BillHustonBlog: "NIMBY" is really PR propaganda to justify a new Corporate Colonialism

The Wikipedia article for NIMBY was written from a largely PR perspective.

I've made changes to the following section, expanding on the toxic effects,
and also adding a very important section on local autonomy against
foreign (non-local) development, as we are seeing here.

I am letting you know about these edits because

These edits can go away overnight
(PS you can become a Wikipedia editor and help keep the page with a neutral point of view!!)
The term NIMBY is a very powerful tool against us.

We all need to understand the hidden premises behind NIMBY
is in fact a justification for a corporate colonialism,
where local people are exploited as a trade colony (Big-box retail)
and local lands/air/water are made toxic by foreign corporations
while they extract our mineral wealth and other natural resources
without regard to quality-of-life effects.

Here is the old Wikipedia article on NIMBY about our perspective:

Those opposed to development might argue against increases in local traffic, harm to small business, loss of property value, environmental degradation, loss of a community's small-town feel, strain of public resources and schools, disproportionate benefit to non-locals or new residents, increases in crime, and failure to "blend in" with the surrounding architecture.

=========== after my edits ============

Against development / For local sovereignty

Those labeled as NIMBYs are often mischaracterized as being against development, when in fact they hold strong principles of self-governance, local sovereignty, local autonomy, and home rule. That is, that the interests of local people should have the final determination as to development, and not corporations with distant investors. Such a corporate system where the natural resources and trade of local people are exploited is a form of modern Colonialism^[11]. They often cite examples of how development historically has caused increases in local traffic, often truck traffic; harm to small business; loss of residential property value, and thus municipal tax revenue; environmental degradation, such as toxic pollution of land, air, and water, light pollution, noise pollution, visual blight, and other quality of life losses; loss of a community's small-town feel; strain of public resources and schools; disproportionate benefit to non-locals; increases in crime; and failure to "blend in" with the surrounding architecture.