Beyond the Headlines

Print

Text

NIMBY stands for "not in my backyard." Wikipedia defines the term as "usually applied to opponents of a development, implying that they have narrow, selfish, or myopic views."

While this definition is uncharitable, opposition usually is based on private interest. On the other hand, most development proposals at least refer to public policy and regulations. As a result, convincing decision-makers that private opposition actually coincides with an offsetting public interest remains at the centre of successful lobbying.

There is an interesting example between these interests unfolding along the Scarborough bluffs.

Two to four miles out into the lake, Toronto Hydro wants to build a wind farm of about 60 turbines. Unsurprisingly, those whose believe their view of the lake would be ruined are hostile. But Torontonians who will get the benefits of greener power without a reduction in their property values probably support the concept.

The decision will be made by Toronto Hydro which, although owned by the City of Toronto, has shown independence.

Faced with an uphill political fight, we can expect impacted residents to try a variety of ways to advance their position. We can look forward to letters, petitions and protests. Opponents of the wind farm could also hire an advocate.

No one would be more suitable as a representative than American environmental lobbyist Robert Kennedy Jr. Remember? He was called in, for a reported US$25,000 fee, to speak against the Toronto Island airport during the 2003 mayoral campaign.

It would be an inspired choice. Here is someone who will get media attention, has a successful track record and presumably has access to those who requested his help in 2003.

Over the last few years he has gained notoriety for his consistency to NIMBY principles by opposing development of a wind farm within sight of his family's compound off Cape Cod.

Just last month he spoke in Toronto on the issue of wind farms. "There are appropriate places for everything, and there are some places where people are desperate to build wind farms," he said. "And if you want to put them out in the water you probably want to put them out of sight."

Great stuff, just like it was in the days of the Island airport debate.

At that time the Islanders avoided discussion of wanting a gated community and an unsustainable level of public services. Instead they portrayed themselves as defenders of an accessible waterfront in the face of corporate rapacity.

For wind farm opponents to have any chance of success, they will need to follow the Islanders' example, and turn the wind farm discussion into advocacy for a public benefit.

Without a doubt the challenges are now greater. But then Mr. Kennedy, who has experience, should be asked to take on the case.