If one were to argue that it’s wrong to desire a picturesque neighborhood populated by affluent individuals who can comfortably afford expensive housing, it seems that most Americans would disagree. This poses a significant challenge for the YIMBY (“Yes in My Backyard”) movement, a diverse group of scholars, policymakers, and grassroots activists who believe that constructing new homes in prosperous cities and towns is highly beneficial. The YIMBY movement has been enormously successful as an intellectual pursuit and for good reason. There is overwhelming evidence that increasing housing supply to meet demand promotes economic growth and upward mobility. There are even indications that reducing local land-use regulations could help address the decline of marriage among working-class families. Among economists and legal scholars who study land use, the debate over zoning reform is essentially settled.
However, despite its intellectual success, the YIMBY movement has struggled to gain support from skeptical voters who associate new homes with new neighbors and potential issues. California, where YIMBY lawmakers have made significant progress, serves as a prime example. Although the California state legislature has passed measures to combat restrictive local land-use regulations since 2016, resulting in an increase in accessory dwelling units, many Californians vehemently oppose these housing initiatives. The state still faces a housing affordability crisis that is forcing numerous low- and middle-income families to leave. There is a genuine risk that voters will roll back these reforms through a ballot measure in 2024.
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a prominent advocate for YIMBYism, conducted focus groups and surveys in order to understand why California voters have been so resistant. Their findings, published in a report last year, reveal that while most respondents embrace diversity, they express concerns about affordable housing negatively impacting their neighborhoods. They worry about potential issues such as crime, noise, litter, and property upkeep if poorer neighbors move in. This skepticism is not exclusive to California. Similar proposals for zoning reform in New York, Colorado, Arizona, and Texas have also been unsuccessful.
This does not mean that the YIMBY movement is doomed. However, to sway more Americans to their cause, YIMBYs should perhaps adopt a different approach, one that involves less lecturing and more listening. Some of the most dedicated YIMBY proponents have taken a moralistic stance, denouncing homeowners who resist change as snobs or bigots. They also advocate for drastic legislative actions that strip local governments of their land-use authority and further limit landlords’ freedom to choose tenants. Richard Kahlenberg’s book, “Excluded,” perfectly captures this attitude. Kahlenberg argues not only against exclusionary zoning on practical grounds but also as a matter of moral outrage. He characterizes it as classist and implicitly racist, calling for a moral campaign supported by the federal government, similar to the fight against Jim Crow laws. He proposes an Economic Fair Housing Act that would enable lawsuits against zoning policies that discriminate against the poor or have a disproportionate impact by class. Judges would determine what qualifies as necessary. This would effectively ban single-family zoning and potentially threaten other zoning policies as well. It primarily relies on intimidating local governments with the threat of expensive lawsuits based on vague, subjective legal standards.
While this argument may resonate with certain social justice progressives, it is unlikely to persuade homeowners and renters who fear changes in their neighborhoods. Chris Elmendorf, a land-use law professor at UC Davis, warns that framing zoning reform as an economic justice issue may backfire. Wealthy suburbanites might resist being characterized as racially biased but be more receptive to the notion of class-based prejudice. Opponents of new housing in their communities are not necessarily enlightened, but they are not deluded either. Exclusionary zoning is a strategy to enhance the local tax base by employing land-use regulations to attract affluent residents and deter poorer ones. Local public services primarily depend on local property taxes and other municipal revenues. Certain newcomers contribute more in local revenues than they require in services, but others do not. These fiscal pressures fundamentally shape America’s fragmented metropolitan landscape. The practice of “white flight” during the postwar era was driven in part by fiscal considerations. As poor Black migrants moved to urban centers, affluent white families fled to suburban jurisdictions with higher average incomes. This was less motivated by racial animosity than by concerns about sharing fiscal obligations with lower-income neighbors. Moving to the suburbs allowed white households to separate themselves from changing local public goods and fiscal responsibilities.
Given these fiscal incentives, it is almost inevitable to encounter NIMBYism in small suburban communities. Instead of relying on moral persuasion to change the zoning politics in these areas, YIMBYs should adopt a more realistic approach that seeks compromise. One effective way to win over suburban homeowners is to implement housing reforms that benefit them, as suggested by Elmendorf. For instance, legalizing accessory dwelling units allows regular homeowners to profit and creates public sympathy, unlike large-scale developers. This strategy also allows YIMBYs to convey a more positive message centered on property rights and personal freedom, which has helped pass zoning reforms in Oregon, Utah, and Montana.
When facing determined resistance in suburban areas, such as downstate New York where Governor Hochul’s Housing Compact faced significant opposition, YIMBYs should concentrate their efforts on reducing land-use regulations in larger cities. Opposition to housing production is often less intense in populous jurisdictions due to the difficulty in changing the ratio of rich to poor residents. Urban neighborhoods are more dynamic and experience higher levels of housing turnover, making neighborhood transformations a regular occurrence. If zoning reform proves successful in urban cores, the case for housing growth in smaller communities will become more compelling.
YIMBYs should also consider cultivating large employers as political allies, even if it may conflict with the beliefs of progressive anti-business individuals. Lower housing costs are attractive to businesses as they help attract and retain workers. Furthermore, large employers can wield substantial influence in state legislatures. If employers understand the benefits of housing reform, they can play a vital role in advocating for change.
In conclusion, the YIMBY movement faces a significant challenge in persuading skeptical voters to support their cause. A more effective approach involves listening to concerns, compromising with suburban homeowners, promoting reforms that benefit individuals, and collaborating with large employers. By adapting these strategies and adjusting their messaging, YIMBYs can increase their chances of successfully advocating for housing reform.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
