North Star Nook 4/11

Anatomy of NIMBY Rhetoric, Factfullness, LRW, Twins

This is the start of my favorite time of the calendar for me. MLB baseball has started, high school baseball has started and I’m coaching once again. If I won the lottery tomorrow and could retire I would in a heartbeat but I’d still coach high school baseball. It’s one of the most rewarding things I get to do in my life. I’ve been working on completing a fly fishing rod here for the steelhead run on the Brule another one of my hobbies and I am well on my way to becoming an 80 year old man trapped in a 30 something year old body.

It is probably a byproduct of getting older. But it’s really fun to see your friends and the kids you grew up with do some really cool things and start getting noticed for it. My childhood friend and hunting mentor, Evan Koch is finally starting to get well deserved recognition for his woodworking abilities in creating custom gun stocks. I’m really happy for him and proud of him. Also, truly amazed he has made it this far since our James Drive days. He was recently featured in our hometown paper, The Mankato Free Press and the Meat Eater website.

Housing Shortage, NIMBY Rhetorical Fallacy Primer

This is not new news but, Duluth faces a critical housing shortage, caused by a growing population of young adults, declining family sizes and a historical underproduction of multifamily housing, despite a relatively stable overall population. The city's current development pace is too slow to address the significant deficit of both affordable and market-rate units, necessitating substantial financial incentives to accelerate construction and meet the urgent demand. This is felt in nearly every city across the country. In 2006, the rate of housing construction was sufficient to meet the country's demand. However, following the housing market collapse, construction rates have not recovered to those levels. This link will take you to a graph showing housing production. It is safe to assume that 2025 will see a drop-not a good trend.

If you ever have the joy of serving as a planning commissioner (and you should!) or a city councilor (you should also do this) you will inevitably encounter NIMBYISM (Not In My Back Yard), or my favorite variation of the NIMBY is the CAVE Person, Citizens Against Virtually Everything. I’ve long joked that we should put this NIMBY Bingo card up at public meetings as speakers share their “concerns” it would maybe make for more thoughtful debate on the merits or proposals versus engaging in rhetorical jujutsu.

The story about the proposed market rate development with non-public subsidy development near Woodland is a near perfect example (as is the Safe Bay proposal at the Vineyard Church). Without further adieu here is let's dissect this NIMBY ("Not In My Backyard") symphony playing out in Duluth. Hopefully this is helpful for you to examine the anatomy of their arguments, revealing the rhetorical fallacies and highlighting the YIMBY ("Yes In My Backyard") perspective.

The Anatomy of the NIMBY Argument:

1. The Appeal to Nostalgia and "Sacred Space":

   • A residents statement about "his church" and "these woods helped raise and shape me" is a classic emotional appeal. It's designed to tug at heartstrings, not engage in rational discourse. (Note- Hartley is still there to experience those woods)

   • Fallacy: Appeal to Emotion. His personal connection to the site doesn't invalidate the need for housing or the potential benefits of the development.

   • YIMBY Response: While respecting personal history is important, cities evolve, if you cover something in amber it dies. Prioritizing individual nostalgia over community housing needs is unsustainable.

2. The "Preservation of Neighborhood Character" Ploy:

   • "Throughout its history, Woodland has always been a place for single-family residential homes." This argument suggests that any deviation from the status quo is inherently wrong.

   • Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition. Just because something has "always been" a certain way doesn't mean it should remain so, especially when there are pressing needs like housing shortages. In which Duluth has one- it is why rent is increasing and housing prices are increasing at a rapid rate. Believe it or not, people do very much so want to live in Duluth.

   • YIMBY Response: "Neighborhood character" is often a code for exclusionary zoning. Cities must adapt to changing demographics and housing demands. Many of these neighborhoods have existed in this manner due to historical redlining practices keeping neighborhoods homogenous and excluding people of color from buying home in those neighborhoods.

3. The "Commercialism" Boogeyman:

   • "Commercialism, like this proposed condominium development, doesn’t marry up with what Woodland is all about." This broad, undefined term is used to demonize the project.

   • Fallacy: Straw Man. Condominiums are residential, not commercial. This mischaracterization is meant to create unwarranted fear. When you sell your home by definition that would be “commercialism”.

