I do think YIMBYs could benefit from some more ambitious policy proposals -- just in a different direction.
I suggest we tackle the core problem of NIMBYism directly -- people see building in their neighborhood as losing a building lotto. They all want to not be in that 10%. So start making it worth their while.
1) Matt already suggested grandfathered parking rights.. make them saleable/rentable and it's an income steam.
2) Create a policy that taxes new developments at a higher rate for the first 20 years. Use it to bribe cities to keep developing to balance budgets.
I'd pair it maybe with a rule the city has to manage any utilities/flood control etc of the new development. If they pass it off to hoa no tax money.
3) Encourage municipalities to warn buyers that they are planning to approve higher density in the area in a long range plan.
Saying that most suburbs wouldn't get denser just points back to the primary issue of NIMBYism -- it is only reassuring if you aren't in the 10% and that just creates a motive for NIMBYs to make sure they aren't. it even gives them an excuse not to feel bad about leaving barriers in place -- even Yglesias said only 10% so it's fine to keep growth out of my wonderful neighborhood.
I think the message we need to send is that we all have a responsibility to give the next generation the same opportunities and that means accepting some growth. If you try to reassure people they don't have to sacrifice -- or worse that they probably won't -- they'll act to make sure they won't.
Sure, get rid of restrictive zoning and parking regulations., but if you stop there you haven’t really addressed the whole problem. If you build a bunch more of housing, but everybody still drives their cars for every trip, you have just created massive traffic congestion and parking problems in the area, which is really what the NIMBYs complain about (at least at the public meetings I attend). Land use and transportation are two sides of the same coin, but no one ever brings that into the discussion except in passing. You still have to provide alternatives that are comparable in speed, convenience, comfort and price to replace the SOV car trips. So what are we talking about? Elimination of “free” parking and charging for driving during peak times? Are we all going to be riding around in shared self-driving taxis and buses (as envisioned by ITF back in 2017: "Assessing the impacts of deploying a shared self-driving urban mobility system: An agent-based model applied to the city of Lisbon, Portugal”. ITF has looked at other cities since then). BRT or rail with separate ROW is currently the only system that provides reasonable levels of service and would require a lot of central planing and new construction for most US cities, comparable to the great highway buildout in the 1950s and 60s. So to get real about addressing housing, we will have to reimagine how we are going to get around in the more dense cities or the future.
"It’s also a little pointless, because the public-housing enthusiasts genuinely have no conflict with the YIMBYs and land-use reformers. Our ideas make it easier to execute their ideas."
So true! I recently wrote about an affordable condo building near my home in Austin that was only made possible because of Austin's "Affordability Unlocked" program, which waives all sorts of density, height, and setback restrictions.
“Can you please stop fucking stabbing me in the back while I advocate for this incremental change, which aligns with your interests, and which will make the giant sweeping change that you desire a tiny bit easier anyway?” is sadly too big for a T-shirt, but it’s a really good message that a bunch of progressives should listen to.
Doing smaller and smaller tweaks to policy is the pattern I would expect of a society that was learning from its mistakes and homing in on optimal solutions, whereas doing one "big bold vision" after another is the pattern I would expect from a society that wasn't learning anything and was doing change for its own sake.
I would argue that we got to our present state by doing a big bold vision of decentralized power and participatory democracy in the 60s and 70s, in response to the problems created by industry and powerful decisionmakers like Robert Moses. It's not clear to me when the appropriate time is supposed to be to reckon with the tradeoffs we've already made and see if we can improve things without doing a full pendulum swing back, if not right now.
The reason we don't have more public housing is because of the cost of construction and the lack of credibility Dems have on enforcing quality of life issues. SAD!
I've often thought that our political and governmental systems needed to be buttressed by realistic simulations of what a given policy proposal would actually do (that voters have to experience before casting ballots).
The technology was not previously there to do this at scale (setting aside the political difficulties), but with AI agents, a pretty good approximation could be achieved.
