NIMBY means Not In My Backyard. In other words, build stuff all you want as long as you don't do it near me, where it will bring traffic and crowds in its wake.
It's a powerful force, but over the past couple of decades a counterforce has been steadily growing that blames NIMBY for slow growth and high living costs in big American cities. It is, naturally, called YIMBY, for Yes In My Backyard. A couple of nights ago it seemed like it finally got its big breakthrough when Barack Obama endorsed it in primetime at the DNC. Kamala Harris is also a fan.
Robert Kwasny tweeted about this yesterday and Alex Tabarrok picked up the theme today:
Kwasny also wonders why Democrats seem to have picked up YIMBY more than Republicans, especially given that deregulation, anti-zoning, pro-growth, pro-developers would seem more compatible with Republican rhetoric and political support.
It's worse than that. It's not just that Republicans haven't "picked up YIMBY." Republicans are absolutely dead set against it.
To understand why, you have to look past the intellectual roots of YIMBYism among libertarians and instead look further back to the original political roots of NIMBYism. It's a movement that unquestionably started in the suburbs, and suburbia has historically been a Republican stronghold. These folks moved to the suburbs for a reason: they liked living in an uncrowded, single-family sprawl. They decidedly didn't want city life sneaking back into their peaceful, grassy neighborhoods where they get to own their own homes instead of renting a few rooms from a landlord.
Democrats, by contrast, have recently become more open to YIMBYism because they have political roots among the young, who push YIMBYism—largely in the form of opposing regulations that restrict new housing—as a solution for high housing prices in cities. These new urbanists also promote greenfield development in suburbs, but their big focus is on infill development in cities.
For Democrats, this is a bit of a balancing act, but for Republicans it's not. They don't care about young people in cities but they care very much about middle-aged families in suburbia. So it's easy for them to oppose anything that has even a chance of ruining paradise.
And they have. Republicans in recent years have relentlessly accused Democrats of wanting to squash everyone into crowded apartment buildings in cities. They make conspiracy theories out of things like Agenda 21, a milquetoast UN program for sustainable development. They oppose bike lanes and trains and mass transit because suburbanites all drive cars.
None of this has to do with ideology or attitudes toward regulation on either side. It's based purely on the demands of each party's political base. This has moved Democrats cautiously in the direction of YIMBYism (cautiously because plenty of Democrats are suburbanites) and Republicans firmly in the direction of opposition.
In the end, most of the second-order arguments for YIMBYism (density is good for the economy, density is good for the climate, density is good for social interaction, etc.) are meaningless. There's only one argument that matters: housing is too expensive in desirable American cities and lots of young people voters believe we need to build way more in order to get the price down. Even now, this is almost universally opposed by people who actually live in cities, so it all boils down to one thing: Who gets to decide? Should the people who live in a neighborhood have the biggest say about what gets built? Or should it be the outsiders who want to move into the neighborhood?
That's a very pretty question, actually, and there's no clear answer. It's pretty obvious what the arguments are on each side, and equally obvious that both sides have legitimate stakes.
Barack Obama aside, I'm skeptical that the Democratic Party is really willing to spend a lot of political capital on YIMBYism. As an applause line it's fine. But in the real world it's primarily a local issue, not a national one, and local Democrats want to get reelected as much as anyone else. Even in California, which has by far the worst housing problem in the country, YIMBY legislation has come slowly and painfully, and it's been fought tooth and nail at every step. So far, even with legislation, YIMBY has had very little real-world impact yet. There's just too much opposition to it.
POSTSCRIPT: On a related note, YIMBYism has had its biggest concrete successes in the fight against homelessness. Los Angeles in particular has passed bond measures, thrown up agencies with thousands of workers, and spent billions and billions of dollars on it. And yet, even so it's nearly impossible to build homeless shelters. Why? Not because of money or lack of political will. Because of NIMBY. That's how strong it is.
Alas, another term for in fill in cities is gentrification.
Infill frequently happens in non-poor neighborhoods. Not in RICH neighborhoods, but in neighborhoods prosperous enough that gentrification is not an applicable concept.
It can also be latter stages of gentrification. The "urban pioneers" have fixed up the remaining old buildings, clubs have started up, vibrant night-life, young couples want to move there--so more housing is needed. Then older people move in and the young couples have kids--and now they don't like the noise any more...
No it's not.