   • YIMBY Response: Condominiums provide needed housing and can enhance a neighborhood by increasing density, which can support local businesses.

4. The "Traffic Headaches" Hyperbole: (one of my favorites!)

   • "More people! More traffic!" This is a standard NIMBY fear-mongering tactic. (why are people always concerned about other peoples cars, but never curbing their own driving habits and supporting lower speeds during their commute?)

   • Fallacy: Slippery Slope. The assumption that a 30-unit building (or an additional 30 building for 60 total) will cause catastrophic traffic problems is not supported by evidence. The fact that the road was recently rebuilt with future development in mind counters this point.

   • YIMBY Response: Traffic impact studies are conducted for a reason. Responsible development considers and mitigates traffic concerns. Modern planning often encourages density near existing roads to minimize sprawl.

5. The "Property Values" Fear:

   • Councilor Durrwachter's concern about property values is a common NIMBY refrain. (I wouldn’t say she is a NIMBY councilor, but she exhibits many NIMBY in communications)

   • Fallacy: Red Herring. While property values are a consideration, they shouldn't be the sole determinant of housing policy. Increased density can have a positive impact on local economies.

   • YIMBY Response: Increased housing supply can stabilize or even reduce housing costs, benefiting the community. And help spread the tax burden across more property owners, not less.

6. The "Tree Loss" Emotional Manipulation:

   • The focus on the removal of trees, is a valid concern however it is used to obscure the broader benefits of the project. The developer even points out that his plan will save more trees than if the land was to be developed under the current zoning of R1 (which they could do this minute without a zoning change)

   • Fallacy: Selective Presentation of Facts. The NIMBY argument ignores the developer's plan to minimize tree loss and preserve a public path.

   • YIMBY Response: Responsible development balances environmental concerns with housing needs. In this case, the proposed plan minimizes environmental impact compared to other options.

7. The "Affordable Housing" Distraction:

   • Councilor Durrwachter’s wish for affordable housing is a common deflection tactic

   • Fallacy: Whataboutism. While affordable housing is crucial, it's a separate issue. The project's market-rate units will contribute to the overall housing supply and free up existing housing for others.

   • YIMBY Response: Market-rate housing development helps to free up older homes that are more likely to be purchased by new families. Also, the developer is not asking for public funds, which is a positive thing.

   • In my ten years of affordable housing work and council experience, I've observed a clear trend: People who contact their councilor to insist a market-rate project "needs to be affordable" greatly outnumber those who attend hearings to support a needed affordable housing project—by about 10 to 1. While a few individuals genuinely advocate for affordable housing ( there are some, and I could name them individually), many others appear motivated by scoring political points or opposing development for NIMBY reasons..

   • It is of note that Councilor Durrwatcher signed a letter supporting state legislation that streamlines multifamily housing development to address Minnesota's housing crisis, yet she has expressed opposition to a similar development proposal within Duluth. Her state-level support for increased density and reduced approval times directly contradicts her local stance, revealing a disconnect between her stated policy goals and her actions within her own constituency, having rejected R-P zoning in the past. State housing bills were HF4010/SF3980/SF1370)

And dear reader this is not limited to just the proposed Woodland Project! There is a proposal to move the Safe Bay program- hopefully this provides a good frame work the next time you read the paper or attend a public meeting

NIMBY Argument 1: "While the intent of the Vineyard is admirable, if the leaders/members of the Vineyard have this mission laid upon their heart. Why don't they open the driveways of their own homes to this ministry... Have them deal with the extra noise, with the potential fighting, the potential wandering in the nighttime around the neighborhood looking for valuables."

• Rhetorical Fallacies:

  • Whataboutism / Tu Quoque: This fallacy deflects criticism or questions about the proposed plan by accusing the proponents (Vineyard leaders/members) of perceived hypocrisy ("Why don't they do it in their driveways?"). It avoids engaging with the merits of hosting the program at the church, which has specific facilities and space.

  • Straw Man: Misrepresents the proposal. Hosting an organized, supervised program with rules, staff, and designated hours in a specific location (church parking lot with restroom access) is vastly different from individuals inviting people to park in their private driveways. It sets up an unreasonable comparison to attack.

