논문

Local opposition and protest constitute single greatest hurdle to the siting of locally unwanted land uses(LULUs). Many planners view their role of transforming cries of "not in my backyard" to please of "yes in my backyard" or "please in my frontyard" as the modern equivalent of alchemy.
At least three inter-related conventional explanations account for the problem. First, it can be attributed in part NIMBY syndrome, secondly, it is also possible to fault the public relation approaches of facility proponents, and finally the comprehensive-rational planning process of LULUs, which is technocratic and topdown in orientation, is itself a possible cause of siting conflicts.
In this paper my purpose is to reconsider the conventional explanations, especially the NIMBYism which is built on two inherent premises: first, that facilities are needed to provide an important social benifit; and second, that selfish local parochialism prevents realization of that societal good. I argue that such facilities are needed not by society but by capital, and by a stste striving to reproduce the capitallabor relationship. Further I argue that the local protectionism characterized as NIMBY represents a barrier not to societal goal but to the goals of capital.
Then I wish to trace several implications of this reformulation. NIMBYism reflects the role of place in the mobilization and empowerment of community resistance against the interests of capital. And pervasiveness of community opposition causes a crisis of legitimation that is forcing the state to redirect the costs of policy intervention away from communities toward capital. A final implication of this reconceptualization addresses the role of the planner in these polical debates.
In short, using a sound planning process for siting LULUs should improve the ability of citizens to influence the decisions that affects them. By a sound planning process, I mean one that is open to citizen input and contains accurate and complete information.