NIMBY-ism & Opposition to Cohousing
From: Mabes (Mabesaol.com)
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 00:48 CST
I had asked for some suggestions to help us nip opposition to our Vienna,
Virginia project in the bud.

John Gear (catalyst [at] pacifier.com) responded with a lot of good thoughts:

>"I'm convinced that we need more farmland, not less . . .a lot more
>than we need PUDs, especially "upper middle scale" developments.
>...Why not preserve the Farm?"

We agree.  Actually, farmland preservation is one of our founding goals.  We
will be attempting to transfer ALL of the develoment rights for a 38 parcel
of organic vegetable farmland to a small 3-4 acres area where existing
buildings are located, keeping the rest of the farm in routine operation.  We
were thinking that the transfer of all development rights would protect the
rest of the land from future development pressure, however, we would consider
other, more permanent forms of protection.  Does anyone have any suggestions
in this regard?  Such protection would likely also win over some of those who
would object because they also want to protect the open space.  The
owners/operators of the farm are founding members of our cohousing group.  We
definitely envision co-existence with and involvement in the continued
operation of the farm.

John: 
>From a standpoint of living in harmony with your surroundings
>--including your human neighbors--it is probably unwise to 
>characterize opposition to your plans as "Nimby-ism."  And from 
>your point of view, it doesn't get easier to negotiate with people if 
>you discount their objections from the start as being based on 
>reflexive opposition to anything in their back yards.

This is an excellent point to remember.  Thank you.  Besides, aren't we here
to foster connection and community after all?  

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.