  • Appeal to Fear / Fear Mongering: Uses emotionally charged language ("potential fighting," "potential wandering," "looking for valuables") to evoke fear without providing any evidence that these events are likely or have occurred at past Safe Bay locations. It speculates wildly about worst-case scenarios.

  • Hasty Generalization (Implied): Assumes participants in the Safe Bay program are inherently prone to noise, fighting, and theft, stereotyping individuals experiencing homelessness.

• Response- A supriverised program like Safe Bay at a church with facilities and staff is very different from using private driveways and public neighborhood streets. This program has strict rules, all night staffing and ran safely the last year without formal complaints. The fears about noise or crime are not based on how Safe Bay actually has operated, which is as a safe, stable place for people getting back on their feet.

• NIMBY Argument 2: "We all pay a good amount on property taxes, and this will ruin several homes' property values near the Vineyard Church."

  • Rhetorical Fallacies:

    • Unsupported Assertion / Appeal to Belief: Claims the program "will ruin" property values as if it's a fact, without providing any evidence, data, or studies to support this specific claim.

    • Appeal to Emotion (Financial Fear): Directly targets homeowners' financial concerns and fears about losing property value to generate opposition, rather than focusing on the program's nature or community impact.

    • Slippery Slope (Implied): Suggests that allowing this managed, temporary program will inevitably lead to a decline in property values, ignoring the controlled nature of the program and the lack of evidence for such impacts from similar, well-run initiatives.

    • Appeal to Wealth/Status (Implicit): Mentioning "pay a good amount on property taxes" can subtly imply that those who pay more taxes should have their concerns prioritized or be shielded from perceived inconveniences, regardless of broader community needs.

  • Response- There is no evidence showing that Safe Bay has hurt property values. (nor do affordable housing projects for that matter, or market rate or multi-family projects). Safe Bay is supriveies and runs overnight for part of the year and had no issues at the current location.

There you have it. The NIMBY argument is a graduate level course in rhetoric fallacies and in emotional manipulation and it is hard to in the moment parry the rhetorical fallacies invoked. NIMBY’s/CAVE People prioritizes the preservation of an idealized past and individual comfort over the pressing needs of the community and greater good, which is what good governance is about- the collective and common good. Think of these points when the next project is proposed in a neighborhood, many of these talking points will likely be used, but the more that we are aware of the rhetorical tactics the more we can inoculate our community to catch NIMBY illness holding our community back. (also seems like a good plug for the N4MN group below)

Neighbors For More Neighbors

I’m interested in starting a local group of folks that are pro housing and pro more neighbors. I’m not certain what this group will fully look like but I think part of it is advocating for smart development or sharing and consumption of information on development, pro housing, pro neighborhood that collectively elevates the local IQ and thought when it comes to how we move our community. If you’re interested email or let me know! (thanks to those that have already responded!)

Factfulness

It can be really scary looking at illness and disease data lately (rightfully so, thanks RFK Jr.!). But this is something I found that is encouraging on that front. It looks like this strain of the flu is near obsolete. More data here if you’re into that sort of thing

Listening, Reading Watching

Listening- Charles Mingus The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady. Jazz music gets me through my workday and when I’m making dinner for! This album is considered Mingus’ masterpiece. I’ve learned that it was originally music for a ballet and the whole album flows as whole musical score (despite the track listing)

Reading- Ezra Klein Abundance. Great book. Worth picking up and thinking about how we move from a “scarcity mindset” and more of “abundance” when it comes to our public realms. I’m not pollyanna or naive enough to believe the zoning reform alone will solve our housing crisis, it’s helpful but not a silver bullet (some folks will fall into this camp/trap)

Watching- Hoosiers- Love Gene Hackman and Dennis Hopper. Hadn’t seen this movie before. Honestly, meh.

Twins Tidbits

While it will be incredible when the Twins finally go 162-0, would all 162 games be fun if they just won? Not a great start but I do think they will still win the Central. Pablo only being on the shelf for the short term is good. If it was a longer term injury I’d be concerned about the Twins, but with Festa and Zebby in the wings we do have some depth for the rotation (now only if we could boot Paddack). Their bullpen does have the best ERA in the AL, and Joe Ryan looks good again there is a lot of reason for optimism should you should to embrace it!