NIMBY label unfair

The phrase not in my backyard, or NIMBY, has a derogatory meaning that does a disservice to those communities that might have a reasonable objection to a specific development, or who have an understandable reluctance to change their personal circumstances.

Two cases in point unfolded recently when residents of the Rural Municipality of Springfield opposed an application by the Native Addictions Council of Manitoba to build a $15-million treatment centre, and a separate bid by a different organization to build a group home in the municipality.

The objection to the native treatment facility wasn't based on the particular use that was being proposed, but on the location, which is now the site of a successful recreational area east of Winnipeg and south of the Trans-Canada Highway.

It is a very popular destination for families in the summer, particularly those who don't own a cottage. Tinkertown Family Fun Park, Grand Prix Amusements Ltd, a waterpark and a campground are located in the area in question, which is zoned recreational.

The businesses see an opportunity for further recreational uses in the future, which could create a critical mass of activities that might lead to further expansion nearby, including other uses.

It may be that some people opposed it for the wrong reasons, but the possibility of future development consistent with the area's recreational zoning made sense to residents and councillors throughout the municipality, which explains why hundreds of people signed a petition opposing it.

The NACM did consider a site on the opposite side of the highway, but the land was unserviced, which would have driven up costs. The group ultimately decided to look elsewhere.

The second case is more problematic. New Directions wanted to open a group home in a different part of the municipality for two adult men with physical and intellectual challenges. Staff would have been in the home and with the men at all times, but the residents of each of the 10 homes on the street now were unanimously opposed, as were people who lived farther away.

Unlike people who might move into a dense neighbourhood such as Wolseley, many of Springfield's residents left the city because they did not want to live near an institutional or industrial setting. They liked the zoning restrictions the way they were.

It's unlikely the group home would have changed the character of the street or the neighbourhood, but it would have required a zoning amendment permitting institutional use. That, in turn, could have opened the district to more such development, or so the argument goes.

New Directions said it may challenge the municipality's decision as a possible violation of human rights law, but they would be better advised to keep looking. The RM of Springfield did not break any laws, and there's no evidence the opposition was motivated by racism or discrimination.

The sprawling municipality of about 15,000 is growing by about 120 new homes a year, a pace that suits everyone there just fine. Hopefully, however, they will find a way to welcome those who need help, too, and not just refugees from the big city.

Republished from the Winnipeg Free Press print edition August 11, 2010 A10