Reading the column by Llewellyn King this week (How NIMBYism is strangling America (link)) is a reminder to me that slow growth advocates have lost the rhetorical debate. While some have argued that the term is a pejorative, NIMBY, just like its antecedent phenomenon, has grown roots and planted itself deep into our discourse.
Personally I am not a big fan of labeling people—it tends to divide and forces people to dig in deeper rather than reconsidering their perspective.
Nevertheless, the term, which literally means “not in my backyard,” is particularly apt for this debate. Housing, after all, has to go some place, and if not here, then somewhere else. In our community, that means forcing people to move further away from things like UC Davis where they work and therefore to clog the roads and increase VMT and thus GHG.
As I have argued, building housing doesn’t mean there are more people, it merely relocates where those people are. Thus, if you don’t put them in your community, you are de facto putting them somewhere else.
We know from the housing crisis in California, and increasingly nationally, that we have not built enough homes to keep up with population growth and that has led to rising housing costs that threaten to create a further discrepancy between rich and poor in this nation.
I appreciate King’s column this week not because it offers some new and deep insight into the problem, but rather because of its potential to bring this debate and discussion to new portions of the country and new readers.
King calls it a “modern plague” and describes its manta as that of “everyone who wants wherever they are to remain as it is — in perpetuity.”
NIMYism, King writes, “has also contributed to the housing crisis. It makes it so hard to build anything that disturbs the serenity of those who live in leafy suburbs with manicured lawns, and, perhaps, designer dogs. Yes, people like me — even though I can’t afford one of those homes or dogs.”
He adds, “If you are living the American Dream — two cars, swell house, well-tended garden — you are almost certainly a passive NIMBY contributor.”
He reminds us, “Active NIMBYs, abetted by the local ordinances that make life pleasant for the urban and suburban elites, fear that new housing will bring things they abhor: traffic, crowding, pollution and people of a different social class.”
This is a subtle point. We see embedded in our local debates over land use—concerns about traffic.
We will also see a debate over “pollution” often in the form of “VMT” and “GHG” that new projects will produce environmental impacts. As I have long pointed out, environmental impacts are a two-edged sword here.
On the one hand, adding more local traffic will in fact increase local carbon emissions. But at the same time, globally, building in housing in one location does not add people and therefore vehicles to the global system. Therefore if we think globally, the impact of housing should be neutral at worst.
Then there is the fact that putting more people closer to their jobs decreases VMT. And building more efficient housing also helps on the margins.
One question I think a lot of us wonder about is how much housing restrictions, especially in affluent communities, are less about other impacts and more about keeping people of different social classes out of the community.
Historically, phenomena like “white flight” and its converse “gentrification” are real processes that are at work. Upper middle class communities fear that population growth will lead to things like blight and increased crime.
Sunday Commentary: Rothstein, the Housing Issue, and Discrimination in Davis
Recall the discussion from 2019 when Richard Rothstein came to Davis in the pre-pandemic days.
One question that was asked—and I think it is the key to the entire NIMBYism phenomenon: “How can we maintain that small-town feel and still deal with our housing issues?”
His response was that “small-town feel is a euphemism for segregated community.”
This was heady stuff at the time. I remarked at the time that the “audience roared with approval.”
I wrote a “small-town feel has been for years, probably decades, the rallying cry of slow growth Davis. It embodied the construction of Measure R, our ethos. And now at least someone on one night took the moment to call it for what it was—or what it seemed to be to an outsider.
“I guess a critical question then, which underlies our policies and our politics, is whether the whole movement for growth control is linked to issues like small town feel, safety, preserving our character and the like—a racial issue.”
One of the major themes of Rothstein’s work is that the segregated patterns of the north—far worse in terms of housing than at any time in the south—is the result not of accident but of deliberate governmental policy.
“This doesn’t sound to me much like de facto segregation,” Richard Rothstein argued as he described concerted efforts to keep neighborhoods segregated.
But the other problem—the worse problem—is that we keep this community segregated because we have so constrained a supply as to drive up prices.
