Community Activism – Page 2

Although most NIMBY situations are very serious affairs to the local communities involved, individuals outside of the fray can often find humor in the midst of the tension and fiery passions of the antagonists. My next four posts are NIMBY scenarios with some of their humorous aspects front and center. I have tried to be humorous or witty even in the titles of the posts. The first two posts present real NIMBY scenarios with which Inhaber deals in his book, Slaying the NIMBY Dragon. The second two posts concern NIMBY situations which are not real, but are realistic enough to sound real. I did not originate these two scenarios. I have done an exhaustive search for the originators. However, my searches have come up empty. If someone knows from where these scenarios came, please let me know so that I can give credit or blame to whom it is deserved.

I know full well that humor is not always the most appropriate way in which to deal with problems. Therefore I will end my series on NIMBY situations with several posts that look at NIMBY through the lenses of scripture and faith. What do scriptures say about the NIMBY attitude? Is it ever justified to invoke a NIMBY approach?

My first humorous NIMBY post is entitled: Don’t Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch. It concerns the State of Tennessee against the United States Department of Energy over a low-level nuclear waste dump to be sited near Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Oak Ridge was already the site of a nuclear laboratory and a nuclear power plant. The whole economy of the Oak Ridge region was built on nuclear science. The overwhelming majority of the residents of the Oak Ridge area were in favor of placing a nuclear waste dump in their town. Where did the Department of Energy hit a snag?

My second humorous NIMBY post is entitled: Never Underestimate a Group of Irate Senior Citizens. It deals again with the United State Department of Energy attempting to build another nuclear waste dump. This time the proposed dump is in Allegany County, New York, a very rural area, that had few populated areas. It seemed perfect for a nuclear dump. The DOE did all their homework. There were no geological problems which which they needed to be concerned. The land was only farm land and therefore should be cheap to acquire. What went wrong?

My third humorous NIMBY post is entitled: What Makes a Better Neighbor, a Prison or a University? The seed for this post was planted many years ago during a dinner conversation at an academic conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico. I don’t remember the names of the participants. However, I know one was an individual from a New Mexican institution. Another attendee at the table made the observation that there were no four-year state colleges or universities in Sante Fe, the capital of New Mexico. The person from New Mexico chuckled and said that this was an ongoing debate in the state that degenerated into a very biting joke. The joke was: “Why did Albuquerque get the state university and Santa Fe the prison? The answer: Santa Fe got first pick.” In this post I will dissect the advantages and disadvantages of both prisons and universities as neighbors.

My fourth and final humorous NIMBY post is entitled: Which Would You Find More Acceptable in Your Back Yard, a Toxic Waste Dump or a Murder of Crows? I know many of my readers are saying “Who would want a toxic waste dump in their back yard?’ Many are also saying “Who cares about crows anyway?” This question turns on a play on words in the phrase, “a murder of crows.” The scientific term for a group of crows is “flock.” However, the literary or poetic term for a large group of crows is a “murder.” But the play on words doesn’t end there. The word “crow” is a derogatory word for a lawyer. The seed for this post was planted by a joke on a late night television show just after the super fund toxic waste dumps were identified. The joke started out with the comedian reminding people that New Jersey had the most super fund toxic waste sites. He then continued by pointing out that the District of Columbia had the highest concentration of lawyers anywhere in the United States. He concluded the joke by asking, “How come New Jersey has the largest number of toxic waste dumps and Washington has the highest concentration of lawyers? Obviously, New Jersey got first pick.” In this post I will analyze why New Jersey leads the nation in toxic waste dumps while Washington leads the nation in lawyers.

Although laughing at the foibles and silliness of others may make us momentarily feel good, it is ultimately not the best solution. Not every problem can or should be solved with humor. Sometimes we must be serious, and go back to the foundational values of our culture. Christians are suppose to turn to Scriptures to find their values. God’s Word should be the basis for our actions. There are three passages of Scriptures that jump out at me in terms of talking about how we should treat our neighbors, and who are our neighbors. I will divide these lessons into three posts.

The first post will deal with the familiar parable of the good Samaritan. The second post will consider another of Christ’s lesson about how we should treat the poor and unlovely. The third post considers the passage about the two Great Commandments.

My final post on the teaching of Scriptures concerning NIMBY situation examines the question, “Are NIMBY and Scriptures completely incompatible?” Is it ever okay to stand up and say, “Not in My Back Yard”? We will look at a couple of Old Testament examples and a very prominent one from the New Testament involving Christ’s actions in the Temple.

NIMBY is the well-known acronym for “Not In My Back Yard.” Whenever a community faces potentially controversial land use issues, it is common for the NIMBY dragon to rear its ugly head. When it does, it typically divides the community into seemingly irreconcilable sides. Former friends can become fierce combatants. It can pit neighbor against neighbor. It can involve many of the residents of a community facing off against their duly elected or appointed community officials. Discussions can degenerate into outright fights. NIMBY confrontations can be very ugly.

This past spring and summer there were three South-central Pennsylvania events and one national event that just screamed NIMBY to me. The national event hit the television on July 1 and 2, 2014, just before the Independence Day Holiday. Every television news program was carrying pictures of the residents of Murrieta, California, blocking the main street of their city yelling “Not in Murrieta!” What did the residents find so upsetting? They were trying to stop buses carrying illegal immigrant detainees before they reached a Border Patrol station in their Riverside County city.

