You can’t raise real cows in Indiana. And, you can’t create fake cows in Alabama. This anti-everything sentiment can be observed across the U.S.

Why? A new form of NIMBYism.
The result? A challenging landscape for private sector investment and potential death knells for hundreds of communities.

A few months ago, I sat at a table with a highly educated, accomplished executive. An unplanned topic arose—a topic I specialize in. I presented this person with a cold, hard, documented, publicized, indisputable fact. He looked me in the eye and said, “I don’t believe that.” I replied, “That’s the problem today…no one believes anything.” The part I did not say was that when people reject legitimate information that doesn’t fit neatly with their predefined worldview, it stifles business investment and cripples communities. That moment crystallized for me a strong current I had been experiencing for some time in communities across the country.

Many attendees wear their anger visibly before the doors open. The targets of such anger are hard to predict. However, they all have one thing in common: aversion to something different. Shouts of, “Go home!” and “Do you live here?” are frequently directed at those presenting information during public meetings. I have had such outbursts directed at me while simply trying to provide relevant facts in my area of expertise.

Anti-everything is on full display. In one prime example, neighbors in a Tennessee community resisted the conversion of agricultural land to warehouse development, and that resistance caused the rezoning request to be denied. Despite this “victory,” neighbors are now displeased about the agricultural use currently taking place on the site they fought to keep agriculturally zoned. In other communities, discourse has even crossed into dangerous.

While no one is perfect—whether it be private industries, governments, or experts—we must reject fear and anti-intellectualism to position our communities for success in the modern era. Healthy skepticism and public discourse are essential; however, relying on established facts and genuine expertise must be the foundation of decision making, policy design, and regulatory strategy. Only through this approach can the economy and communities embrace technological advancements and economic development that in a manner that creates great outcomes for businesses and residents.

The NEW NIMBY
NIMBYism (Not in My Backyard) has been around for decades, referencing residents’ opposition to new developments and changes in their local area. While some NIMBYism took on legitimate and substantive concerns, NIMBYism was often rooted in personal biases, racism, or classism.

Today, NIMBYism is also infected with a lethal dose of disdain for facts and even seeks to attack expertise. When a qualified expert is brought forth to address a topic, the crowd will frequently label the expertise provided as simply “wrong.” Why? The typical reason is because attendees saw something different on the internet (most often, social media). The expectation is that this unsubstantiated internet-based “reasoning” be treated with as much weight as the established facts and information provided by professionals with relevant expertise and experience. This dynamic appears frequently in NIMBYism, but is also a reflection of our broader American society.

This infection can turn fatal. Our communities and our country cannot function when everyone and no one is an expert. I call it NEW NIMBY: No Expertise Wanted.

Unfortunately, that is what many members of NEW NIMBYism want—disfunction that leads to a standstill. The compounding of bad information and fear creates a potent urge to slam on the brakes. Standing still is death for any community, especially those in rural America, and it harms the broader American economy.

Rural challenges
Across the rural U.S., it is all too common to find residents opposing developments that would create desperately needed relevance for the community in the modern economy. Many of these same communities are (whether they know it or not) already displaying signs that they are in a death spiral: negative birth-to-death ratios, aging populations, rising poverty, and lack of educational attainment.

Research has found that those with strong rural social identification are far more likely to promote anti-intellectualism—a distrust of intellectuals and experts (the psychological identification was the causal driver here, not simply living in a rural location). There seems to be some malignant conflation between the rejection of expert advice and independence, freedom, and autonomy. One author aptly described this scorn for facts as, “a new Declaration of Independence: no longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true.”

This contempt for expertise is concentrated in areas where such attitudes do the most long-term damage. NEW NIMBYism is a specific threat to rural communities, many of which have been in the death spiral for years. The 2020 Census captured this trend, documenting the first-ever decade of population loss in rural America. This loss was widespread; more than two-thirds of all nonmetropolitan counties lost population from 2010 – 2020 . Once population loss develops momentum, the pattern is predictable and difficult to reverse. Primary industries can no longer find employees. Schools are consolidated and banks shuttered. Local tax rates rise while government revenues shrink. More people leave. Public services suffer. Quality of life dwindles. Despite family roots and small-town charm, for most young people and families, communities in this spiral are flatly not an option due to the lack of quality schools, modern amenities, housing options, adequate healthcare, and job opportunities—that is, unless the community finds a way to reinvent itself.

