NIMBY’s Gone Wild
Posted by tblefko on February 5, 2009
Image courtesy of Flickr
Since I have been selling real estate, there have always been NIMBY’s (Not In My Back Yard) show up at planning commissions and protest against high-density developments based upon emotions gone wild instead of looking at the merits of the specific submission by the developer. I am not naive enough to think that every proposed high-density development plan is manna from heaven. There are definitely bad plans served up for our consumption. But when a good plan is submitted and dismissed out of hand as the second coming of the devil, I feel I need to point out the fallacies of the NIMBY mantra.
Assumption #1: Higher-density developments overburden public schools and other public services and require more infrastructure support systems.
The United States Census Bureau has determined that for every one hundred, single-family detached homes built, there are 64 school-aged children that live there. Compare that number with 21 kids living in the same number of apartment units. For some reason, people incorrectly assume that with an increase in housing units there is also an increase in the number of people who live in each unit. In addition, by building more housing in a smaller area there is less need for lengthy water and sewer lines, expensive sidewalks and curbs, and linear feet of roadway.
Assumption #2: Higher-density developments create more traffic and parking problems.
In today’s highly regulated zoning ordinances, it is virtually impossible to create parking problems. Developers typically have to make allowances for a certain number of vehicles per unit and set aside the required space to park those cars. As far as congestion on our roadways, the people living in single-family detached homes are actually more apt to create gridlock. A recent National Personal Transportation Survey concluded that by doubling housing density, you decrease vehicle miles traveled by 38 percent. A more telling fact shows that residents of apartments, townhomes and condominiums average 6.3 car trips per day compared with 10 trips for the average resident living in a low-density development.
Assumption #3: With higher-density comes higher crime rates.
Nationwide crime statistics simply do not support this assumption. In fact, with the growing proliferation of communities with crime watches, there is more probability of having pedestrians on the street in higher-density developments which deters crime.
Assumption #4: Higher-density housing will cause property values to decrease.
Statistics compiled by the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) do not support this assumption. In fact, in many instances, municipalities are requiring developers and builders to improve the surrounding infrastructure and incorporate or refurbish common open spaces which actually improve the appearance and livability of an area.
Assumption #5: Higher-density housing is low-income housing.
According to the United States Census Bureau, as of 2003, the two largest group of home-buyers are married couples without children and men or women living alone. These people typically seek housing that is different from a single-family residence with a half acre lot. Since kids are not part of their life, a sprawling backyard is not viewed as a play area but as a two-hour grass-cutting chore twice a week. Different is not bad – it’s just different.
Assumption #6: Higher-density housing eats up farm land and is environmentally more destructive.
I saved this assumption till last because it is my personal favorite. I don’t mean to be condescending to the reader but let’s ask some very basic questions. If a builder/developer builds six units on an acre of ground (typical zoning restriction for high-density housing) versus building two units on an acre of ground (typical zoning restriction for low-density housing), which scenario uses more farmland? Which scenario will deplete available farmland faster? Which scenario paves over more farmland? Which scenario has larger swaths of land where lawn fertilizer is applied? Which scenario causes more carbon emissions because vehicles have to travel a greater distance? I think you get the point.
I have nothing against homeowners who oppose a high-density development plan that is poorly conceived and laid out; however, to vociferously oppose a high-density plan because it is simply a “high-density plan” is doing a disservice to the community and the people who reside within it.