YIMBY is starting to take hold a bit. in my city the mayor is pretty YIMBY and got into a fight with the city council, which tried to stop a development citing gentrification. Eventually the mayor won.
We changes zoning so that people could build duplexes and triplexes again (people were able to build them up until the 60s, so plenty of old ones already exist). Some old people decided that meant the city would take their homes and tear them down. Umm, no. Not at all. But the change to zoning hasn't done much, since construction costs are so high that no one wants to buy a Duplex for the amount it costs to build one. The can get a single family home next door for less.
The big wins are apartment buildings due to reduced parking requirements. People scream about traffic increases, but it ends up just fine after they get built.
The thing I find most hilarious about the NIMBY folks in the suburbs is that it has started to bite the older ones in the you-know-where. They don't want their McMansion anymore, but they also want to stay in the neighborhood. But there are no new condos for them to move into! Just a handful of ancient ranch homes built before the zoning was changed to build their giant suburb. Oh, well.
With the entire country built for the automobile, we put the "BY" in both phrases.
Once you have a backyard, you like it. Its going to take a lot more than speeches to turn around this ocean liner, as the US built this way for over 100 years.
Its not easy to reverse that kind of momentum, the first step, which is gentrification of urban neighborhoods is starting, but that's only a first step.
The claim that YIMBYs are trying to force people to live in cities is backwards. The *current zoning regime* is what's forcing people to live in ways they don't want, by creating an artificial shortage of multifamily housing in dense, walkable urban neighborhoods, thereby forcing people who want to live urban to go live suburban instead.
YIMBY supports letting the market create enough housing to give all would-be homebuyers what they want, whether that's an urban lifestyle or a suburban one.
Also, the claim that it's opposed by people who actually live in cities is false. Plenty of urbanites are NIMBYs but lots of others have decided that bringing rents down and reaping the benefits of density is worth the nuisance of construction, traffic, and changing neighborhoods, which is why YIMBY politicians are winning elections.
NIMBYism is incredibly shortsighted and selfish, prioritizing incumbent homeowners' aversion to change over economic growth, shifting the economy to a more sustainable footing, and the ability of the young to attain the American Dream. More people are waking up to that, which is why YIMBY is gaining.
The issue isn't totally partisan, either. Donald Trump is a NIMBY and this year's Republican platform is NIMBY, but a number of Republican pols, including Montana governor Greg Gianforte, are YIMBY and have participated in YIMBY reforms.
But its also resulting in massive drops of children in urban centers.
https://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-young-kids-families-fleeing-big-cities-urban-doom-loop-2024-7
I live in a totally walkable neighborhood of San Diego. Within 10 minutes - on foot - of my home are dozens of restaurants, two large grocery stores, three banks, a post office, a dentist, etc. I love it here, which is why the entire NIMBY movement is totally baffling to me. Why wouldn't someone want to live in a place like this?
How many Latinos are in your neighborhood?
There's your answer.
Probably half of the local population.
So you might have a point? But I'm not sure what it is.
Why wouldn't someone want to live in a place like this?
I reckon the percentage of the population that hates dense walkability (the only kind of walkability there is) is declining. But it's very far from zero: a lot of Americans strongly prefer single family detached homes on large lots, even at the price of having to fire up the SUV every time they need milk or bread. This preference is puzzling to me, as well: even if I had a very large and beautiful house, I'd still prefer to have things I can walk to.
Single family detached homes are not incompatible with walkability (though large lots are). Think of the classic American small town or the many former street car suburbs now considered part of the urban fabric in cities all across the country.
The problem with having things you can walk to is that you have to have too many neighbors to support those things. I live on four acres in an area where that is the minimum lot size. One consequence of this is that the nearest grocery store is several miles away (I don't, BTW, drive a SUV).
It's worth it for the peace and quiet.
"... they liked living in an uncrowded, [unblack] single-family sprawl. "
I mean, lets be serious here.
I don't know. I like enough elbow room that to my perception the typical suburb is grossly overcrowded (a house needs at least an acre, preferably two or three) but I'm entirely indifferent to the skin color of my neighbors.
Many of the 'burbs started out with covenants barring you from selling your property to minorities. Those are no longer enforceable, but their effect lingers.
Black flight is also a thing. When black families became wealthy enough they also fled the cities.
