32- Not NIMBY

My neighbors and I have been accused of being opposed to RUPCO's project because we live nearby. I have cited a lack of safety as the main reason for my opposition to the proposal as it stands, and the sole reason for this blog.

I want to explain why this is not, and in fact IS the opposite of a NIMBY argument.

When somebody lives near a hazard, they are acutely aware of that hazard, and they become especially vigilant when close to that hazard. This vigilance becomes second nature.

Here is an example: When I was a child, there was carpeting in my bedroom, and right at the threshold to the room, there were one or two tacks sticking up from the floor. I NEVER stepped on them. Neither did anybody else in my family. It never occurred to us to fix this hazard because we all were trained, in some subconscious way, to step over that threshold. My parents should have fixed this hazard, but they didn't. All of my friends cried out in pain when they entered my room, but my response was, in line with my parents' practice, simply to tell them to be careful. This example shows us that people who live with and near hazards simply get used to them and avoid their dangers.

What this simple example shows us is that people UNfamiliar with the hazards of a particularly tricky intersection are going to be the ones who get hurt. The other people who will get hurt are the locals, those among us who deny that there is any real danger at the intersection of Route 212 and Playhouse Lane in Woodstock, New York.

When I drive through this intersection, the very fact that RUPCO might BE in my backyard is the reason I am going to be just fine.

And you? When you give your friends and loved ones driving directions, and they are busy making the left onto 212 from 375, busy reading the billboard as they do so, and busy admiring the playhouse, do you think they will have any awareness at all of the cars backing out of Playhouse Plaza?