Earlier this week, I ran a piece on NIMBYism. I argued that slow growth advocates have lost rhetorical debate.
However as the Atlantic’s writer Jerusalem Demsas points out, they may have won the war.
Some key points in the column from Monday.
“The American population is growing, and aging, and in many cases looking for smaller houses. But the types of homes Americans need simply don’t exist,” Demsas writes arguing, “The shortage has been estimated at 4 million homes, and that scarcity is fueling our affordability crisis.”
In the end, Demsas continues, “whatever does get built reflects the cost of delays, the cost of complying with expensive requirements, the priced-in threat of lawsuits, and, most important, scarcity.”
Secondly, she argues, “Americans are aware by now that the housing affordability crisis is acute, but many don’t understand what’s causing it.”
Demsas points out that while she has written stories about things like “greedy developers, or private-equity companies, or racist neighbors, or gentrifiers, or corrupt politicians” – while accurate – they “don’t speak to root causes.”
We have villainized the NIMBY.
Demsas argues, “This term, an acronym for “not in my backyard,” is used to refer specifically to those who support something in the abstract but oppose it in their neighborhood. But NIMBY has experienced the sort of definitional inflation that happens to all successful epithets and now refers to anyone who opposes development for the wrong reasons.”
Here’s the key point: “Exposing terrible landlords is important, but perhaps even more important is addressing why they have so much power. Pointing out that a billionaire is trying to thwart the construction of townhouses in his affluent neighborhood is useful, but even more useful is understanding why he might succeed.”
She continues: “I believe that opposing housing, renewable-energy development, or even bike lanes for bad reasons is wrong.”
But she ultimately argues, “But NIMBYs are a sideshow.”
As she notes, democracy will always have people who differ on values and ways forward.
The problem here is that “the game is rigged in their favor.”
Demsas argues, “NIMBYs haven’t won because they’ve made better arguments or because they’ve mobilized a mass democratic coalition.”
But because the game is rigged, the result is “widespread dissatisfaction with the housing crisis struggles to translate into meaningful change.”
I will stop there but invite you to read her full piece. There is some real insight here, because in the last few years I have grown frustrated at the lack of progress made either at the state or local level to solve the housing crisis.
At the state level, we have seen large efforts by the Governor and the legislature to address housing – and yet they have failed to break through the logjam of NIMBYism.
At the local level, the logjam is even harder to break because even with the city implementing form based codes, rezoning the downtown, and attempting to meet the state’s expanding local housing requirements in RHNA, we really have not made progress on housing.
The city probably wasted it’s opportunity a decade ago with Cannery as the last major parcel within the city not requiring a vote.
Measure J, implemented in 2000, during a different time and priorities, has made this task far more difficult. The council while largely supportive of housing, has failed to make a dent in the problem or even move the ball forward.
They pushed off the decision on two major housing projects – the first real major housing projects in two decades. They pushed off a revision of Measure J that might have made it easier for projects to get approved.
The voters in Davis – much like those in the state of California – argue that housing affordability is the biggest and most pressing issue.
But when push comes to show, the council has pushed off decision day, and a small number of opponents can convince the broader population to oppose a given project.
Demsas argues, “The politics of land should play out in the domain of democratic participation instead of leaving it to the zoning boards, historic-preservation committees, and courtrooms. Instead of relying on discretionary processes subject to review by countless actors, governmental bodies, and laws, states should strip away veto points and unnecessary local interference.”
Ultimately in places like Davis, it will come down to whether the state is willing to strip away veto points. Because right now we have gridlock. What we are doing isn’t working. And it’s not because there is a group of such powerful forces blocking it, it’s because there are too many veto points.
This is the issue that will lead to an erosion of legislative local control for cities and counties in California. Everyone wants more housing, they just want it someplace else.
Imagine the outcry from Davis if Yolo County attempted to put a landfill where the current facility is right now. Yet it really does not impact too many people where it is, and is a well run facility. Everyone would want a landfill — just not at that location. Someplace else.
Same is true of the county jail. When it was first built it was almost out of town. If the county tried to build it there today hundreds of people from my neighborhood in Woodland would be protesting. Yet it operates just fine with housing right across the street.
You give two examples of where the City has grown up to an existing community resources and it is working well. I think most people would get used to new development and find that their worse fears are unfounded.
However, an alternate example is the location of the Respite Center on L Street in Davis. The impact of this on the neighborhood and the nearby businesses, and beyond has been really damaging. It actually ended up there due to nimbyism by a group of South Davis parents that didn’t want their children to even see the respite center below them as they biked on the overcrossing over 2nd Street toward their junior high school, resulting in the placement of the center on City property along L Street. The next door car wash has been so vandalized that it is no longer a functioning business. The Church across the street has to continually deal with alcohol and drug use and camping on its property. The 7-11 store and businesses across the street have the police on speed dial. Nearby neighbors have to deal with people trespassing on their properties and human waste in their front yards. The City and County appears to have no plan for people who refuse shelter beds at night and it is unclear if the day time respite center is working. As we see in Sacramento, the experiment to create safe camping locations and self management by tenants has failed.