"(s)Pickleballing" Community Planning Nomenclature
... The Healing of Metastasized Pro-Development Rhetoric Through Process
Vlog Overview
This free vlog is intended to share my 30+ years of parks practitioner experience married with my recently completed (2019) Phd exploring park decision-making processes. Please read my vlog entitled “The Use Case for Parks Are Like Icebergs Vlog.,” March 5, 2023.
Todays Ice Sculpture
"(s)Pickleballing" Community Planning Nomenclature
Land use change is almost always contested. It is common in the press and social media to characterize land use change as NIMBY (Not-In-My-Backyard). Murtaza Haider and Stephen Moranis in the Financial Post (June 8, 2023) argued that NIMBY and other factors are precluding the development of affordable housing in the Greater Toronto Area. In Toronto redevelopment of legacy single family properties into multi-family development is also facing stiff opposition. The premier of Ontario unilaterally decided to sell redevelop a valued greenbelt to development interests/friends into housing with no public process. In Edmonton there has been cries of NIMBY over the loss of greenspaces and parking areas serving festivals to accommodate housing in Old Strathcona. In 2006 charges of NIMBY was repeated in the press when 20 park sites were surplussed for sale to address an affordable housing shortage without any public process. The term is has been used as a cudgel to support capital development often using sustainable city rhetoric.
That same rhetoric has metastasized to recreation land use changes. In Victoria opposition to the noise associated with pickleball courts was described as NIMBY and NIMBYism (Victoria Times Colonist, May 1, 2022). A similar public discussion on pickleball occurred in Airdrie Alberta reported on Linkdn recently.
The term "NIMBY" has been used a short form to characterize discordant voices with purely individualist self-based motivations, be it financial or operational impacts. That characterization has been criticized for oversimplifying complex issues and dismissing legitimate community concerns. It fails to acknowledge the diversity of perspectives and the need for inclusive decision-making processes that involve affected stakeholders.
The intensity of contestation in part lies in common subliminal pro-development terminology like “NIMBY,” “YIMBY,’ and the “highest and best use of land,” and others repeated in the press and social media pushed by economic lobbyists and interests. The reaction of development proponents corollary to “NIMBY” is “YIMBY”. YIMBY is “Yes-In -My-Backyard.” Both terms revolve around the fulcrum of development as a positive outcome, in the public interest, and typically a binary choice, and often based on economic metrics. All of these terms promote development as progressive, positive, always in the public interest. Such narrow rhetoric is ill-defined and superficial, and can stand in the way of having meaningful change dialogues with the community.
Change may make sense both at the macro (policy) level and the micro (site) level. Change may not make sense at a particular site or in a particular area, and it is important to comprehend the difference in community engaged processes. Understanding community reactions to change requires a comprehensive approach that considers various factors. This includes analyzing the nature of the change itself, the transparency and inclusivity of the decision-making process, community needs, and the underlying social, economic, and political dynamics at play. It is crucial to recognize that opposition to change may not necessarily indicate resistance to change but may reflect valid concerns and the desire for a more participatory approach to decision-making, or concerns about a specific site application that can be mitigated on the site or elsewhere.
Rather than debate a particular development and associated community reaction, I will instead offer an inclusive checklist and multi-staged site review process for the development of a pickleball court. Such processes are common in park land change processes (i.e., Jackie Parker Park Dog Off Leash) in the past, but less so in legislatively driven bylaw amendment processes influenced by neoliberal policy development (i.e., expedited development, reduced regulation, reduced government, reduced costs). More inclusive data driven processes will allow a more thorough understanding of the diversity of community perspective at the micro level, and contribute to long term community development.
Lets first ground ourselves in NIMBY, pickleball and change processes. This will be followed by a checklist to develop community engaged processes and proposed process steps. The intent is to create a process that will allow decision-makers to understand impacts and outcomes on existing users to inform if not reduce de-contest decision-making
Background
The Skinny - NIMBY
The most common and earliest definition of NIMBY or NIMBYism is residents motivated by individual self interest. In recent years, research into those same negative reactions have been broadened to also include: more general level impacts of specific change in land use (i.e., operational impacts), a loss of place (i.e., place attachment), or more broadly fairness and justice in decision-making (i.e., who is being heard and not heard in process).
