[rdiddly]

Technology and "progress" are never without problems or externalities. And residents of MBY are the ones who deserve the right of self-determination regarding said BY. Including evaluating whether they are going to get proportionally enough benefit from a project to justify the costs they will inevitably bear from having it situated there. They have a right to be suspicious of EM radiation, or even downright superstitious. But what about the mere fact that it's simply an ugly-ass tower? Maybe they're just fine with 4G or even 3G service and they're like "no thanks." So your challenge is, how do you present the value proposition in any non-condescending and convincing way? If you don't agree with their reasons, fine, but then it's up to you to make an honest go of persuading them, and if they still don't go for it, oh well. Maybe try building it in your own BY. But the arrogance represented by your viewpoint is not going to win any battles or friends. "Oh my mistake, thank you so much for educating me!" is what nobody will say ever. They can be arrogant too, just as easily. And stubborn.

[adrianratnapala]

The problem with the term NIMBY is that it isn't really about anyone's back yard. It's about people who live somewhere trying to control what happens on nearby property.

You are trying to have it both ways by talking about both externalities and "self-determination regarding said BY". The latter makes if you are only "saying respect property" rights: let people have as many voodoo charms and do as crystal-power-empathetic-gardening as they like.

But if you say that their complaints can override the rights of others because of externalities, then there must be a rational case about about those externalities. Harm from radio waves doesn't have much rational case behind it.

[rdiddly]

"Back yard" is a figure of speech, just like it is in the acronym. The people of X should determine what happens in X, where X can be <land parcel>, <neighborhood>, <city>, <state> or <nation>. However as you can imagine, there are going to be conflicts between what the people of a larger entity want vs. what the people of a smaller contained entity want. The interests of the people of <state> might conflict with the interests of the people of <land parcel> for example. So it gets murky fast.

I happen to think we should try to err in favor of the smaller entity. Which takes care of a couple of problems: It satisfies property rights as you're saying. And it prevents a small entity from forcing its will on another comparably small entity by appealing to the larger entity that contains them both, which it sounds like you're also concerned about.

But the impact scope needs to be properly defined. Erring in favor of the smaller entity means you define the scope as small as possible. But to remain fair, go no smaller. For one of these towers, the scope of impact is probably <neighborhood>. That's how wide its transmit/receive radius will be (smaller than today's towers), and that's probably also how far you'll have to go until that particular tower isn't visible (which isn't a rational argument by the way, but an aesthetic one, probably lost on anyone born after 1990 and accustomed to seeing shitty towers everywhere).

My point wasn't the merits of any particular argument; I only brought that up to shock someone into realizing people can have contrary opinions, including for no good reason, and if you want to persuade them you have to meet them where they are, just like if you were selling a product to a customer.

[rayiner]

You don’t bother. You move to a neighborhood where people mind their own business and don’t mind a little infrastructure (or the occasional non-functioning auto) in their back yards.

[msh]

Well maybe a start could be not letting them complain about poor coverage.