Not in my back pocket

Larry McHugh, Middlesex Chamber of Commerce president, has posted an interesting article about opposition to development, and the NIMBY (not in my backyard) effect.

One paragraph, in particular, makes a very good point about balance:

If positive development is to take place it must involve a collaborative process which includes emphasis on preservation, protection and creativity. Our minds must shift to seek better solutions rather than better obstructions regarding opportunities for investment in our communities. We must think of the good of the whole – the good of the region and the state at the same time we think of the impact of development on our limited personal interests.

One can't argue with that sentiment. An as ideal, it's certainly one for which we should aim.

Still, while the NIMBY attitude often has its roots in fear of any kind of change, there often is real truth that certain major developments should not be placed in certain backyards. The NIMBY attitude also has its roots in bad development, faulty municipal oversite, corruption, developer greed, bad planning, bad communication and honest difference of opinion and philosophy.

As an opponent to the proposed big box store in center city Middletown, I can think of dozens of well-reasoned arguments why a big box is not good for a center city, and a large portion of the community agreed. Yet that was a project supported, even sheparded, by the Chamber of Commerce. The proposed Army Training Center in Maromas is another such bad idea. Sure, neighbors were outraged to hear that a base would be down the road from them, but the Army was, and is, completely wrongheaded to think that building a base in untrammeled nature was a good idea, and the community agreed (though the Chamber of Commerce did not). In fact, the arguments for continuing to place the Army Base in Middletown remain just as specious. The jobs and business increases have to be balanced against the obligations and costs of the projects.

I think NIMBYism is perfectly reasonable in many situations, and development for the sake of development is, simply, stupid. Smart development, with community involvement, guarantees taht the economy will prosper and the community will thrive. Development as a result of back room deals, payoffs, corporate or government bullying, will likely always end in a bad result.

I know that Larry McHugh has an obligation to encourage development, commerce and an increased tax base. But as he writes in his article, it's balance which will achieve the best development.

H/T Catherine Johnson.