In this particular case, I'm envisioning an app that shows your Zillow/Redfin search in the YIMBY alternate reality. More options, lower prices, etc. Even this sells the benefits short, because they can also apply to organizations (e.g. child care gets cheaper when it's easier for daycare owners to find space). But it would be a great way to advertise to the large chunk of Americans currently looking for homes and finding bupkis.
"It’s also a little pointless, because the public-housing enthusiasts genuinely have no conflict with the YIMBYs and land-use reformers.
Our ideas make it easier to execute their ideas."
YES! I mean, we don't even have to imagine this. "Abundance" discusses how Los Angeles' Measure HHH was a city-directed housing program that ended up costing $700k per unit and taking 3-6 years to construct because of all the regulatory burdens.
An insufferable dimension of contemporary leftist insult-slinging is that the extremely easy work of imagination-capturing, rhetoric-first revolutionary eschatology is treated as 'bold', whereas the extremely hard work of solving the #1 problem in the country — the extremely hard work of *succeeding*, i.e. *winning*, i.e. *defeating motivated opponents* — elicits a yawn. Somehow there's an idea that YIMBYs want to reinforce the status quo, even though precisely the desired change to the status quo is built into the name.
I think Yglesias has talked about this before, but one of the most perverse forces in politics is this idea that governing is actually easy. That there are clear right answers to the problems facing us and the reason they're not being implemented is because the other side, or even your own side, is corrupt or evil.
Realizing that just isn't true, that governing is actually hard and requires effort, skill, and tradeoffs, is what made me shift from a more hard core progressive to an abundance style moderate.
So, like you said, it's frustrating to see progressives or socialists have these well intentioned bombastic ideas that are all sizzle and no steak.
What would be the difference between "legalizing somewhat denser housing the neoliberal way" and "legalizing somewhat denser housing the not neoliberal and not socialist" way?
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, as a commercial real estate (rental apartment) investor, I am keenly aware how much expanded supply is impacting me personally! Lower regulation sunbelt markets that had big supply booms have falling rents in many cases now. You YIMBYs are impacting my bottom line!
In seriousness I go to local zoning meetings and extol the wonderful benefits of more neighbors. When my existing neighbors boo and hiss, I thank them for making it easier to raise rents...
I'd be careful counting sunbelt markets as a success. They have a markedly higher foreclosure rate that hopefully drops before it becomes something people can't ignore.
I too would benefit from higher rents as a residential landlord who wants more abundant housing. They can't figure out how they can seriously own us if they're annoyed by what we're extolling.
For a radical vision: imagine instead of our continuously broken system, on Earth Prime, blue states responded to the Dobbs decision and immigration crackdown by massively upzoning NYC, Boston, LA, SF, San Jose, Seattle, Chicago, and DC, making it easier for people who don't want to live under overly strict abortion laws to move to these cities. Meanwhile rents drop, construction booms, and immigrants and unskilled workers have an easier time getting jobs and affording their own attorneys to fight crackdowns along with non-profit legal assistance. Red states with lack of public transit infrastructure struggle to keep population while walkable neighborhoods in upzoned transit-rich blue cities boom.
But yeah liberals are the ones without imagination.
For what it’s worth, the article linked to support the claim that Bloomberg downzoned on net, does not actually say that. It says that more lots were downzoned (23%) than upzoned (14%) but that the net capacity increased by 1.7%, though that is an estimate
Capacity isn't the only measure. If Bloomberg downzoned the places where people want to build (which he probably did; that's why downzoning happens) and upzoned places where people don't want to build, then it doesn't matter whether capacity increased or decreased. Only capacity that people want to use matters.
I do think YIMBYs could benefit from some more ambitious policy proposals -- just in a different direction.
I suggest we tackle the core problem of NIMBYism directly -- people see building in their neighborhood as losing a building lotto. They all want to not be in that 10%. So start making it worth their while.
