The dreaded “Not In My Backyard” reaction of homeowners who
have the temerity to object to neighbourhood changes they never voted for (or
were even asked about) is reaching plague proportions, if you believe what some
urban designers and planners are saying.
This scourge of the NIMBY is threatening the progressive
development of cities, they’ll allege. The NIMBY is now to blame for everything
from housing affordability to urban congestion. Why can’t young Australians
find a home they can afford? Because of those nasty, selfish NIMBYs. Why can’t
seniors find a suitable property to downsize into within their own neighbourhood?
NIMBYs again, curse them.
These
comments from Brendon Coates at the Grattan Institute earlier this year are
one example. Speaking at a Henry George Memorial Lecture, the NIMBY was given
the full Kangaroo Court treatment, and found guilty without trial. “NIMBYs make
housing unaffordable: Grattan Institute” roared the headlines.
According to Coates: “The key problem is that many states
and local governments restrict medium- and high-density developments to appease
local residents concerned about road congestion, parking problems, and damage
to neighbourhood character.”
Let’s take a moment to consider what’s being said here and
try see things from the NIMBY point of view. First, their home truly is their
castle. Their home is the biggest single financial asset they are ever likely
to own. Unlike their superannuation fund, it is within their control to add
value and to enhance its appeal both as a place to live, and for long term
financial security. And unlike their superannuation fund, there are no third
parties in fancy CBD Offices charging them exorbitant fees to manage their
home. A third of Australian households own their home outright, and a further
third are paying it off with a mortgage. The remaining third are renting, and nearly
all of that rental stock is also privately held by individuals hoping to build
on their financial security via an investment in housing.
As property owners, they are all rightly heavily invested in
what happens in their street and in their neighbourhood. For this reason, they
are legitimately concerned about things like “road congestion, parking
problems, and damage to neighbourhood character” – but according to Grattan,
responding to these concerns is “appeasement” by state and local governments.
How disappointing it must be for these urban visionaries as
they gaze out at the suburbs from their CBD glass towers, imagining all those ‘McMansions’
being bulldozed in favour of rows of townhouses and unit blocks, having to
confront the objections of homeowners who defy the utopian urban density dream.
Incredibly, the suggestion seems to be that homeowners are
not only being unfairly obstructionist in objecting to changes which might in
their opinion diminish the value of their homes and assets, but that being a
home owner should somehow disqualify you from having a say. According to Coates:
“The politics of land-use planning – what gets built and
where – favour those who oppose change. The people who might live in new
housing – were it to be built – don’t get a say.”
Meaning that non-owners who have no personal investment in a
neighbourhood are being unfairly disadvantaged
because they are not getting a say about what happens to someone else’s biggest
single financial asset and home?
Talk about egos and entitlement. “Father knows best”
paternalism is a professional trait which happily tramples on homeowners
interests if they dare get in the way of some “expert” opinion about whether
their choice of home and location is “appropriate” or not. In 2019, the City of
Brisbane prevented further development of townhouse style “missing middle”
housing product in low density streets of detached homes. The uproar and indignation
of some professionals at the time was a disgrace.
“The community doesn’t understand the full story because
they are not experts in the field of City design and planning” said one town
planner on industry portal Linkedin.
“It’s concerning that we listen to the general public for
planning in our city rather than the experts who understand growth of a city,”
said another. Wow. Imagine listening to the general public in a democracy? Why
bother when you have unelected experts ready to tell you what’s in your best
interests?
The so-called “townhouse ban” was in response to the
feedback of more than 100,000 residents who responded to a widespread community
survey “Plan Your Brisbane.” Planning Chair at the time, Cr Matt Bourke, said: “Their
feedback was clear – no more cookie-cutter townhouses on properties that are
intended for single homes.”
Neither side of politics will show much interest in pushing for
policy changes which the people who elect them vigorously oppose. This is
called democracy. When Labor Deputy Mayor David Hinchliffe gave the annual Keeble
Planning Lecture in 2017, he observed that:
“If you push too hard for
this [planning] ideal in the face of that [public] reality, it becomes a
political issue in your community, you get defeated and the person who replaces
you invariably has learned the lesson of your demise and will make it much
harder for planners to wield that [policy] stick in their patch in the future.”
“In public life, if you
don't learn that, you don't stay around long.”
Ironically, industry
groups or larger developers who complain about the NIMBY phenomenon can at the
same time be guilty of their own version of zoning protectionism. One look at
how viciously the anti-competitive “retail hierarchy” planning laws (which effectively
prevent further competition within defined trade areas) are fought out in court
shows that self interest is a powerful motivator. “We would object to a
competitor moving a pot plant if we thought it in our interests,” a senior Westfield
operative once said to me. Doesn’t this make Westfield and other large
corporates no different to the home owning NIMBY?
The attacks on NIMBYs
though will continue. They will be accused (and found guilty) of everything
from causing climate change to social inequity. The accusers will be the same usual
cabal of unelected academics, urban “visionaries” and assorted media
commentators whose own homes and lifestyles are no doubt safely protected from
adverse policy changes while they lecture others on their selfish ways. And the
tensions will only increase as competition for space and housing increases.
How will NIMBYs respond?
That’s best left to Darryl Kerrigan – lead protagonist in Aussie film classic “The
Castle”:
Darryl: Tell em to get stuffed!
(He also said: “What are you calling an eyesore? It’s called a home ya dickhead!)