When someone buys a house, there are several factors in play to reach a decision. How many rooms, what the schools are like, access to commercial and recreational facilities, microclimate, and the density of the area.
YIMBYs are out to negate that latter preference, making it unobtainable.
Low density housing is always available. Low density housing close to the core of a major city is not always available, and to obtain low density housing necessarily means accepting less amenities in your immediate neighborhood.
Yep. The natural pattern of development, if no zoning codes get in the way of the market, is high density in the urban center with progressively lower density as you go farther out. The price of living in a low-density area is a longer commute, but those who want to choose it always can.
I wasn't thinking commute. I was thinking more like "a few hundred miles from the nearest major city".
Is it really YIMBY or is it YIYBY?
I have zero problems with YIMBYs. It's YIYBYs that are a problem. And it's increasingly including some of the latter. The "missing middle" pushes in expensive suburbs around DC are led primarily by young people who do NOT live in these towns, want to, but can't (yet) afford to. Never mind that I and many other homeowners there had to wait until our late 40s to be in a financial position to buy there; they want it right the f____ now. And progressive leaders in these areas--and they're very progressive, which is one of the things that makes these places such great and desirable places to live--are too afraid to push back because these angry YIYBYs are getting pretty politically organized and powerful.
And 95% of those young YIMBYs or YIYBYs *also* don't want a homeless shelter built next door to their home, even if they won't admit it.
NIMBY is the most bipartisan issue in America. In order to lower the cost of housing the most influential voting block, homeowners, will have to agree on taking a downgrade on their most valuable asset. I don't see how that happens.
How does allowing duplexes/triplexes into a single-family neighborhood downgrade the value of the existing housing?
If you like YIMBY go to Houston. You will no longer be against zoning.
Having lived in Houston for a long time and owned multiple houses there, the no/less zoning nature of Houston is one of its strengths. Houston does have building and planning regulations, so it isnt the 'no zoning' paradise/hellscape that its detractors like to pretend it is.
Houston is built in a swamp and the weather is amongst the worst in the US...but it has done a lot of things right. The NIMBY spirit is pretty strong in Houston and many people make the case for Nimby'ism by promoting zoning in the name of health, safety and beauty. This is always the siren call of the Nimbys.
I have heard that Homeowners' Associations create de-facto zoning in neighborhoods where they exist in Houston. This creates carveouts for NIMBY types in the city even as the city government doesn't do much land use regulation.
Houston does have building and planning regulations, so it isn't the 'no zoning' paradise/hellscape that its detractors like to pretend it is.
People are grossly under-informed wrt housing and development. The existence of local standards that promotes abundant housing doesn't mean there are no standards at all, or safety regulations, or environmental protections. It just means the regulations are implemented in such a way as to avoid interfering with the production of new housing. There's a very wide space between Atherton, California and a Mad Max dystopia.
I would note that NIMBY also happens in rural areas. The difference is that the projects being opposed tend to be infrastructure rather than housing development. People don't want pipelines, or wind farms, or highways, or powerlines, just to name a few examples, in their back yards.
not sure what Kevin is talking about - pretty sure that Texas and Montana are pretty conservative and they full on YIMBY. My understanding is texas cities contain suburbs.
Should the people who live in a neighborhood have the biggest say about what gets built? Or should it be the outsiders who want to move into the neighborhood?
How about neither? How about: we make the default that people can do what they want with their own property provided it's safe—at least when it comes to the production of housing*? If those 32 townhouses are safe (built to code), you get a building permit. Period. This doesn't mean there can't be rules that govern any or all manner of specifics (density, height restrictions if any, parking, minimum lot size etc). But it should mean those rules are (1) reasonable, and (2) set at the state and not local level. And it also should mean, if those 32 townhouses qualify under the rules, you get your damn building permit. In other words, predictable and rules-based.
That's a very pretty question, actually, and there's no clear answer.
The "clear" answer is: allow housing to be built because not doing so creates too many problems. There's also a constitutional issue, though YIMBYs haven't tried to use it yet AFAIK: article 4 guarantees the right of interstate migration. It would be a blatant violation of the constitution if California passed a law explicitly prohibiting this. But in effect that's what states are doing via their house building regulations—they're just relying on the price mechanism rather than cruder measures. So it's not quite so blatant. But many states have effectively crunched in-migration. The data on this are inarguable.
