President Obama and your $787 billion stimulus plan, meet the Bay State, where “shovel ready” generally refers to once promising development proposals ready to be interred six feet under.

Local ‘Not In My Back Yard’ bureaucrats and neighbors of all stripes have made the Bay State one of the most difficult places to build in the country.

But now, with the country tottering on the edge of another Great Depression, our state’s dubious reputation as a graveyard for ambitious projects may come back to ruin our already struggling local economy.

So if the Patrick administration really wants to ensure that Massachusetts gets the billions earmarked for the state, it needs to start getting tough – and start getting tough fast – with local communities that want to take their sweet time reviewing to death some of these badly needed projects.

One idea, put forth in a white paper by Robinson & Cole, a law firm that does a fair amount of development work, is both simple and powerful. If you drag your feet and won’t issue permits quickly and efficiently for one of these shovel-ready projects, the project gets taken off the list and your community loses the benefit of those precious federal dollars.

Still, if anything, it probably doesn’t go far enough, but more on that later.

‘Use It Or Lose It’

At stake is well more than $700 million just for transportation and public transit projects, and probably more. The Patrick administration’s list of “shovel-ready” projects ranges into the billions.

“With the Obama administration, their approach has been use it or lose it,” said Brian Blaesser, an attorney at Robinson & Cole’s Boston office who focuses on development issues. “We recognize this is an extraordinary time and there are some measures that need to go along with it.”

That NIMBYism is alive and well in Massachusetts, even amid the worst downturn since the 1930s, is beyond doubt.

Just take a look at that recent story in the Globe about neighbors on bucolic Sandy Valley Road in Westwood fighting, of all things, plans for a horse farm.

It’s the same spirit that generated hundred of meetings and countless reviews of the now near extinct Columbus Center project, whose developer had the temerity to propose building a mid-sized tower over an ugly highway canyon in downtown Boston.

Or, for that matter, the endless debate over how much parkland and public space should be incorporated into Boston’s Fan Pier waterfront project. After nearly three decades of endless talk, an office building fit for Route 128 is finally taking shape, though with no anchor tenant yet.

So you get the picture. While fortunately we don’t have some rock-headed Republican governor to thumb his nose at our new president, our state’s NIMBY culture could end up derailing this multibillion-dollar gift from Washington all the same.

Blame Local Government

“I think there is a history in this commonwealth of municipalities prolonging the process,” said David Begelfer, chief executive of Massachusetts NAIOP, which represents the local development industry. “The delays can be insurmountable when you have a project on the edge.”

Many of the supposedly “shovel-ready” projects on the list put together by the Patrick administration still need “multiple local approvals” before any work can start, the Robinson & Cole report notes.

The firm recommends that local communities be required to take action on permit applications within 30 days, and issue approvals within two months.

And if a community can’t meet those deadlines, then the Patrick administration’s newly appointed “stimulus czar” should be granted the authority to pull the funding for the project in question.

Town officials can then scramble to explain why they turned away all those construction jobs and all the money that would have poured into local shops and restaurants.

But the governor may need an even bigger stick than this to prod local officials to action.

The law firm also recommends granting the state’s chief executive the power to override local zoning and land-use controls to get some of these projects moving.

Of course, there’s a big catch to both ideas. In order to have the authority to get tough with local communities that still want to play the delaying game, the governor will need additional powers.

And that means action by the state Legislature, that great debating society where concrete action can be elusive.

The one hopeful development in this regard is the new House leader, Robert DeLeo, who appears ready to shed the obstructionist ways of his predecessor, Sal DiMasi.

We’ll see. It’s a very big caveat, to say the least.

The report also cannily recommends that a special Web site be created, ostensibly to give the public a chance to track these projects and weigh in on them.

Of course, it could also be a great way of building support for some of these plans, widening the discussion beyond the local town council chamber and the few local gadflies who turn out to blast the latest big development plan.

If anything, the report’s recommendations don’t go far enough. Why not bring back an idea that former Gov. Mitt Romney toyed with, but never had the political nerve to carry out?

If local towns and cities decide to give the usual NIMBY treatment to some of these badly needed stimulus projects, why not start cutting the amount of local aid they receive from the state?

That might sound extreme to some.

But with the future of our state’s economy hanging in the balance amid an historic downturn, it sounds just right to me.