What I am reading from Wiz and others - apologies if I'm not understanding - is that many use the "NIMBY" term to malign any and all opposition to any type of project or "development," and that such use does not allow for differences ("nuances") in the substance of the concerns voiced by affected citizens. The devil is in the details ... you want to put a 40-unit building for low-income tenants into an area with adequate roads and public transportation and schools that are not overcrowded ... go for it with a comprehensive plan. You want to put an 18000 (?) seat arena into an area with limited road access, water on one or two sides, and a much-too-small subway station? And your plan is based on imaginary revenue projections and lacks the necessary adjustments to transport options? AND you want local taxpayers to support a multimillionaire if that revenue doesn't come in? I'd be a NIMBY too.
When it comes to development in a local area, there's a stark difference between opposing an arena plan (which provides minimal public good) and opposing other projects (such as housing, infrastructure, public utilities, public transportation, etc). Very few of the complaints opposing new arena construction fall into the "NIMBY" territory. However, NBTW wasn't simply rejecting the arena plan, NBTW was rejecting the whole concept of "NIMBY" to describe folks opposed to local development.
In this case, "nuances" are just reasons and rationale. Just because an individual has rationale for their stance doesn't mean that stance is above reproach, or that their reasons outweigh the benefits. It is absolutely justifiable to call someone out for their NIMBYism when they put concepts like "depressing the real estate market" and traffic as their concerns for opposing new housing development. There are even cartoonishly dumb NIMBY efforts,
citing property value as opposition to wind farming simply because people don't want to look at turbines from their beach houses. Especially considering the cycle that NIMBYism creates. "You can't build more houses here - we lack the schools!" leads to "I don't want to pay taxes for more schools, we have enough for our current population!" (You can replace either houses or schools with roads, utility plants, public transportation, or any number of other things in that previous example.) The NIMBY forces prevent any further public good from coming to their area because they're happy with the status quo, and aren't willing to make adjustments or sacrifices to help others who would benefit from the projects. This ties into numerous other issues that would start to stray much further off topic, but if you're interested look up Environmental Justice, Redlining, and opposition to various energy projects (both "green" and "traditional").
There's valid reasons to oppose construction of the arena. But folks should stick to focusing on those reasons, rather than trying to reject well established concepts as being "unwilling to listen to nuance."
