Tuesday, 21 January 2014

Nice Bit of Nimbyism in the Caring Sharing Guardian

From the Guardian:

Of course, we need more housing in this country. But our ward is already the most densely populated in Barnet, and there has to be a limit. Few would accept a skyscraper in the middle of a country lane.

This isn't as bad as that, of course, but at three-and-a-half times the size of the previous building, it's just too big. Some people will call us nimbys – but who else would ever notice? To discredit somebody just because they live nearby and would be adversely affected is to say: anything goes.

It's already the most densely populated in Barnet because it's the bit of Barnet that's the nearest to London (I've worked out where it is on a map). It's the bit of Barnet that is within 35 minutes of Kings Cross, whereas the bit where my Great Aunt lived is 55 minutes away. And most people would much rather commute 35 than 55 minutes. And if you've got a bit of it that's now redundant in the 35 minute zone (like a Vicarage), you build on it rather than the bit that's 55 minutes away.

This is the problem for all NIMBYs. They want the benefits that come with a place - short journey to work, lovely views of the countryside, but get rather upset when other people try to gain those same benefits, especially if it means losing something that they think they're entitled to (but have no rights over).

Read the rest if you like. It's full of authentic NIMBY gibberish about the habitat of owls and newts.


Mark Wadsworth said...


"Few would accept a skyscraper in the middle of a country lane."

Nobody in his right mind would want to live in a skyscraper in the countryside - you only get skyscrapers in the very middle of large towns where location values are sky high and people are prepared to do without their own garden in exchange for convenience - so such a thing would never be built.

Where land values are lower (the countryside) people are happy to pay a few quid extra for a back garden.