Rural America must evolve to survive. When a community is insolvent, mostly vacant, and serves no role in the modern economy, it will simply vanish from map. One thing that does not stand still is the American economy.

Ways to move forward
NEW NIMBYism is not restricted to rural America. Such attitudes are less damaging to locations that are experiencing growth, but they are still regressive and stifle innovation and opportunity. In rural and urban areas alike, we must find a way to navigate this challenge. Standing still is not an option. But castigating those for or against a certain cause is equally unproductive. By resetting expectations and increasing communication, we can generate a healthier environment amongst private sector development, elected officials, and citizens.

• Raise the Bar
• Private Sector
  Companies and investors must evaluate community fit earlier in the due diligence process. There is no longer such thing as a slam-dunk development—a major project that moves forward with no opposition. A development you might perceive as a “no brainer” will likely still encounter some vocal detractors. Questions and concerns are not necessarily deal killers, but they must be identified early. Whether the challenges are justified or simply NEW NIMBY, staying ahead of the curve is critical. Attempting to make everyone happy is a fool’s errand, but meeting communities and neighbors where they are, within reason, is imperative to short- and long-term project success.
• Elected Officials
  We elect our leaders to act on our behalf. That includes doing the homework, separating fact from fiction, and making decisions—even unpopular ones—that are in the best interests of the overall community and its future. Serving as a local elected official is a thankless job, but in this moment, we need our elected officials to rise to the challenge. In most situations, even those involving newly emerging technologies and industries, information and experts are available. Likewise, other communities that have navigated similar development make great case studies. Elected officials must lean into learning for two critical reasons: 1) to cast votes that reflect the best possible information, and 2) to play a role in increasing the understanding of the electorate—including fighting misinformation—throughout public planning and decision-making processes.


• The Citizenry
  Democracy requires active participation. Every citizen who wishes to have a voice in their community must assume the individual responsibility of engaging in the process. This engagement must occur consistently and over time; coming forward at the eleventh hour is counterproductive and unfair to our neighbors. The processes are often imperfect but that is not an excuse to fail to participate. Each year across the country, countless public discussions are held to discuss planning, zoning, local finances, challenges, development opportunities, community needs, and ideas across the spectrum for each community’s future. Show up. Call or email your elected officials. Encourage your neighbors to do the same.



NEW NIMBY Defined: "I call it NEW NIMBY: No Expertise Wanted."

• Educate & Communicate
• Re-embrace Expertise
  We must return to a place where we generally trust experts with specialized knowledge that most of us simply do not have. We should ask lots of questions and seek to better our understanding. But we must also acknowledge our own limitations and accept that those limitations do not somehow erode our freedom or autonomy. To put it in historical context, through the arc of human history it is expertise that enabled civilization to progress from the stone age to the modern age. In other words, “we prosper because we specialize, and because we develop mechanisms, practices, and institutions that allow us to trust each other in those specializations8.”


• Communication as Elixir
  All three groups—private sector, elected officials, and citizens—must elevate the quality and frequency of communication. For the private sector, this often looks like community workshops and neighbor outreach. In addition to the general mechanics of government, elected officials should seek out complementary ways to connect with residents and businesses to share ideas and discuss important topics; this could take the form of town hall meetings and educational sessions. Public sessions that involve multiple governmental bodies and agencies are encouraged. For example, a joint meeting of the county’s executive body and the planning board could be called. Both groups, along with the public, could learn from experts and discuss important topics together.

The private sector and government should intentionally use engagement methods that allow all segments of the population to participate. For example, meetings held at certain times of the day or in certain locations work well for some and are impossible for others. Hold meetings in multiple locations and varying times of day to allow for broad participation. If language or cultural barriers exist, find ways to bridge those gaps. Further, broadening outreach is key to capturing the feelings of the entire community; projects like housing and transit create benefits for citizens far beyond the immediate construction zone. Capturing the opinion of someone who may utilize public transit every day must be prioritized just like the perspective of someone owning property along the route.

