Nimby Assessment

How is this Decision Tree Tool organized?

The Risk Assessment and Decision Tree Tool is organized into four main categories:

  • NIMBY Concepts. This section of the Decision Tree Tool defines NIMBYism and describes how to identify NIMBY attitudes, diffuse NIMBY sentiment, respond to NIMBY-related impediments, and links to a list of case studies.
  • Intake and Risk Assessment Questionnaire. This is a two-part questionnaire, the first part of which is about your organization and the project you are planning to develop. How you answer these questions helps the Decision Tree Tool determine which case studies would be the most relevant to your organization's particular situation. The risk assessment portion of the questionnaire is about your organization's relative willingness to risk its position within the community in order to combat NIMBYism. How you answer these questions helps the Decision Tree Tool determine whether your organization is categorized as low risk, medium risk, or high risk.

    When you are in a particular case study, on the left hand sidebar on your screen, you will see that the last item on the list under the case study is Risk Tolerance. If you select risk tolerance, it will lead you to a screen that has links for low risk, medium risk, and high risk. You should select the link according to the category that was assigned to your organization when you took the risk assessment questionnaire. This will provide you with additional information on how to cope with situations similar to what is illustrated in the case study, depending upon how much risk your organization is willing to take.

  • Case Studies. There are 7 case studies, which focus on common NIMBY scenarios. They are as follows:
    • Building and Infrastructure Improvements. Focuses on how community opposition can hinder a developer's ability to get building permits approved;
    • Consolidated Plan. Describes how even if a proposed project meets a need identified in the jurisdiction's Consolidated Plan, permanent supportive housing might meet with community opposition because people might be frightened to having homeless individuals with disabilities living "on their own."
    • Funding Barriers. Shows how community opposition can sometimes lead to higher development costs, rendering a project infeasible.
    • Managing Community Concerns. Describes strategies for addressing community members' fears about homeless individuals and the homeless' impact on neighborhood safety.
    • Site Control. Describes how NIMBY opposition can prevent the purchase of property that will be used for housing and/or services to the homeless from going through.
    • Spacing Restrictions. Illustrates how items such as spacing restrictions can be used to add to the bureaucratic hoops a developer of housing for the homeless would have to jump through in order to get site control.
    • Urban Policy and Regulatory Issues. Describes how housing policy can be interpreted in ways that discriminate against the homeless.

Each of these case studies is organized the same way, and provides information on the following topics:

  • Demographics of Target Population;
  • The Need the Provider is Attempting to Meet;
  • Project Details;
  • Possible NIMBY-Related Impediments;
  • Other Resources, which are downloadable from this site; and
  • Risk tolerance.

Proceed to Intake and Risk Assessment Questionnaire