![](https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/q60/uploads/2022/05/YIMBY-300x174.jpg)
![](https://d2eehagpk5cl65.cloudfront.net/img/q60/uploads/2022/05/YIMBY-300x174.jpg)
of new york times and atlantic ocean Writer Jerusalem Demsus Both recently published an article about how the YIMBY („Yes in my backyard“) movement has cut across ideological and partisan divides at a time when most other policy issues are engulfed. times The headline calls it „A surprising alliance of left and right calling for more apartments in the suburbs.“
For many years, the Inbee Town Conference has been a gathering of liberal young professionals pitting other liberal young professionals against other liberal young professionals about issues such as not enough bike lanes or transit, and too many restrictive zoning laws. It was an ideologically safe space where we could discuss the city's specific issues.
But at this year's conference, held at the University of Texas at Austin in February, the atmosphere and audience were surprisingly different. In addition to vegan lunches and name tags with preferred pronouns, the meeting included a group that until recently was unwelcome: Republicans from red states, who even joined in the celebration.
The first day was last year when YIMBY is currently “montana miracle…. ”
The second day began with a panel discussion on solutions to rising housing costs in Texas. One of the speakers was a Texas Republican who has been an advocate of less land-use regulations as well as a near-total ban on abortion.
Those who missed those discussions may have instead attended a bipartisan panel with Republican housing reformers from Arizona and Montana meeting with Democratic state senators from Vermont. Alternatively, we looked at the list of sponsors in addition to foundations such as: open philanthropy and arnold venturesincluded conservative and liberal organizations such as the Mercatus Center, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Demsus makes a similar point.
Over the past four years, as the affordability crisis has worsened, YIMBY has risen to prominence. In conservative Montana, anti-California messages prompted lawmakers to pass pro-development legislation. In Washington state, an ambitious proposal was passed in the name of affordability and racial equity. But members are facing pressure from both sides to abandon ship. How long can they last?
One reason the YIMBY movement remains bipartisan is that it is decentralized. But the gangs regularly gather at a national conference with the amusing name „YIMBYtown.“ It's a rare place where you can find socialists, centrist economists, and pro-Trump elected officials all in the same room working toward the same goals.
i went write about There was cross-ideological agreement on this issue. many years. Housing deregulation is a cause that unites a wide range of economists and land use experts across the political spectrum. So, as a libertarian property rights scholar, I find myself in the same position as the following liberals: Richard Kahlenberg and paul krugmanand conservatives national review.
Prominent political supporters of zoning reform include Virginia's Republican governor Glenn Youngkin and Colorado Democratic Governor Jared Polis. Governor Polis recently stated, „Housing deregulation is not a solution to housing costs that takes into account our individual property rights…The fact that it meets a real need for people from the left to the right.“ , well captured the broad appeal of housing deregulation. It's made all the more obvious by the fact that moderates, no matter where they sit politically, want to do something about high housing costs. ”
Future plans Texas Law Review article, Josh Braver and I explain why constitutional lawsuits against exclusion zones can cross ideological lines. I'm a liberal originalist. Braver is a progressive living constitutionalist. But we both agree that exclusive zoning violates the Takes Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Of course, the other side of this debate, the NIMBY (“Not in My Backyard”) forces, also cross ideological lines. This includes the left, which is skeptical of capitalism and development, and the right. donald trump– Playing with fears that deregulation will cause more poor people and minorities to move to white suburban areas. There are also a lot of NIMBYs who will believeContrary to basic economics, allowing developers to build more housing actually increases costs, not increases them. Some worry that real estate values will decline and the „character“ of the neighborhood will change. For some progressive homeowners in the latter camp, Narrow self-interest trumps ideology.. In fact, many existing homeowners There is much to be gained from housing deregulation., especially if you have children. But many people either don't know that, are very risk-averse, or both.
If I had to speculate about what really unites YIMBYs across the political spectrum and divides them from their opponents, one of the big factors is that YIMBYs generally understand Economics 101 and I believe that this is being applied to the housing issue. They know that increasing supply by allowing more construction will reduce costs, which will also increase the availability of housing, especially for the poor and disadvantaged. In contrast, NIMBYs tend to ignore or deny this.
More generally, YIMBYs are less likely than NIMBYs to view the economy as a zero-sum game in which some people benefit only at the expense of others. Therefore, they believe that letting developers build more housing and allowing more people to „migrate to opportunity“ benefits not only the developers and immigrants themselves, but also society as a whole. recognizing. There is much to gain from the resulting increased productivity and innovation.. Zero-sum thinking is at the root of many political divisionsmay also play an important role here.
I do not claim that zero-sum thinking and economic ignorance are the only factors.like I've been doing emphasized before, if you are very risk-averse and prioritize preserving the current „character“ of your neighborhood over concerns such as protecting property rights, creating opportunities for the poor, and promoting growth and innovation, you are very risk-averse. You can be a knowledgeable and logically consistent NIMBY. But if Nimbyism were limited to those who think that way, its political power would be much weaker.
You can also reach a NIMBY conclusion if you subscribe to a complex „market failure“ theory that essentially says Econ 101 does not apply to housing. But in that case, areas with little or no zoning (most notably houston) can have much more affordable housing, even during times of high demand, as many people want to move there. I don't have any systematic data on this point, but I suspect only a small portion of his NIMBYs have actually considered the complex market failure theory carefully.
For now, YIMBYism remains a valuable cross-ideological coalition; achieve some significant success, although I did experience some setbacks. It remains to be seen whether the forces of polarization can be countered.