LogFAQs > #979328157

Definitely help fight this so the developer builds something smaller.

There's a place in my area that vehemently opposed a nearly 200-unit apartment complex on a two-lane road that finds itself frequently blocked by wandering fowl (this is not a joke), because that many new residents would cause frequent accidents and traffic jams. The road cannot be expanded due to how the existing residential properties are set up; this complex is going where a crumbling barn was previously. The city deferred this project and asked the developer to come up with a proposal for one with fewer units, due to these residents' safety concerns. There were a few wackos in this group - ones who wanted just townhomes instead, as "that's what's currently there" - but they were the only ones I found unreasonable; I agreed that the project should be smaller for safety purposes.

NIMBYism is more an apprehension to change of any kind. Another area in town was crying "NIMBY! NIMBY! NIMBY!" when they wanted to put two loud military jets at the airport, and when asked where these jets should be instead, they suggested a smaller municipal airport that only handles small planes - no jets, passenger planes, or anything of the sort. That airport would've needed substantial upgrades for that and it would've devalued others' property far more than theirs was devalued, since they already have plane noise, and this just upped the frequency a LITTLE bit. I made fun of these people. There was literally no other reasonable alternative within 50 miles.

You sound more like the former group. You want the scope of the project to be smaller to better fit the area as it is now, instead of doing something that it's not equipped to handle in hopes that it causes more growth that doesn't make logistical sense. Developers often get greedy and lack foresight to the problems that come with what they want to build.