1) Matt already suggested grandfathered parking rights.. make them saleable/rentable and it's an income steam.
2) Create a policy that taxes new developments at a higher rate for the first 20 years. Use it to bribe cities to keep developing to balance budgets.
I'd pair it maybe with a rule the city has to manage any utilities/flood control etc of the new development. If they pass it off to hoa no tax money.
3) Encourage municipalities to warn buyers that they are planning to approve higher density in the area in a long range plan.
Saying that most suburbs wouldn't get denser just points back to the primary issue of NIMBYism -- it is only reassuring if you aren't in the 10% and that just creates a motive for NIMBYs to make sure they aren't. it even gives them an excuse not to feel bad about leaving barriers in place -- even Yglesias said only 10% so it's fine to keep growth out of my wonderful neighborhood.
I think the message we need to send is that we all have a responsibility to give the next generation the same opportunities and that means accepting some growth. If you try to reassure people they don't have to sacrifice -- or worse that they probably won't -- they'll act to make sure they won't.
Sure, get rid of restrictive zoning and parking regulations., but if you stop there you haven’t really addressed the whole problem. If you build a bunch more of housing, but everybody still drives their cars for every trip, you have just created massive traffic congestion and parking problems in the area, which is really what the NIMBYs complain about (at least at the public meetings I attend). Land use and transportation are two sides of the same coin, but no one ever brings that into the discussion except in passing. You still have to provide alternatives that are comparable in speed, convenience, comfort and price to replace the SOV car trips. So what are we talking about? Elimination of “free” parking and charging for driving during peak times? Are we all going to be riding around in shared self-driving taxis and buses (as envisioned by ITF back in 2017: "Assessing the impacts of deploying a shared self-driving urban mobility system: An agent-based model applied to the city of Lisbon, Portugal”. ITF has looked at other cities since then). BRT or rail with separate ROW is currently the only system that provides reasonable levels of service and would require a lot of central planing and new construction for most US cities, comparable to the great highway buildout in the 1950s and 60s. So to get real about addressing housing, we will have to reimagine how we are going to get around in the more dense cities or the future.
"It’s also a little pointless, because the public-housing enthusiasts genuinely have no conflict with the YIMBYs and land-use reformers. Our ideas make it easier to execute their ideas."
So true! I recently wrote about an affordable condo building near my home in Austin that was only made possible because of Austin's "Affordability Unlocked" program, which waives all sorts of density, height, and setback restrictions.
https://www.ryanpuzycki.com/p/a-building-is-a-blessing
Wanting tax payers to pay to build housing without addressing what makes it so expensive to build housing is just so disrespectful.
“Can you please stop fucking stabbing me in the back while I advocate for this incremental change, which aligns with your interests, and which will make the giant sweeping change that you desire a tiny bit easier anyway?” is sadly too big for a T-shirt, but it’s a really good message that a bunch of progressives should listen to.
Doing smaller and smaller tweaks to policy is the pattern I would expect of a society that was learning from its mistakes and homing in on optimal solutions, whereas doing one "big bold vision" after another is the pattern I would expect from a society that wasn't learning anything and was doing change for its own sake.
I would argue that we got to our present state by doing a big bold vision of decentralized power and participatory democracy in the 60s and 70s, in response to the problems created by industry and powerful decisionmakers like Robert Moses. It's not clear to me when the appropriate time is supposed to be to reckon with the tradeoffs we've already made and see if we can improve things without doing a full pendulum swing back, if not right now.
The reason we don't have more public housing is because of the cost of construction and the lack of credibility Dems have on enforcing quality of life issues. SAD!
I've often thought that our political and governmental systems needed to be buttressed by realistic simulations of what a given policy proposal would actually do (that voters have to experience before casting ballots).
The technology was not previously there to do this at scale (setting aside the political difficulties), but with AI agents, a pretty good approximation could be achieved.
