37 Comments
Jan 18, 2022Liked by Noah Smith

"Of course, this just shows that YIMBYs will ultimately have to overcome a far more potent foe than Left-NIMBYs…namely, Right-NIMBYs."

I actually think that in this particular context, Right-NIMBYs will be a less potent foe than Left-NIMBYs, for the simple reason that Democrats control the local government in nearly all major American cities, and also the state governments of the states most in need of looser building restrictions. On this particular issue, the D vote - population density correlation actually helps for once, because Republican NIMBYs are simply less likely to be in a position of power in the places where it matters.

Expand full comment
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022

Mr Smith,

Hopefully you read your comments or someone who does communicates this to you. On this topic, there is an aspect from the historical housing response that is not being fully developed to address veterans homelessness & housing crisis, but one after effect of World War II was the housing boom fostered by the GI Bill.

Today, a similar opportunity exists to infill both urban and suburban communities which is veteran fourplexes. The VA allows a veteran to apply their VA Home Loan Mortgage up to a fourplex & in certain combined efforts with another veteran a fiveplex with a commercial space.

Here in Minnesota and also in Wisconsin, I’m having conversations, drafting legislation and advancing the idea that a veteran owned fourplex is a significant answer to not just address veterans homelessness but also equity both short and long-term, because homelessness likely doesn’t foster retirement planning.

Even a homeless veteran with a slight amount of assistance could qualify for a VA loan, because the VA recognizes 75% of the rental income in the credit/debt ratio and lenders can wave the credit score requirement. We are still trying to find a lender wise enough to make this a boilerplate loan system, maybe someone else is reading.

Home equity is the bedrock of our long-term economic stability. This means a veteran with a fourplex generates revenue, and also if applied to the rental picture is a veterans preference in these spaces, the process of helping veterans specifically and the new construction removes the pressures on the general low income housing stock.

Now, this community has a broad political appeal because they are owed a debt of gratitude for life, but the situation for those in need still exists. This is why we are proposing not just a place to live but also a community space for them and their fellow veterans to commune and receive job training, education and skill development.

Finally, there is no reason this concept cannot be extended to a person on welfare if the county providing assistance were to apply the same amount to be provided in the long-term to a person with dependents she could own her own fourplex move from dependency on the system to self-sufficiency become a property taxpayer and build confidence and improved self-worth.

For those who liked the play Hamilton this is an application of Alexander Hamilton’s concept of self-extinguishing debt, which is known worldwide as the American System.

Expand full comment
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022

I'd add in YIMBY-adjacent victories of parking minimums being removed. Buffalo did it few years back and St. Paul did it last year.

(St. Paul also just voted in sweeping max 3% rent increases (no inflation adjustment) that includes new construction, so there is whole other discussion around that - it's definitely halted almost all new MFH residential development here; nearly started projects lost financing, new interest gone, off to nearby towns)

Expand full comment

After we beat the left-NIMBYs, we can just hold our line. Build enough on the coasts and let the mouth breathers have their McMansions in Jesusland

Expand full comment

Here in California, the YIMBY cause has achieved some initial, albeit modest, gains at the state level. The question is whether this bodes well for the future, or instead will inspire a reaction that halts or even reverses progress.

Here's one thing that will determine the outcome: if YIMBYs think that NIMBYs are an implacable opposition that can be steamrollered. Both things are incorrect, and holding those views will serve to halt any further progress.

They can't be steamrollered because single family homeowners are a powerful force, most especially at the local level. (See the excellent book "Neighborhood Defenders" which makes that crystal clear.) And no matter what state laws are passed, here in California or elsewhere, the implementation will be controlled by city councils, local planning commissions and the like, where local citizens can and do make their voices heard. Even now, cities in California are floating proposals that will make the new densification laws toothless (e.g., requiring new multi-family housing -- even fourplexes or less -- to include affordable units, which would be a killer requirement).

But the first point is wrong as well: the NIMBY population is not a monolith nor is it implacably hostile to densification. The loudest ones are, but most SFH owners are pretty quiet, and many would go along with it if it included reasonable adjustments (e.g., smarter policies on parking). After all, in many of these cities, most of these residents lean liberal and are sympathetic to arguments for more equity and fairness.

The YIMBYs *can* win lots of these residents over *if* they're smart. What's a not-smart thing to do? Tell them that single family zoning is racist and that by implication (or worse) these residents are themselves racist -- the accusation that cannot be argued with. Do that, and whatever sympathy they have for the densification cause will disappear. Calling someone racist is the modern scarlet letter, and you use it at your peril. Instead, argue that their kids should be able to get more affordable residences, or that the police officers, firefighters, and teachers who serve them should be able to live nearby and avoid the kind of crushing commutes that they have escaped. There are lots of smart arguments one can make, and smart policies that will make greater density more palatable to those silent citizens.

Above all, don't pontificate inside the YIMBY bubble: everyone else can hear you, so your words matter.

Expand full comment

This "left-NIMBY Canon" thing hurts my head when I try to think about it. Building housing will raise rents? What?

Expand full comment
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022

> Nathan Robinson . . . whining that the word “NIMBY” is a slur.

Okay NIMBY.

Expand full comment

A balanced approach, along the lines suggested by Karkar, seems most likely to succeed. One can’t forget that NIMBY-ism exists in large part because a lot of people, liberal and conservative, rich and middle class, don’t want to live in dense neighborhoods. I know that’s hard for denizens of big cities to believe, but it’s true! You aren’t going to eradicate that sentiment no matter how convincing the public policy argument, and most of us don’t want to have to move to Texas for some elbow-room!

Expand full comment

This is perhaaaaps beside the point, but I'm still very skeptical about YIMBY's and their ability to do good development. I work in Charlotte, where development has SKYROCKETED in the past five years- it's one of the fastest growing regions in the south, and I can look on google maps and see the difference between when they went through the area I work in five years ago (almost no apartments/condos) and now (almost ten apartment buildings built into a very small, dense area of the city). Every time a new development is proposed, it's *just* apartments and a few businesses on the ground floor, there's no mention of parks, small business development- because those rents are very, very expensive- or tree cover protection. Charlotte had one of the best tree covers of any city in the Southeast, if not perhaps the country, and it's very steadily disappearing because these development companies are being allowed to go in and just level them. I think there are real historical, environmental, and quality-of-life concerns there that I haven't seen very many YIMBY's address because they go so hard on development as an inherently good thing instead of a thing that we need to do and do correctly. I just haven't seen people put forth what I think is a very considered idea of 'development' yet, and it's sad because there's so much more we could do than just 'build high density housing,' and I can very easily see that point getting lost in the debates.

Expand full comment

Great overview on contemporary American housing issues and debate!

Expand full comment

Another Noah blogletter about the housing crisis and NIMBYs/YIMBYs, another Noah blogletter that doesn't mention the relevance of low mortgage interest rates (or T-note yields) as a policy lever. I continue to find that a really odd omission, but maybe it's forced by the focus on the YIMBY-versus-NIMBY frame, which directs attention to local government and local politicians in lieu of the mortgage/T-note market.

Expand full comment

It seems unnecessary that this battle would ever be between Left-YIMBYs (of which there are few) and Right-NIMBYs (of which there are many). The geographic overlap between these two is so small. Density is primarily an issue in the city and near suburbs, both of which are monolithically left of center.

Expand full comment

This is angels on a pinhead type argument vs. the real issue: Proposition 13 in California.

Expand full comment

Some encouraging news. Thanks.

Expand full comment