Democracy or ochlocracy?

Those who want a town green in Ashton Vale and not a new Bristol City football stadium have again been called NIMBYs (see comments here). Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way, including those in Ashton Vale, usually don’t hold such views and often have a well developed case with a range of reasons.

For example: if the stadium is built green belt land, which is finite in supply, will be lost; carbon emissions will rise; natural flood drainage space will go; land with food production potential will go; wildlife habitats will be smaller in area; green space important to human health and wellbeing will be cut. Our current system has warm green words but little or no green action - which is why planning permission for the Bristol City stadium was given.

A key feature of the UK democracy is the rule of law. The UK is not a straightforward ochlocracy, where there is dictatorship of the majority or rule of the mob. Protection of the law for individuals, minorities and society as a whole has some value here. The law around town greens is one small part of this.  

On another note: it was always a big mistake to assuming that building this stadium will have a net positive effect on jobs and investment. To my knowledge no-one has done the research sums to see if total benefits exceed total costs, taking into account all factors, including those I've mentioned above. Mostly what we’ve heard about the proposed stadium is simplistic benefits - my point is ok but what about the complexities and the costs?? This means trying to account for the impacts both on current generations and the generations of people to come - once green land is built over its nigh on impossible to get it back again.

The planning process very often has no objective evidence whatsoever that total benefits outweigh total costs - and a decision taken on the basis of little or no evidence is irrational. Could it not be argued that the stadium proposal is an inappropriate development based on outmoded, old-fashioned, discredited economic thinking and that therefore pursuing it would be unwise? Bristol is supposed to have 'green capital' ambitions after all. Wouldn't giving the land town green status mean that it would be maintain our ability to: fight climate change; increase wildlife; manage flooding; keep people healthy...If you built a stadium the opposite might happen and therefore shouldn't someone estimate the costs/benefits of all this in order for a rational decision to be made?

The law should help prevent locals from being bullied into a situation they don’t want. The law on town greens does empower people to apply for green spaces to be protected. A real and proper democracy rightly has legal processes to protect a community and its space and the process is being gone through.

NIMBY?

People far too often resort to unjustified labelling in debate. Accusations of being a NIMBY (not in my back yard) are common in discussions for and against development for instance. Using the term implies that those accused hold narrow, selfish, short-sighted views in opposing change. I've found that people labelled in this way usually dont hold such views and often have a developed case with a range of reasons so, whatever the rights and wrongs of the instance, the label is unfairly applied.

Here's one example, involving  plans to redevelop a Network Rail site by building nine three story homes at Bellevue Terrace, Totterdown, Bristol. Just down the road from me. One commenter on the story thinks objecting to this development is '...the purest example of NIMBYism I've seen in weeks..' even though one resident, backed by her local councillor, describes how the space is green and good for wildlife. Suzanne Ferris said: "The former allotment site was a verdant space bright with nature in a heavily built-up area. The urbanisation of this wildlife pocket will remove forever part of the green corridor from the railway line to Arnos Vale Cemetery.”

You can have a look for yourself at the place here (and in the photos above). Its hardly the Amazon (!) but if we are serious about issues such as: the value of green spaces to our relaxation and health; obtaining and maintaining healthy populations of wildlife eg garden birds like sparrows and starlings; the value of green spaces as a temporary 'store and release' mechanism for water when it rains heavily; green spaces as carbon absorbing...then at some point we surely have to stop concreting over every bit of local, small-scale greenery?      

Opposing development that would change a space from pollution absorbing and biodiversity providing to pollution producing and biodiversity cutting is perfectly reasonable. Its not NIMBYism because all that would say is 'not here' in a narrow, selfish and short-sighted way and people in this area clearly have more reasons than that! If you are going to use the tactic of labelling people you need to give justification for doing so.