The first local event was a battle that began in Lancaster County in February, 2014. In April, the battleground switched to Lebanon County. The battle was over the placement of a proposed natural gas pipeline through the two counties. The pipeline was to be part of the 178-mile Atlantic Sunrise pipeline. This pipeline would bring natural gas from Marcellus shale regions to markets up and down the east coast. One of the Lebanon county leaders of the pipeline opponents was quoted as saying “What’s happening in Pennsylvania is revolutionary…This initial pipeline is a harbinger of things to come. In ten to 15 years, the area will be honeycombed with pipelines.”

In mid July, a story from Fort Indiantown Gap created a major stir around South-Central Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of Military and Veteran Affairs announced that it wanted to purchase 220 acres of land on the north slope of Blue Mountain, adjacent to the National Guard Training Camp to expand a safety buffer for a firing range at the base of the south slope of Blue Mountain. The owners of the 17 parcels have all received letters that offered negotiated purchases. If the owners choose not to negotiate, the DMVA said it was prepared to use eminent domain to force the sale of the land, if necessary. Many local residents have expressed fears of what the next expansion of the camp would entail.

The fourth story returns to the problem of illegal immigrants. On August 7, 2014, a chartered flight landed at the Harrisburg International Airport. It parked on the tarmac, far away from the terminal. An access stairway was rolled out to the plane. A number of Hispanic children, most of whom appeared to be teens, got off the plane with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents They all got into vans and drove away. The passengers, including the ICE agents talked to no one on the ground. HIA officials said they didn’t know anything about the purpose of the chartered flight. ICE wouldn’t confirm or deny what they were doing. A local politician, Lou Barietta, issued a statement saying, “I believe that each community and each state should be notified at least 30 days prior to any individual being sent…to our area.”

I began looking for anything that I could read about the NIMBY problem. One of the first books that I found was Slaying the NIMBY Dragon by Herbert Inhaber. It turned out to be a winner. It is a must read for everyone involved in controversial land use issues. Inhaber, a risk analyst by training, has the unique gift of being able to speak to all parties involved, whether they are community activists, elected or appointed officials, or just concerned citizens. Inhaber offers an unusual even-handed analysis of both sides of the issue. He then offers a simple, understandable approach to solving an intractable problem. No matter on what side of a siting issue a person sits, this book provides helpful information and strategies.

Inhaber is a number-crunching technologist who speaks the language of scientists and industrialists. However, he also understands the emotional side of these intense, flammable issues. He can speak on a personal level to non-techies.

In Slaying the NIMBY Dragon, Inhaber draws on the historical record of a number of high profile NIMBY cases. He then offers a surprisingly simple solution for communities to climb out of the quagmires that surround NIMBY cases. It is called a “Reverse Dutch Auction.” In such an auction, the role of the buyer and seller are partially reversed. For a siting opportunity, the siting price begins at an opening offer. The price rises at fixed intervals until a reserved price is reached, or a location accepts a bid for the siting opportunity.

In effect, this siting process plays to two diametrically opposite ideals. The first ideal is a sense of altruism, the sense of common well-being, or putting the common good over one’s own self interests. Everyone knows that the object or function to be sited needs to be somewhere. The question is, “Where do we put it?” To slay the dragon, someone comes forward and says, “I’m willing to accept it for the common welfare of the whole community.” The second ideal, which is in direct conflict with altruism, is the seemingly selfish attitude of “Show me the money!” People are asking, “How much money or other benefits can I get for accepting the right to place the questionable object or function in my back yard?” Many times the price will go high enough for someone to cave in and say, “For that price, I’m willing to place the dragon in my backyard.”

I find myself concurring with Inhaber. The process of a Reverse Dutch Auction can often provide a site for a project that has already been determined to be in the ultimate good for the larger community. However, the question of the ultimate good for the larger community must be answered at a different level. It must be debated at the most comprehensive, applicable level. For example, the energy needs of the nation are not an item to be debated at the local level. Once the larger question is answered, local communities must debate whether they will help with a geographic solution, or are they willing to help to pay to site the solution elsewhere. Inhaber’s book does not really address the first part of this issue. It only deals with the second part, the local aspect of the issue.

The contents of Slaying the NIMBY Dragon include the following chapters:

1. A NIMBY Overview: How it prevented the Establishment of Needed Facilties

2. A Personal Story: How I Went from Nerdism to Devising Siting Solutions

3. What Doesn’t Work in Siting Unwanted Facilities

4. What Can Work – The Reverse Dutch Auction Slays the NIMBY Dragon

5. What the NIMBY Literature Tells Us

6. Perception and Psychology of Unwelcome Guests

7. Economics of Auctions

8. Compensation and Its Relation to Auctions

9. Some Examples of How Dollars and the Environment Can Be Compatible

10. The Rich and the Poor: Will an Auction System Discriminate against the Latter?

11. The Reverse Dutch Auction Offers an Exit from the Maze

In my next post, Facing Down the NIMBY Dragon with Humor, I turn to humor to present four NIMBY situations. The first two of the scenarios are real and mentioned in Inhaber’s book. The other two situations are not real. However, they are based in realty. They sound as if they could be real, and hence they make great material for politicians and stand-up comics.