NIMBY (pronounced nim-bee), is a derogatory acronym meaning “Not In My Back Yard.” It is meant represent the thinking of those who oppose development because, primarily, of the impacts on their lives. Everyone has a little NIMBY in them. It’s easy to support something that does not affect you directly. However, things are different when it’s your environment, safety or pocketbook taking the hit. I assure you there is something that will trigger your personal NIMBY.
It’s a bit of an insult to write off all the opposition to the proposed Resource Recovery Park adjacent to the John Smith Road Landfill as merely NIMBY. It’s especially true in this case for several reasons. Local residents already have the landfill close by. They might not like it, but they have been reasonable. There have been almost no obstructive activities, no roadblocks, no protest vandalism, attacks, sit-ins, not even dirty political campaigns. They have been good citizens about it. The civilian-clothed deputy specially assigned to keep the peace at the RRP rezoning hearing “just in case” was only attacked by boredom.
I agree with Supervisor Robert Rivas; some members of the group have opposed just about everything including the renaming of the highway, and those who claim the area is going to be “another Carmel Valley” can’t be serious. Crying wolf too often always weakens one’s next case; however, take that out of the equation, as good legislators must, and the landfill, along its eventual expansion, means they are already doing their share.
The public treasury is a special back yard for me and something seems to be missing. The board of supervisors is determined to make this RRP on county property at the initial cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. I want to give them the benefit of the doubt that they have a good reason, but no one can seem to get it out of them.
My concern is that they got into something they cannot get out of and are throwing good money after bad to dampen or delay the eventual political backlash. Supervisor Anthony Botelho said it was about jobs. That’s no more believable than the claims of a budding Carmel Valley; jobs are not even mentioned in the State of California’s list of “Local Government Challenges and Opportunities” for RRPs. However, there is a list of recommendations and, surprisingly, we seemed to have skipped almost all the key steps except those involving the county government itself.
They include the following in part; Because RR parks are new to communities, they require stakeholder involvement, including: local reuse, recycling, and composting businesses’; local waste haulers; local businesses (e.g., realtors, lending institutions, manufacturers); multiple city agencies; state and federal solid waste agencies.
Then there were “Tips for Replication” only in our case they might be called Tips to Ignore; Convene local stakeholders to educate and explore local options. Identify existing reuse, recycling, and composting businesses (the latter banned locally) that would like to expand. Perform an analysis to identify wastes that need to be managed differently. This would show development potential of enterprises that reuse, recycle, or compost these wastes. Identify local resources available and adopt policies in support of this vision of an RR park. Contact others who have developed such facilities and learn how they approached the task. Target realistic steps for your program, budget for them and make sure they are accomplished.
We seem to have missed almost all these key steps, except for giving county departments their marching orders. How is that good management?
