How to turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs

[M II A II R II K]

How to turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs


Sep 11th 2021

Read More: https://www.economist.com/finance-an...ys-into-yimbys

.....

Although most housing experts want more building, few spend much time thinking about how to make this happen. Some pin their hopes on the “YIMBY” movement, enthusiastic nerds who turn up to planning meetings and shout “yes” not “no” to having more houses “in my back yard”. But YIMBYs are few and their power limited. More encouragingly, politicians are waking up to the damage caused by distorted housing markets.

- In Britain the Conservative government talks a good game on boosting housebuilding. On September 1st America’s White House decried “exclusionary zoning laws and practices” and promised to raise the supply of affordable housing. Yet its talk of “relaunching partnerships” and “leveraging existing federal funds” hardly inspires confidence. Better solutions are needed. One option is for the state to build houses itself. Singapore has taken this route since the 1960s. — The government nationalised most land supply and built vast numbers of flats. Today 80% of Singaporeans live in these buildings and housing costs are low. In Russia the state has played a more Singaporean role in housing since 2000. Annual construction of new homes has tripled. But is more public housing enough? Few people, including well-off Singaporeans, dream of living in a government-built house.

- The post-war push in the West to build huge housing projects, meanwhile, ended in failure when money was tight it was always easy to slash maintenance budgets. The bigger question, then, is what needs to happen to boost private housebuilding. Happily, there are precedents. In the decade to 2013, for instance, Tokyo boosted its overall housing stock by over 1m, more than double the increase in the 1980s. Sydney has boosted annual completions by 50% since the early 2000s. Such reforms can quickly have positive effects. A new paper on São Paulo, which enacted zoning reforms in 2016, finds that the policy boosted housing supply by 1.4%, leading to a 0.4-1% reduction in prices. — In normal times homeowners fiercely resist new developments because they worry that property prices will fall. This was less of a concern for Tokyoites after Japan’s property bubble burst in 1992.

- Waiting until a city is at risk of turning into San Francisco is hardly a viable strategy. A more durable one involves recognising that the housing shortage is the result of skewed incentives, and then correcting them. That in turn means focusing on two groups: planners and homeowners. Take planners first. In many countries local governments assume this responsibility. They must deal with the downsides of extra houses the need to provide more school places, for instance. Yet they do not often reap the gains in the form of a bigger tax base, since the majority of taxes in rich countries accrue at the national level. In England, councils that raise extra revenue often see it vanish into the central-government pot. This creates large disincentives to allow housing development. One solution is to take power from local bureaucrats. This was what São Paulo did. Another involves incentivising local authorities to become more development-friendly.

- Switzerland has gone furthest. The cantonal system means that a high share of taxes raised locally stays there, so for local governments more houses means more tax revenues. Switzerland builds three times as many homes per person as Britain, and construction continues to rise. Tweaking the incentives facing individuals may prove even more powerful. The main reason for the long-run decline in housebuilding relates to rising homeownership. More people on the property ladder means more voters with an interest in rising prices and so a political system that becomes hostile to development. Yet it is possible to find solutions that allow homeowners to behave selfishly while still encouraging more building relying on the same instinct that drives NIMBYism, but for YIMBY ends. — William Fischel of Dartmouth College has suggested that homeowners could take out “home-equity insurance”, which would pay out in the event of falling house prices. Others simply want to compensate NIMBYs in exchange for more building.

.....

[llamaorama]

- Switzerland has gone furthest. The cantonal system means that a high share of taxes raised locally stays there, so for local governments more houses means more tax revenues.

Hot take.

In Texas our much-hated dependency on property taxes means that cities and school districts are intensely pro-growth because more building is more money. This growth machine makes a lot of sprawl but at the end of the day it's nice because you can be middle class and buy a nice new house and be in a community that is safe and has good schools and has tax dollars left over to build parks and things like that.

If the state GOP ever spoils this by capping property tax revenue without adequate replacement(I always thought income taxes were a politically impossible but more logical idea) they'll create the inverse incentive, where growth just means overwhelmed public services and a diminished quality of life. Of course that's okay with them too, they wouldn't empower cities to be NIMBY either. The end game for them is that the "good people" with $$$ live in restrictive HOA's with high fees to pay for the infastructure and basic services no longer available outside, or in the country, and the god fearing people are happy living in shitty places as long as the bad people live in even shittier ones.

[C.]

I’m a card carrying member of The Growth Machine Cabal. NIMBYism is usually just rooted in racism and I-got-mine-isim so damn everyone else.