The Skinny - Pickleball
In Canada in 2022 there were an estimated 1M pickleball players playing at least once a month, and 36.5M in the United States. It is no longer a sport for seniors as users in the 18-34 age range has been growing exponentially. It is the fastest growing sport in the United States in 2022. This is a trend that municipalities should respond to, but invariably displaces an existing use, arguably with one that may generate more noise and activity than existing uses. Consequently, a change process is required to assess the impact of the displaced use on community needs, and the reality of operational impacts of pickleball courts on the nearby community that recognizes need, site conditions and user considerations.
The Skinny - Change Processes
It is often assumed that change processes are conducted in a fair and inclusive manner, with ample opportunity for stakeholders to provide input and respond to proposed changes. However, the reality can be more complex. The visibility of the underlying process elements and the power dynamics that exist within them can often be overlooked. These power dynamics can be influenced by legislation, policy, and practices that provide certain individuals or groups and interests with more agency over others. Fairly or unfairly, this reality can lead to confusion and distrust of government institutions and government actors. This is more common today in a polarized world that amplifies contestation in social media and politics more generally.
There is rich academic evidence of the growing alignment of business interests with government priorities, here and elsewhere since the 1980s in land use change processes. Outcomes include loss of public spaces, deregulation, expedited change processes, and the privileging of economic issues over ecological or social issues. Today it has been complicated by the aging out of boomers to be replaced by ambitious young planners with limited experience, and intense lobbying and influencing of politicians and university students by development “experts” on the benefits of development and change in the guise of “community” development.
Finally, in entirely legal ways, pro-development rhetoric inside and outside change processes are being promoted in privileged opaque routinized meetings between well connected economic interests and senior administrators and politicians, in lobbying and “educational” activities in our urban planning schools and professional organizational conferences, as well as through financial contributions to minded political candidates. The scale of pro-community (e.g., social, cultural, health) advocacy pails in comparison to the well and self funded pro-development community in land use change processes.
Why A Pickleball Process/Connection?
Contestation of park land changes tends to be less controversial (but not always) in part because the processes focus simultaneously on the past, existing and future uses and users, not land per se. Land is simply the vehicle to make it happen. Park land change processes can focus on the lived experiences of parks. The rubber hits the road when policy (macro) is applied to a site (micro) that changes or replaces existing uses, parks or other uses. Transparent community engaged parks management practices offer planners a lens to craft change processes that not only make informed decisions but simultaneously build community lacking in our legislative environment and economic development property focussed processes.
De-Contesting Change Processes… A Checklist
Diemont et al (2011) argues that the process of green space planning and decision-making are as important as direct benefits and outcomes. I would argue that the same should be extended to legislative land use change processes, that by thier nature tend to offer binary choices for change. Implementing macro-level policies at the micro-level, such as introducing pickleball courts in a specific community, should involve a community-engaged process. This process should aim to incorporate the perspectives and input of both state and non-state actors to create a co-constructed and de-contested decision-making process.
A community-engaged process includes various elements to ensure transparency, inclusivity, and effective decision-making. These elements can include:
Collective Scoping: The process should involve identifying and engaging relevant social actors from the community. This can include residents, local organizations, interest groups, and other stakeholders who may be impacted or have an interest in the proposed change.
Timely and Transparent Information Sharing: Providing early and transparent sharing of information is crucial. This includes sharing policy, standards, and practices related to the proposed change. It ensures that all participants have access to accurate and relevant information to inform their input and decision-making.
Recognizing Power and Agency Differences: Acknowledging and addressing power imbalances and differences in agency among social actors is essential. It requires creating an environment where all participants feel empowered to contribute and have their voices heard, despite potential disparities in power and influence.
Clearly Defined Roles and Responsibilities: Establishing key milestones, roles, and responsibilities in decision-making and implementation helps clarify expectations and ensures accountability. This can include defining the responsibilities of different stakeholders, such as community members, local government officials, and other relevant parties.
Policy, Plans, and Standards: Decision-making and implementation should be guided by existing policies, plans, and standards. This ensures that the process aligns with broader frameworks and guidelines, providing a foundation for fairness and consistency.
By incorporating these elements into the decision-making process, communities can foster a more inclusive, transparent, and collaborative approach to implementing macro-level policies at the micro-level. This helps ensure that the diverse perspectives and needs of social actors are considered and can lead to more effective and sustainable outcomes.
