As an elected official, how can one overcome the selfish "NIMBY" mentality of people to effect legislation?

Question

When it comes to airports, people will always say "Ugh, we don't want it here. Build it somewhere else." But then the people in "somewhere else" say the exact same thing, and meanwhile there are planes circling overhead, low on fuel and looking for a place to land.

Unless people want to revert to the way we use to live in the 1800s and take a week-long train ride to get from New York to California (or a two-week boat ride to get from Washington to London), then everyone would agree that we need airports, correct?

Shouldn't the federal and state governments have the authority to build, upgrade, and expand public airports as necessary, with complete immunity to public opposition?

It's a virtual certainty that people are going to oppose expansion of an airport, but as unpleasant as it is, it needs to be done. Air travel is the backbone of the world economy.

Is this a cynical point of view?

Answer 1

People will oppose a lot of things, then gripe when the great spirit of "inconvenience" enters their lives. We all want to use computers which are powered by electricity. But, no one wants an electrical power generating plant anywhere near them. We all want to be free to tootle around the countryside in our own cars and receive catalog and e-tail merchandise via a fleet of vans and delivery trucks. But, we haven't built a new refinery in thirty years, leaving the same crowd to gripe about the price of gasoline.
Air travel may well be the "backbone of the economy" as you have stated it. But, there are too many people treating it as an aerial Greyhound bus, paying little attention to simple rules meant to make flying safer and more comfortable for all. Worse than those who oppose airport expansion are those who follow up on the airport expansion by buying a house very close to that airport and then griping about all the noise.

Answer 2

It's not cynical. It's expediant, though.

You say 'without regard to public opposition'. Well, what if I own the land that the government wants to expand on? Do they get to set the price? Can they force me to sell? If this causes capital gains, am I then forced to pay taxes on the profit? What if they offer me less than market value? What if the property has been in my family for 5 generations, and I don't want to sell it? What if.....?

The list could continue forever. Whenever you say 'immunity to public opposition' , you open the door to graft and dishonesty. A public official could take someone's land out of spite, or take it when it wasn't needed.

Generally speaking, I wouldn't say that 'air travel is the backbone of the world's economy'. As a matter of fact, I'd say it's about 3rd or 4th on the list. Things that rank higher:

1. Telecommunications.
2. Ocean going cargo ships.
3. 'Open' borders and 'free' trade.
4. Air travel (maybe).

Answer 3

Imminent domain has pretty well taken care of what the people want. That is a non-issue anymore. The government can condemn perfectly beautiful homes for some investor to build bigger, more expensive homes because it increases the revenue for the city/county/state now which was previously not allowed. So I'm sure if a larger airport is needed, the people are not going to stop it. Wanting to protect your home is not selfish or NIMBY. Its completely normal.