[SFBruin]

I don't think that it is always about racism. Sometimes, I think that it is about traffic, strain on public services, etc.

But I'm not in people's heads, so I don't know for sure.

[C.]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I don't think that it is always about racism. Sometimes, I think that it is about traffic, strain on public services, etc.

But I'm not in people's heads, so I don't know for sure.

Of course those are the excuses said in public. But if that was true, NIMBYs would be protesting sprawl on the fringe of cities as that’s the true driver of traffic and straining public services. But nope, it’s always about development in their back yard, even if it’s appropriately situated to take advantage of transit and existing infrastructure. They simply do not want additional people on their neighborhood because it may be the wrong kind of people. IMO.

[SFBruin]

I see your point.

I think that there is less of an effect on traffic and public resources for development far away than there is for development down the street, regardless of who is in said development.

I'm not saying that racism isn't part of it. I am saying that it isn't the only part of it.

[C.]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I see your point.

I think that there is less of an effect on traffic and public resources for development far away than there is for development down the street, regardless of who is in said development.

I'm not saying that racism isn't part of it. I am saying that it isn't the only part of it.

I think racism plays a bigger role than most people realize. For example, during the next public meeting for a development, take a look at the people who show up and are most vocal against new developments. It’s certainly not a diverse representation of the community. Why is that?

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by C.

I think racism plays a bigger role than most people realize.

Yeah, I could see that.

[mhays]

Racism is certainly a big factor, as is classism. But the fact that lots of old white people show up at meetings might be better pinned on their willingness to participate and speak up, regardless of their motivations. Or you could say they're entitled.

[C.]

Yes, the hypocritical self-entitlement. I drive and own a house, but I want to deny others shelter because they may take up space on my public street.

Similar to the baby boomer that rants against a tax hike to pay for public education, meanwhile they were educated in public schools with their ten other siblings and adult children. But screw anyone else coming in afterwards. I got mine.

NIMBYs really are among the worst humanity has to offer. These are the same family of jokers that support “no coloreds” clauses in warranty deeds before the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I don't think that it is always about racism. Sometimes, I think that it is about traffic, strain on public services, etc.

But I'm not in people's heads, so I don't know for sure.

NIMBYs are just making the self interest decision that by restricting supply of new housing, housing supply will remain tight and prices will rise with demand, making them richer as their home equity grows. In economics, it is called "rent seeking" behavior. The flaw is that homelessness will increase, and people will eventually set up tents in their neighborhood, lowering the desirability of buying a house there, and prices fall as demand falls. There is evidence that housing prices fall in areas with lots of homeless. Prices are falling in Venice beach and parts of San Fran. with many homeless camps. People don't buy when they see this, and less demand lowers prices.

[IMBY]

I believe Minneapolis has done away with single family zoning. Even looking at the Minneapolis forum, I see a new triplex or 4-plex going up right next to a single family home.

Just think of the boom in construction if that were to happen in L.A.!

[C.]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

NIMBYs are just making the self interest decision that by restricting supply of new housing, housing supply will remain tight and prices will rise with demand, making them richer as their home equity grows. In economics, it is called "rent seeking" behavior. The flaw is that homelessness will increase, and people will eventually set up tents in their neighborhood, lowering the desirability of buying a house there, and prices fall as demand falls. There is evidence that housing prices fall in areas with lots of homeless. Prices are falling in Venice beach and parts of San Fran. with many homeless camps. People don't buy when they see this, and less demand lowers prices.

There is a whole body of literature on this. It’s not just restricting supply but also something much more sinister. It’s not uncommon to see exclusionary zoning in many cities. For example, only allowing single family homes on minimum lot sizes even in areas where intensification would be appropriate. The city planners know what’s going on and try to do the right thing but they rush losing their job if the NIMBYs revolt and are trapped by the politics of them all.

The NIMBY’s misguided fears are if “others” are able to afford to move into a community, that would have a negative effect on property values. The Supreme Court says you can’t discriminate on the basis of race, but many communities have found the exclusionary zoning on the basis of income is unfortunately permissible. The existing residents go full NIMBY when new developments are proposed that may allow the introduction of “other” residents, which they perceived will harm their property values if more affordable housing options are available.

Anyone who claims that racism does not play a role in NIMBYism is grossly naive at best.

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by C.

Yes, the hypocritical self-entitlement. I drive and own a house, but I want to deny others shelter because they may take up space on my public street.

Similar to the baby boomer that rants against a tax hike to pay for public education, meanwhile they were educated in public schools with their ten other siblings and adult children. But screw anyone else coming in afterwards. I got mine.