Note: Pickleball would not require a bylaw amendment on park lands, but the processes to review the change would better inform bylaw change processes.
Proposed Stepped Co-Constructed Process
A four (+) step process is suggested.
An initial scoping meeting is held with the known local non-state NGOs organization (i.e., community leagues/organizations) where the change agent and use is previewed, collectively identify social actors impacted and confirm the upcoming review process. Assumptions and givens would be shared at that point. A second community-wide meeting would be set.
A second meeting would be a community wide public open house at the local community facility, and advertised by the community organization and its network, and by the administration and on site signage. The purpose of this meeting is two-fold: first to share the change proposal, basic site, policy, plans and process information, including any technical or process assumptions or givens. Second, to solicit community volunteers for a working group to solicit input, feedback, and ideas for change and implementation. That consultation should develop a sense of the lived experiences of the existing community use of this site, how it could be augmented (or not) by the proposed change in use, or propose other changes as well. The community NGO organization would be represented on this group.
One or more meetings may occur with the working group to arrive at a potential outcome or outcomes, based on a transparent sharing of policy, practices and plans.
The outcome of the working group meeting(s) are shared in a public open house, for final input and vetting of proposed changes.
Depending on the scope and scale, site conditions and previous history with the site, existing uses and local community organizations, a more expedited process could occur.
Conclusions... From NIMBY, YIMBY to cImby
There are individualist negative reactions to change that can be fairly characterized as NIMBY, or NIMBYism. Full stop. Change that may be good, beneficial and positive may be opposed, but todays change environment is anything but balanced to enable a thorough vetting process, and is fraught with unhelpful public discourses
An old cannard…the three rules of real estate are location, location, location. Location is just another term for land or property, enshrined in planning legislation. Contested processes are an artifact, not a bug, of our private property capital development legislative framework. At the micro level, where the policy rubber hits the local road, I would suggest a new term to replace development orientated rhetoric when considering land use change - cImby - community IS my backyard. Separate property from the use and users dialogues.
At the micro level, geographical communities and communities of interest develop relationships with land, particularly their public spaces over time. They are not “landowners” who hold legislatively defined privileged rights (i.e,, property titles), but physically live in the area proposed impacted by change, and/or are users of the land. They are materially impacted by change economically, socially and psychologically. They have a relational sense of ownership of their community. Community IS their backyard, not limited by the constraints of land and property. The three words for the community comparable to real estate are PEOPLE, PLACE and TIME.
The cImby process (defined above) would focus on PEOPLE and the collective community, both existing and new residents, not land. The starting point is community need and outcomes, not limited to those immediately adjacent to a site of change. A cImby process implies trust in community development partners, and a recognition of community support efforts in the past that created the existing community (PLACE). A cImby process implies change processes are themselves co-constructed, built on the trust from pervious change processes, and recognizing who is most knowledgable about the micro, for vetting the macro in change processes.
A cImby process means that our current focus on (expedited) review times inculcated in municipal processes here and elsewhere (TIME) needs to instead focus on outcomes. It recognizes the reduced levels of knowledge, power and agency for community actors, and the corollary hegemonic powers and agency of process designers and approvers who don’t live in the neighbourhood.
References
Cilliers, Elizelle J., and Timmermans (2013). “The importance of creative participatory planning in the public place-making process.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2014, volume 41, pages 413 – 429. doi:10.1068/b39098
Eranti, Veikko. “Re-visiting NIMBY: From Conflicting Interests to Conflicting Valuations.” The Sociological Review 65, no. 2 (2017): 285-301. doi. 10.1177/0038026116675554.
Wu, Wu and Liou (2021). “Boon or Bane: Effect of Adjacent YIMBY or NIMBY Facilities on the Benefit Evaluation of Open Spaces or Cropland,” Sustainability 2021, 13, 3998. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073998 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/growth-of-pickleball-raises-a-racket-in-victoria-amid-bans-over-noise-complaints-5318066
https://financialpost.com/real-estate/nimbyism-municipal-politicians-housing-shortage-canada/wcm/b4ff5f92-a5da-443d-a81e-c7d7f2dd5e9e/amp/
https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/advice/2023/05/26/noise-about-pickleball-rises-in-communities-across-the-country.html
https://www.cnn.com/style/paris-most-controversial-building/index.html
Oh if only. Thank you. I hope the EFCL reads and advocates for such an approach.