profile applications, much like a bear snatching salmon migrating upstream. Now with the number of applications for development decreasing, corporations are finding themselves more exposed to NIMBYism then ever before.

How can this be happening? In the last 2-3 years, community opponents have become more sophisticated with the use technology and grassroots models. Instead of operating as self-organizing entities, vocal groups are now establishing websites, forming PACs, hiring lawyers and consultants, backing anti-growth candidates, and passing ballot box NIMBYism. The next corporate application that enters the community will be like low-hanging fruit ready to be picked off by community opposition.

What this means for corporate leaders is when the economy eventually bounces back, they will find their vertical, horizontal and infill projects plagued by entrenched NIMBY and BANANA (Build-Absolutely-Nothing-Anywhere-Near-Anyone) resistance.

When the market was at its hottest, a corporation had 1 in 10 chance of encountering NIMBYism. This was due to safety in numbers cover and unsophisticated opposition. However, in today’s recession, corporations have a 1 in 3 (greater in other markets) chance of encountering NIMBY opposition.

The first step to successfully neutralize potential NIMBY conflict is to acknowledge that citizen activists have become more adept in demonizing projects and intimidating elected officials. The vocal minority of activists have appointed themselves as the gatekeepers of and spokespeople for the “silent majority.” They have the political capital, the national polling, and strategic high-ground to back it up.

The second step is to embrace sustainable civic engagement practices to educate and recruit key stakeholders, allies, and surrogates before the NIMBY genie leaves the bottle. The few corporate executives who employ civic engagement procedures, policies, and practices will protect their finite investment capital, market share, and shareholder values.

NIMBY America and its primary sponsor, the Slevin Group, will provide corporate leaders the insights, innovations, tips, and practices needed to avoid and mitigate costly community conflicts in any economic climate. Be sure to read future publications of our monthly newsletter to stay one step ahead of your competition and local opposition.

To find out more about adopting civic engagement practices to protect your bottom line priorities visit www.SlevinGroup.com or contact Patrick Slevin for a confidential discussion. Phone 850.906.9888.

 

© All Rights Reserved, Slevin Group, Inc.

The information contained in this NIMBY America story is the intellectual property of Patrick Slevin and the Slevin Group, Inc. Any replication or use of its contents without prior written permission is prohibited.

The NIMBY dragon has at least four heads representing the four different types of profiles in NIMBY America, which Patrick Slevin of the Slevin Group has termed Guardians, Crusaders, Machiavellians, and Godfathers.

The NIMBY Guardian® is responsible for approximately 70 percent of community conflicts experienced by corporations. Guardians are the defenders of the status quo and the “quality of life” that they feel defines their community. Guardians are mostly civic-minded homeowners who take pride in their community and make time to participate in their HOAs, civic groups and other community activities.

The Guardian is usually a first-time NIMBY opponent who becomes a factor as the public hearing approaches. The sooner the Guardian is reached and engaged by the developer’s allies a.k.a. surrogates, the better the odds for coalition building, inexpensive concessions, and dispute resolution, which in many cases is mutually beneficial.

The NIMBY Crusader® views herself as a champion of a moral cause that’s rooted in the belief that the environment or the character of the community must prevail over economic development. Unlike Guardians who are motivated by fear of change and gossip, Crusaders are motivated by their own moral beliefs and the need for self promotion.

The majority of Crusaders are comprised of environmentalists, conservationists, and preservationists who believe the cost of development is too high a price to pay. Crusaders are interest groups that represent dues paying constituents who want to see motion, which is spurred on by news headlines, grassroots lobbying, and public conflict. To keep dues coming in, Crusaders will even attack sustainable, green projects to stay relevant for their members.

The NIMBY Machiavelli® is politically ambitious and adept at exploiting community anxieties to promote their selfish agenda. They seek to keep their profile in the media so they can vie for a seat in the next local election or some other high-stakes event.

Machiavellians reside in every community and sometimes they are former Guardians who liked the media spotlight and seeing their name in the newspaper. In other cases, a NIMBY Machiavelli® may be a Crusader who is a first-time candidate or a citizen who is a self-appointed “throw the bums out” activist who has run for office in the past and lost!

The NIMBY Machiavelli® usually leaves his or her fingerprints on the community and should be identified, so as to avoid inflammatory voices in the wilderness reaching the media and antagonizing public officials. It’s worth noting, public officials appreciate developers who proactively preempt and manage Machiavellian agendas, which gives elected officials the cover they want from these political opportunists. However, be careful! In some cases, a NIMBY Machiavelli® may be an agent secretly working for one of the elected officials who wants to defeat the mayor, who supports your project, in the next election.

The NIMBY Godfather® is one of the prior three dragon heads who has now made the big time and has established a syndicate of activists. This syndicate is typically a coalition of homeowner associations and special interests. They are incorporated, hold monthly meetings, endorse political candidates, fund political campaigns, file tax returns, and they’re very-well connected at city hall. The Godfather has successfully defeated several land use projects and is so entrenched that most corporations find themselves kissing rings and hoping an offer that cannot be refused is proffered.

The greatest advantage citizen activists have over corporations is anonymity. It is wise to conduct community screenings as part of the due diligence process. In some cases, community screenings reveal the political climate is so volatile and uncertain that it is not feasible to risk finite investment capital. Knowing who may oppose your project and why often proves to be invaluable intelligence to a corporation, saving time, money, and political capital.

In future editions, NIMBY America with the help of its sponsor, the Slevin Group, will offer corporate leaders insights, innovations, practices and tips on how to win community and government support for their projects.

To learn more about how civic engagement and community screening practices can neutralize the 4-Headed NIMBY Dragon visit www.SlevinGroup.com or contact Patrick Slevin for a confidential discussion. Phone 850.906.9888.

 

© All Rights Reserved, Slevin Group, Inc.

The information contained in this NIMBY America story is the intellectual property of Patrick Slevin and the Slevin Group, Inc. Any replication or use of its contents without prior written permission is prohibited.

The word NIMBY has become part of the American lexicon. Do you know what these other NIMBY acronyms mean? See how well you did with our NIMBY challenge:

NIMBY	Not-In-My-Back-Yard
BANANA	Build-Absolutely-Nothing-Anywhere-Near-Anyone
LULU	Locally-Unwanted-Land-Use
CAVE	Citizens-Against-Virtually-Everything
QUIMBY	Quit-Urbanizing-In-My-Back-Yard
NOTE	Not-Over-There-Either
NOPE	Nowhere-On-Planet-Earth
NIMTOO	Not-In-My-Term-Of-Office
NIMEY	Not-In-My-Election-Year
DUDE	Developers-Under-the-Delusion-of-Entitlement

If you scored 1-3 right, then congratulations you are on top of your game as a professional.

If you scored 4-6 right, then you are very impressive and should consider a career in neutralizing NIMBYism for corporations.

If you scored 7-10 right, then you are way beyond help and need to take a vacation…NOW!

There are certainly more acronyms and we want to know them. Please email Patrick Slevin at pslevin@slevingroup.com and we will publish them next edition of NIMBY America.

 

© All Rights Reserved, Slevin Group, Inc.

The information contained in this NIMBY America story is the intellectual property of Patrick Slevin and the Slevin Group, Inc. Any replication or use of its contents without prior written permission is prohibited.