Re: Re: Dunne vs the nimbys

@phil wrote:

Whatever about the merits/demerits of this proposal I really think the term ‘NIMBY’ needs to be questioned, it over-simplifies the issues at stake. The planning process allows us to demonstrate or democratic right to make a submission regarding a planning proposal. I think people who live in the surrounds of this or any proposed development have every right to question it, if they feel that it will impact on them in an adverse way. In my view the submission method, which seems to have naturally become known as an objection is not ideal, but it is the system that is in place and we have to use it. I am sure there would be bigger complaints if people who were not directly affected by this proposal were to voice their concerns.

If it is to be the case should all developers be referred to as OMPOLP’s (On My Parcel Of Land Please), or something to that effect? No, because it just sounds too ridiculous.

If you had seen the piece on the news last night (after which I wrote the thread) you would have heard the report saying :

The sixteen residents group in the area said that allowing this development to go ahead would make a mockery of the planning process.

They said they were confident that City Councillors would not be browbeaten into accepting developments they know are wrong for the city

I was struck by the immediacy of the reaction and the fact that there are 16!!! resident groups. Personally, I believe NIMBY to be exactly the correct term