*I don't think I'm history's greatest YIMBY monster. That is, I don't fail to recognize the high value citizens understandably place on some degree of continuity or predictability with respect to their local environment. Nor do I deny the existence of negative externalities flowing from development. Thus I reckon it's acceptable to allow a greater deal of NIMBY power when it comes to commercial development. But housing's a basic human need, so the NIMBY bar should be set very high in this sector. Also, the plain reality is we don't have a problem with under capacity in commercial structures. The US is widely thought to be the most "over-retailed" country, and we're likewise awash in office space. But that's certainly not the case with respect to housing. Indeed, it's pretty clear NIMBYIsm vis-a-vis housing is one of the reasons we're "over" retailed or officed: the typical pattern of local revenue-raising in the United States means municipalities need to allow some development of land. But over the years in many locations commercial development has become more attractive than residential development. The latter creates population increase, doncha know? And we can't have that!
How much power should neighborhood associations have on what gets approved? In rich neighborhoods, associations block development incompatible with what is conceived to be in conflict with property values. In poor neighborhoods, associations are railroaded to displace poor people with expensive market-rent apartment.
It's not an easy answer.
excuse the brain farts caused by switching back and forth between watching/listening to the DNC and writing.
I have a suggestion as to how to avoid this controversy. Why don't we build the necessary housing for the people that need it on available land or by converting available buildings. If that's too costly just tax us more to offer incentives or to let the state build them. I'm a democrat. I'll pay more taxes for a societal good. What's the problem?
That Republicans are against regulation and government oversight has always been the biggest misrepresentation in American politics.
This narrative is always used to sell other, preferred regulations and oversight. Those people always need regulation and oversight. Hell, those people cant even be trusted with low taxes.
Its always been a very thinly disguised con.
When you are talking about "homeless shelters" as a solution to homelessness, you have already failed.
Republicans aren't really the party of deregulation. They don't like regulations that restrict what businesses and powerful individuals can do privately, and they like regulations that let businesses and powerful individuals protect their interests. The more powerful you are, the more regulations should benefit you. 1% > affluent > suburban > urban.
On the Democratic side, it's a bit of a hodgepodge. There are factions that believe that regulations should promote the most good. Some want the most good for all people, some want the most good for the most vulnerable. And there are those who still want to use power to protect their interests and the interests of their friends. That's why you see debate about this (home building regulations) on the democratic side and lockstep opposition on the Republican side.
> Should the people who live in a neighborhood have the biggest say about what gets built?
This is the framing but I don't think it really works that way in practice. Land use is restricted city-wide and actual neighborhood residents have little say. I do agree they tend to be NIMBY as well, but this is also a selection bias of activists with lots of time. Let me give an example from when I lived in Austin:
Ability to build anything but single family homes is highly restricted. And in the limited cases where there are some possibilities, "neighborhood contact teams" get to weigh in and the boards that approve projects give a lot of deference to their input. But who are these neighborhood contact teams? Typically 4-7 people that live in the area in question. And how do you get onto that team? Well, if a seat is free then only the existing members can choose new members. So in fact, this is 4-7 retired NIMBYs and there is no way that any other point of view gets into the mix. There's no neighborhood vote. There's no means for younger person or someone who thinks duplexes are nice or renters to be represented.
A few committed NIMBYs with political connections control the discourse, and the policy, which I suppose is sort of a reflection of our system of government in general!
Personally I just believe that a variety of types of structures should be at least legal to build under SOME condition. Why not allow a small 4 unit design on a double lot? Why not allow a bodega or other small business on feeder roads? I'm not talking no questions asked, but just legalize the possibility and judge requests on their merits.
One crack in the NIMBY wall--grandparent houses.
"And yet, even so it's nearly impossible to build homeless shelters. Why? Not because of money or lack of political will. Because of NIMBY. That's how strong it is."
So much for the alleged Christianity of the United States....
good group -- https://www.reddit.com/r/fuckcars/comments/rxoej1/welcome_to_rfuckcars/
+1
Should the people who live in a neighborhood have the biggest say about what gets built? Or should it be the outsiders who want to move into the neighborhood?
Or, to run with the Republican arguments in every other instance, should the owner of each individual piece of property get to decide what to do with it? This issue exposes the utter hypocrisy of conservative arguments that government regulations are EVIL, and must be destroyed. They are actually just fine with regulations that provide what they want.