About that NIMBY "thing"

Leave a Reply

Comment as a guest.
Avatar

  1. I agree with you totally, I just go a little further. Most of the objections to trailers are based on prejudice or at least (short sighted)selfishness, but the mayor needs to start stating his plan,or at least answering specific objections. If someone says why this park instead of that vacant lot, it’s wrong to say NIMBY until the city says what’s wrong with that vacant lot. When I make that argument, people react as if I’m supporting racists. I just think that the mayor is showing the same disdain for answering questions that he showed when it came to question about re-entry into damaged areas.

  2. Have you read about the FEMAville’s for Florida? Unless there is a plan for housing, which should include rent controls, the trailer parks are very likely to become the new bricks. The NIMBY people are taking the path of least resistance by opposing the trailers. But they are avoiding the real issue: where will everyone live a year from now? Until Congress and Mr. Bush come forward with real assistance, I think the National Mall would make an excellent trailer site for the displaced. But it’s not the Federal failure alone that’s the problem. Mr. Canizaro’s boneheaded idea to let people rebuild anywhere and then condemn, for example, shows an almost complete collapse of political will locally to address the problem. People need to know where they can rebuild or buy. Homeowners needs insurance. Renters need protection. Funding for housing construction of all sorts is needed. Until these things are forthcoming, then people should fear the trailer parks, because they will become the new projects.

Read Next

Sliding Sidebar