What Lynne Plambeck got right (and wrong) in her piece on NIMBYs

I liked some of the points local environmentalist Lynne Plambeck brought up in her piece defending “Not in my Backyard” tendencies in the SCV. But, as we shall see, not all NIMBY sentiments in the SCV are good for us, the environment, or our future.

Indeed, while Lynne rightly points out where NIMBY activists helped the SCV at large (the battle against Elsmere, CEMEX, etc) she fails to mention where those same sentiments reveal ugly and indeed selfish tendencies on the part of Santa Clarita. Here’s a few examples:

Thanks to the active and articulate NIMBYs in the Old Orchard area speaking out in 2006, we still have most of the beautiful old Eucalyptus trees lining McBean Parkway. Neighborhood NIMBYs turned out in droves to protest the city’s proposal to cut down some 40 of these old majestic trees for lane widening.

That’s all well and good, but it was people in that same neighborhood that “turned out in droves” to protest Vallarta moving into the Old Orchard shopping center back in 2005/06 by exploiting Latino stereotypes and claiming such a grocery store wouldn’t “fit in” to their neighborhood. A Vallarta chief even showed up to the defend the company’s choice at a City Council meeting after scores of neighbors organized to fight it.

(Four years later, incidentally, the Old Orchard Shopping center is thriving and Vallarta has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into remaking a significant portion of the valley’s oldest shopping mall).

They promote trails and bike paths; they form community standard districts; they organize block parties to meet their neighbors. In short, they are good citizens and caring neighbors.

Well neighbors in the Decoro area sure did join together, but they joined in order to fight the Decoro bike lanes which made their community more livable, friendly, and safer. They fought to have their high speed road restored

As for special standards districts? Special standards districts are the method by which rich and/or influential neighborhoods fight common sense public amenities like sidewalks and street lights. Just ask a Master’s College student what it’s like to walk between campuses during heavy winter rains at night and you’ll understand Special Standards Districts in action. They suck unless you have a horse, two acres of land, and a ranch house.

Likewise, I think Castaic NIMBYs are partly responsible for the continued delay in construction of Castaic High. Residents there have shot down at least one, maybe two proposals in the last ten years which means students have to be trucked to distant West Ranch or Valencia High, leading to more traffic and pollution.

Meanwhile, over in Bridgeport, we saw another example of ugly NIMBYism. Canada Geese, attracted to the water just like wealthy Bridgeport homeowners, were pooping all over the place. The Bridgeport HOA’s solution to that problem? Hire an exterminator who would either shoot or poison the birds.

I wasn’t here for it, but I’ve seen this brought up several times on this blog. Back in the 1980s, CalTrans offered to extend Highway 126 from I-5 to the 14. But NIMBYs shot it down. And now, 20 years later, we’re just about done with the Cross Valley Connector, a roadway that accomplishes the same goal but cost us a lot of money.

NIMBYism is the seed of our democracy that can and often does blossom into care for our whole state and our nation. It is the beginning of a public dialogue about issues that affect us in our own neighborhoods. For this, NIMBYism should be praised and encouraged.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in Plambeck’s column is that it portrays NIMBYs as heroic defenders of their neighborhood and ignores counter examples. And perhaps the biggest flaw in my view of NIMBYs is that I tend to see them as selfish villagers waving pitchforks and torches trying to fight progress.

The truth is NIMBYs are just like any other activist group. They can do good and they can do bad, and there’s plenty of examples of both right here in Santa Clarita.