Spare a thought for NIMBYs

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.