Finally, the public must do its part by showing up with the intent to learn and respectfully share perspectives with fellow residents and elected officials. Members of the public must strive to better understand the topic at hand but also better understand themselves. Whether someone is for or against an issue, is that position driven by preferences, economic interests, or a missing piece of information? As citizens, we should communicate with neighbors, elected officials, experts, and the private sector to find answers, fill in gaps in understanding, and gain appreciation for differing opinions, even if they are at odds with our own.

• Be Honest
  When communicating effectively, everyone involved has an obligation to be honest—with each other and themselves. If someone lacks knowledge or expertise, it is important to acknowledge it. In addition, even the best project has pros and cons, challenges, and potential tradeoffs. Discussing these items openly reinforces trust and keeps communication channels open. The whole point of improving communication is to help everyone develop a better understanding of the facts. Sometimes the answers are readily available. Other times, everyone needs to go on a learning journey together. Embrace learning while also establishing reasonable timelines to avoid standstills that stunt progress.


• Facts Must Win the Day
  Each participant in the discussion has the responsibility to differentiate facts from preferences or opinions and to separate facts from misinformation. This can be difficult, as passion for one’s community brings emotions into the mix. While passion can be positive, public policy must be based on facts. Relying on experts is indispensable. For those doing their own research, the basics we all learned in middle school remain the gold standard: evaluate sources and use only those that are credible, educate yourself on differing opinions, and rely on conclusions shared by most experts. When the dust settles, elected officials must cast votes that determine the future in each community. These decisionmakers must reject misinformation and establish public policy based on the facts; anything less is a disservice to current residents and future generations.



Need for Communication: "We must return to a place where we generally trust experts with specialized knowledge."

• Understand the Limitations of Public Discourse
  The public process is core to our systems, but we must acknowledge its limitations.


• The makeup of participants in the public process is usually not demographically representative of the community. For example, research indicates that, among other deficiencies, women, younger residents, and renters are typically underrepresented among citizens speaking out at public meetings. Older, more affluent citizens have the time and resources to show up at meetings. This paints a picture of public opinion for elected officials and the media that does not account for large portions of the community and may be strongly disassociated with the true feelings of the overall populace.


• In general, the NIMBYs that are opponents of a project can easily find each other and organize, as they are often neighbors. Because development is occurring in their neighborhood, these individuals are more aware of the project—in many cases, they are legally required to be informed as nearby property owners. In addition, they have often lived at the same location longer10 than the average citizen. However, the beneficiaries of the project are likely more spread out or not yet residents of the community. This allows opposition groups to form quickly while those who would support or benefit from the project lack the opportunity to organize (or the awareness that they even need to do so). For example, a project that helps keep the cost of electricity down will have some beneficiaries nearby, but the majority will be residents across the region who live in different jurisdictions and have no idea they need to participate in the discussion. With a housing or economic development project, it is impossible to know who all the future residents and workers will be. While the unidentified beneficiaries in most cases far outnumber the group of detractors, the latter can voice their opinions while the former is frequently invisible and voiceless.

While I believe in the value of a public process, some3 suggest the process is fundamentally flawed, arguing the process which was intended to increase inclusivity has created more exclusivity by giving those with influence even more control. Due to these factors, elected officials must account for the reality that while the sentiment most expressed during public meetings will almost certainly be against development, that attitude is not necessarily representative of the needs and opinions of the actual community as a whole. This makes the extra engagement and outreach efforts described above critical to capturing comprehensive public input.

NEW NIMBYs all have one thing in common—aversion to something different. Yet NIMBY or not, every one of us also has something in common—we want what’s best for our families, our livelihoods, and our quality of life. By focusing on this common ground, we can all work together to support resilient communities and a thriving economy.

Jacob Everett is the Founder of Corsa Strategies, which provides site selection and incentive advisory services across North America as well as leadership in renewable energy. He has 15 years of experience working at the intersection of the public and private sectors. Jacob is a Certified Economic Developer (CEcD) accredited by the International Economic Development Council and a graduate of the University of Oklahoma’s Economic Development Institute. Jacob writes and speaks nationally on site selection, real estate, economic development, and energy.