I agree with your conclusion, and I would also add that, in a sense, the genie of public participation is already out of the bottle. People like you and I are using communicative technologies that Jane Jacobs could only have dreamed of. Even if we wanted to cancel those meetings and cut the microphone off in the middle of a rant, the public will still find a way to be intimately involved. As they should be.

Your point that understanding of NIMBYism rests not in planning but in political theory is accurate and incisive. Underpinning many of the ideas you’ve just expressed is the logic of collective action (which is also the title of a brilliant book by Mancur Olson). It’s really pretty simple – small groups with concentrated interests will form easier, lobby harder, and be more successful than very large groups with diffuse interests. The sugar lobby is a common example here; a very small group of US sugar producers gain millions (billions?) from protective tariffs, while 300 million US consumers are forced to pay a few extra cents on anything they eat that contains sugar. The tariffs remain because the small group cares more than the large group.

Likewise, with NIMBYism, the people who scream and wail are the ones with the most to lose. Meanwhile, those who stand to benefit are much larger in number but not as committed. This is not easily combatted, but the involvement of elightened activists is critical. When it comes to tariffs, economists can be a strong force in opposition to inefficient tariffs designed to benefit the few at the cost of the rest of us. When it comes to development patterns, we need city planners and other activists (such as your blog readers) to work on behalf of the “correct” (efficient, enlightened, whatever euphemism you prefer) outcome as vehemently as the NIMBYs work for the status quo.

One more thought. An interesting thread of political theory involves the imperfections of democracy. One of the more salient criticisms is the idea that one person=one vote does not factor in the intensity of people’s preferences. If 51% of the people are mildly opposed to a policy, but 49% are enthusiastically for it, I think that the policy should be enacted, despite the simple will of the majority. The one positive thing to be said for NIMBYism is that it is one way of expressing intensity of preferences. The people in a neighborhood generally are the ones with the most to lose, so their complaints should not be ignored. However, they do need to be weighed against the benefits that could accrue to others. People like us need to be very vocal about those benefits to others, so that the merits of each side can be weighed appropriately.

Often citizens lack of understanding of the process leads to opposition in of itself and creates a hostility. So I’d definitely agree that if people had better information that you may resolve some NIMBY related issues. Though from the numerous public hearings and community meetings that I’ve watched it often seems there is a fear of change that is what really needs to be overcome.