It's Time to Neutralise NIMBYs

Idiocy, selfishness and small-mindedness are 3 things that never fail to irritate me. Unfortunately despite a looming future where it is critical that people start putting self-interest to one side and start thinking more altruistically, you only have to pick up a paper or watch a reality TV show to realise that global issues aren't exactly at the forefront of everyone's mind.

With the world population predicted to hit 9 billion by 2050 and world resources being chewed up at double the sustainable rate, you would think that governments and other authorities around the world would recognise the danger in everyone adopting a "stuff you, Jack" attitude. However they either don't seem to be bothered by the world's current course, or else lack the will to address it in any great hurry. We are currently witnessing a dangerous paralysis worldwide on key issues such as unsustainable population growth, climate change and resource allocation. Failure to act decisively on these and a number of other key issues is likely to result in a major world crisis in our children's time, not to mention the possibility of a devastating conflict between the fading power of the USA and the rising powers of China and India.

Anyone with half a brain can see what the current trajectory of human activity will lead to if left unchecked, so why is it that governments seem incapable of acting to head off the potential catastrophe?

The answers to this are of course complicated, but it seems to be that it has much to do with self-serving behaviour at all levels, be that individual, local or national. While acting in one's self-interest is of course an inherent human survival trait, it has probably only in the last century, with the vast rise in both educational standards and individual wealth, that people or groups have felt sufficiently empowered to start imposing their views on the governments of the day and thereby, alter the course of the rest of society.

This is not always a bad thing, of course. If it weren't for determined individuals or groups challenging the status quo, chances are that women still wouldn't have the right to vote, 10 year old children might still be working down mines and St Kilda could still be on the bottom of the ladder.

However, as with everything, it comes down to a question of balance. By granting one individual or minority group a right, you are by definition curtailing the rights of others, and so in granting rights to particular individuals or groups, there needs to be a consideration of what is in the broader interests of society as a whole. Observing the paralysis of world governments on key issues (and with First World goverments in particular), the signs seem fairly clear that policy is generally pandering to special interest groups which is a trend requiring urgent reversal.

As individuals or special interest groups clearly cannot be relied upon to behave altruistically in exercising their rights, it is incumbent on governments to start making the necessary bold decisions that redress this and ensure that all their constituents, not just a select few, can look forward with confidence to a sustainable, peaceful future.

Despite their awareness of important issues, governments like Australia won't start behaving appropriately overnight. They are far too scared about their re-election chances to risk offending powerful lobby groups or getting a bad rap from the local press. Political leaders who are prepared to implement their agenda no matter what the fall-out may be are all too rare in this country. However, everyone needs to start somewhere, and something positive they could do without risking too much political capital would be to stamp out NIMBYs.

For those of you unfamiliar with the acronym, "NIMBY" stands for "Not In My Back Yard". At some time or another, we've all had exposure to these people. They are the ones who pop up on television griping about things like medium density residential developments and desalination plants and claiming that the offending development is part of dastardly government conspiracy to disenfranchise them. Never mind that in 90% of the cases, they have chosen to live in an area where it is highly probable under planning guidelines or due to proximity to existing infrastructure that the thing they are complaining about was going to be built at some point.

It's important to point out that I am not having a go at people who are opposing patently wrong government proposals on altruistic grounds, for example, the proposed damming of the Franklin River in Tasmania back in the 1980s which would have had a devastating impact on somewhere now classified as a world heritage area. Nor, on a local scale, people who quite rightly try to stop idiot phone companies from wanting to build mobile phone towers next to kindergardens.

It's only where people try to prevent things being built that are patently needed for the effective running of the community in locations that are patently suited to that thing that I start to get irritated. What aggravates this irritation is that NIMBYs don't ever dispute the need for the road, prison or desalination plant - it's just that they don't want it built near them. You could almost have some sympathy with their objection if it were on altruistic grounds, but the fact that they would happily have their problem foisted onto someone else reeks of hypocrisy.

The problem is that currently, the law gives rights to NIMBYs to challenge and frustrate important and necessary decisions and these rights are frequently abused. Some of the instances I have read about border on the ridiculous, for example where residents in the CBD have banded together to try and put a stop to the construction of office buildings - in the centre of Collins Street.

Apart from racking up enormous legal and other costs on what are often pointless disputes, the NIMBYs are either blissfully unaware or don't care about the broader consequences of their actions. To illustrate, consider the following examples:

• When Barry Humphries flits into Australia to stop a medium-density residential development in inner-city Camberwell, he is contributing to the proliferation of urban sprawl and the crippling costs to the taxpayer of building infrastructure to service that urban sprawl. How ironic then given his objection that Barry chooses to live over in medium-density London instead of somewhere like Los Angeles. He clearly doesn't find the concept offensive in all cases; just don't do it in his old backyard.
• If Wonthaggi residents were successful in preventing the construction of the Victorian desalination plant along an otherwise non-descript part of the coastline, then they could cause the dangerous depletion of Victoria's water reserves and wind up drinking their own recycled urine.
• Now that Dale Kerrigan has stopped the expansion of Melbourne Airport, thousands of airline passengers are inconvenienced by having to circle around the airport waiting for a landing window. As well, tonnes of climate-warming jet fuel are unnecessarily dumped into the atmosphere. Actually, its a little hard to pin that on Dale as he is only a fictional character, but you get my drift.

It's hard to see NIMBYs being tolerated in places like China, which is hell-bent on modernising its economy and becoming a first world country. I don't advocate the sort of punishments that might be dealt out to NIMBYs there. However given NIMBYs are clearly unable or unwilling to consider the broader implications of their actions, the following measures might lead to some well-overdue behavioural change:

• Introduction of a NIMBY-trading scheme: kind of like K-Rudd's emissions trading scheme, NIMBYs can either pay the extra cost involved in moving the offending infrastructure somewhere else or alternatively, pay a NIMBY-tax to have it foisted on the next lot of NIMBYs.
• Cost awards against NIMBYs: similar to the "loser pays" system applicable in most law suits, NIMBYs should be required to pay any legal and delay costs racked up by the taxpayer as a result of them making a spurious challenge to a proposed development.
• Setting up an independent "Essential Infrastructure Panel": the panel would be comprised of industry experts who would determine whether a particular project submitted to it is of sufficient national importance to exempt it from the usual objection rights and other red tape that would normally cause it to be held up. Not only would this potentially divorce the government from any political fall out (an essential requirement if you want the government to act decisively), it would ensure that urgently needed infrastructure could get built on a timely and efficient basis without the usual wrangling and frustration that occurs.

NIMBYs of course won't like dipping into their pockets or potentially having the rights that they currently have being taken away. However, if nothing else it will force them to properly consider the consequences of their actions and eventually, start recognising that the general public has rights as well.

Then once the government has dealt with NIMBYs and received a bunch of bouquets from a thankful electorate who now have decent water access, free-flowing roads and liveable cities, maybe it can move onto eliminating lobby groups, the Republican Party and any other organisation which is a pox on modern society.

I know its unrealistic, but let me dream.