In this particular case, I'm envisioning an app that shows your Zillow/Redfin search in the YIMBY alternate reality. More options, lower prices, etc. Even this sells the benefits short, because they can also apply to organizations (e.g. child care gets cheaper when it's easier for daycare owners to find space). But it would be a great way to advertise to the large chunk of Americans currently looking for homes and finding bupkis.
"It’s also a little pointless, because the public-housing enthusiasts genuinely have no conflict with the YIMBYs and land-use reformers.
Our ideas make it easier to execute their ideas."
YES! I mean, we don't even have to imagine this. "Abundance" discusses how Los Angeles' Measure HHH was a city-directed housing program that ended up costing $700k per unit and taking 3-6 years to construct because of all the regulatory burdens.
Let's be real, none of the anti abundance people have any idea what they are talking about
An insufferable dimension of contemporary leftist insult-slinging is that the extremely easy work of imagination-capturing, rhetoric-first revolutionary eschatology is treated as 'bold', whereas the extremely hard work of solving the #1 problem in the country — the extremely hard work of *succeeding*, i.e. *winning*, i.e. *defeating motivated opponents* — elicits a yawn. Somehow there's an idea that YIMBYs want to reinforce the status quo, even though precisely the desired change to the status quo is built into the name.
I think Yglesias has talked about this before, but one of the most perverse forces in politics is this idea that governing is actually easy. That there are clear right answers to the problems facing us and the reason they're not being implemented is because the other side, or even your own side, is corrupt or evil.
Realizing that just isn't true, that governing is actually hard and requires effort, skill, and tradeoffs, is what made me shift from a more hard core progressive to an abundance style moderate.
So, like you said, it's frustrating to see progressives or socialists have these well intentioned bombastic ideas that are all sizzle and no steak.
Yes, 100%
If YIMBY means buying back into neoliberalism, count me out. BTW, rejecting neoliberalism does not equal embracing socialism.
What would be the difference between "legalizing somewhat denser housing the neoliberal way" and "legalizing somewhat denser housing the not neoliberal and not socialist" way?
What does neoliberalism mean in this context?
If YIMBY *doesn't* mean buying back into neoliberalism, count me out.
What aspects of neoliberalism as you see it do you fear that YIMBYism would encroach upon?
To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, as a commercial real estate (rental apartment) investor, I am keenly aware how much expanded supply is impacting me personally! Lower regulation sunbelt markets that had big supply booms have falling rents in many cases now. You YIMBYs are impacting my bottom line!
In seriousness I go to local zoning meetings and extol the wonderful benefits of more neighbors. When my existing neighbors boo and hiss, I thank them for making it easier to raise rents...
I'd be careful counting sunbelt markets as a success. They have a markedly higher foreclosure rate that hopefully drops before it becomes something people can't ignore.
I too would benefit from higher rents as a residential landlord who wants more abundant housing. They can't figure out how they can seriously own us if they're annoyed by what we're extolling.
For a radical vision: imagine instead of our continuously broken system, on Earth Prime, blue states responded to the Dobbs decision and immigration crackdown by massively upzoning NYC, Boston, LA, SF, San Jose, Seattle, Chicago, and DC, making it easier for people who don't want to live under overly strict abortion laws to move to these cities. Meanwhile rents drop, construction booms, and immigrants and unskilled workers have an easier time getting jobs and affording their own attorneys to fight crackdowns along with non-profit legal assistance. Red states with lack of public transit infrastructure struggle to keep population while walkable neighborhoods in upzoned transit-rich blue cities boom.
But yeah liberals are the ones without imagination.
For what it’s worth, the article linked to support the claim that Bloomberg downzoned on net, does not actually say that. It says that more lots were downzoned (23%) than upzoned (14%) but that the net capacity increased by 1.7%, though that is an estimate
Capacity isn't the only measure. If Bloomberg downzoned the places where people want to build (which he probably did; that's why downzoning happens) and upzoned places where people don't want to build, then it doesn't matter whether capacity increased or decreased. Only capacity that people want to use matters.