NIMBYs really are among the worst humanity has to offer. These are the same family of jokers that support “no coloreds” clauses in warranty deeds before the Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional.

Tools put into place to affect one group of people, will eventually come back around and affect all people. NIMBYism comes from a practice based decades ago. I say these things because there is a root to go after. A place to look is at the history of why the suburbs were built in the first place. Prior to the civil rights movement in the 50's/60s, people lived in cities and cars were a rarity in life. Many people made their money from their homes with their shop facing the street and living above, or a shop walking distance away. The Suburban concept was in its infancy in the 1940's separating people from their work by deeming a single family home was not a place of business...white people generally having more money and owning more businesses, they thought this a way to keep blacks out economically. After the civil rights movement, America went bananas in building these neighborhoods. Once black people were allowed more freedoms, White people began to desire these places away from all the blacks in the city, so they marketed the American Dream of the Single family house, yard and picket fence only accessible via a car to the "average american." What they didnt realize was that Black people would be inspired by this dream; had enough money to access it, and would soon follow.

When economic separations didnt work, they turned to creating new vaguely worded laws under the guise of progress. The city of Los Angeles was the first city to employ a zoning code in USA. In the 1950s-60s, Foundational Black Americans were escaping the south en masse and moving to the North and West. Los Angeles experienced an influx into its first wave suburbs; the then predominately white neighborhoods of Compton, Watts, Inglewood, Crenshaw etc. "White Flight" Happened and White people moved en masse from theses areas to the San Fernando Valley, Hawthorne, Glendale, Burbank and other places; building over what was once very fertile and productive farmland, and creating unofficial "Sundown Towns." This is when the second wave of suburbs were built in the 1950s-1960s (much of the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles). When they did this, they instituted Zoning codes, deed restricted property covenants, "environmental laws" other measures to prevent "other people" from moving there. The more "other people" moved in... the further the city spreads out... creating more traffic, pollution and ever expanding freeways.

Everything NIMBY is based from this concept. Since the civil rights movement, one couldn't explicitly say they were keeping blacks out, its gotten cunning... these laws are left over from a time past and get to be removed and or reworked. Things like CEQA have been weaponized from what could have been a good intentioned way to stem pollution, to now being used to keep people out. CEQA is now just one of the many tools that keep "white supremacy" in place; while only allowing a selected few of others that "obey the rules" in. It has nothing to do with the environment, traffic... its all to keep control over who gets to live where and what they can do with it... either with laws, economics, HOA's, building codes, etc. All these tools put into place now affect all people, ranging from homelessness, mental health, poorly funded schools and ever escalating student loan debt. I mention this so that we don't just look at the symptoms, but we see the root cause... the laws, rules, and regulations from the past still in existence today and cloaked from their true intentions, and speak of how we can address

[dubu]

here in oregon (its always been white) we just built lots of houses because its cheep and quick. my grandpa built some houses that are still around, cant do that now days unless youre rich.

[SFBruin]

Setting aside the issue of race (momentarily), I think that zoning raises the question of whether we can plan cities or not.

In the absence of zoning, you could theoretically have any housing be built in any residential area, which might result in an increase in supply, but also a lack of homogeneity of building types.

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

[SFBruin]

We clearly have to add density. I just think that it needs to be done in a responsible way.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Setting aside the issue of race (momentarily), I think that zoning raises the question of whether we can plan cities or not.

In the absence of zoning, you could theoretically have any housing be built in any residential area, which might result in an increase in supply, but also a lack of homogeneity of building types.

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Here's the sort of thing that has happened historically:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7930...7i16384!8i8192

[hughfb3]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Setting aside the issue of race (momentarily), I think that zoning raises the question of whether we can plan cities or not.

In the absence of zoning, you could theoretically have any housing be built in any residential area, which might result in an increase in supply, but also a lack of homogeneity of building types.

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Zoning in and of itself isn't a good or bad thing... as long as it is used as a tool of inclusion and not exclusion. For the most part, the intentions have been on the latter.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Here's the sort of thing that has happened historically:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7930...7i16384!8i8192

The google map from above is a great example of the ugly middle phase of a haircut when you are growing out your hair but its just not that out yet to really do anything with... so its just awkward Every city goes through growth spurts where there is a mismatch in building types and styles. It's part of the growing pains. At one point no city had skyscrapers and no glass clad buildings... and then there were a few very out of place buildings, then boom... a skyline appears and its normalized.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Zoning in and of itself isn't a good or bad thing... as long as it is used as a tool of inclusion and not exclusion.

Right, I feel that zoning needs to be more inclusive.