Here’s the thing Mr. Rothstein has said: “[U]nless we confront the history of this country… we are not going to be solve this problem.” And he added that “decreasing density is not going to desegregate this community.”
But he claims: “Policymakers know how to fix this.
“There is nothing mysterious about how to redress segregation in this country,” he added.
Rothstein offers a whole range of solutions including abolishing zoning ordinances that prohibit building multi-family housing, but I think we have to start taking away the tools that NIMBYs utilize to block housing projects—whether that is at the local level or the state and national level.
This piece and the determination by the IRS that the Davis Vanguard was not violating nonprofit federal law regarding promotion of specific political candidates is not coincidental. Housing obstructionists regularly disparage the Vanguard because of its pro-housing stance. Someone filed a false compliant alleging that the Vanguard was breaking federal law. That allegation was most likely made by forces that wanted to cripple the Davis Vanguard be they housing obstructionists or anti-LGBTQ+ conservatives.
I don’t think I completely agree with “small-town feel is a euphemism for segregated community”, but it is a devastating comment.
“I don’t think I completely agree with “small-town feel is a euphemism for segregated community”
Because it isn’t.
You say that awfully quickly.
The data clearly shows that the smaller a community, the less diverse it will be. So the effect of growth control is a whiter community. You want to argue whether that’s the actual driver of growth control measures? That’s more debatable. I think you are too quick to outright dismiss it without a lot more evidence.
Show the data but don’t bother if it comes from a biased left leaning think tank as you often put forward. How about small black communities in the South? I’ll bet their residents feel that their towns often have a “small town feel”.
This is from PEW. Second graph is the relevant data showing rural areas are 79 percent white, suburban are 68 percent, and urban are 44 percent.
When someone refers to “small town feel” I don’t believe they’re referring to the racial makeup of the town. There are many factors involved.
A quick search reveals this:
“Quiet, laid-back lifestyle
The phrase “small-town feel” evokes a quiet, laid-back lifestyle in a close-knit community where people know each other, can rely on each other, and where people are connected. Engagement and connection are at the root of creating a “small-town feel.””
I partially agree. I don’t think they are consciously thinking in racial or diversity terms. However, toward the point made here – (1) I think that is the effect of such efforts and (2) when you drill down I think you will find elements that load onto a racial scale – again both consciously and unconsciously.
David Greenwald said … “We know from the housing crisis in California, and increasingly nationally, that we have not built enough homes to keep up with population growth and that has led to rising housing costs that threaten to create a further discrepancy between rich and poor in this nation.”
Population growth is not the only reason the demand for housing has increased. Changes in the makeup of families and the way they live has also been a major contributor to demand … arguably even more of an influence than any other influence.
— As recently as 20 years ago a substantial proportion of family living included three generations. The proportion of grandparents living with their grandchildren has reduced down to very low single digit percentages. The proportion of elderly parents living with one of their children has also declined substantially. For the most part grandparents live in their own residential unit now … either in a single family residence or in a unit of a multi-family residence such as an apartment or a unit in a facility like URC.
— The proportion of single parent families has risen substantially. As a result the demand for housing has doubled for every two-parent family that has become a single parent family … one for the mother and one for the father.
You make what sounds to be valid points, but also consider that the housing crisis is forcing young families, who cannot afford to buy or, now, even to rent, to move into their parents houses (creating 3 generation households that you romanticize) and rents rising faster than incomes, forcing single adults and single parent households into group living situations. Students in Davis are living 2 or 3 to a bedroom, and in converted common areas as rents are approaching $1200 per bedroom. This creates very few options for families to house themselves, much less their elderly parents, so the grandparents go to age-restricted senior housing or assisted living and the families leave the community in search of less expensive options.
Sharla, I presented the information dispassionately. I’m not sure where you see any romaticism.
With that said, the person who was the greatest influence on my life was my grandmother. She didn’t live with us, and did live in her own residence, but we saw her frequently enough that her influence was massive.
With that said, children learning to coexist with their siblings, parents and grandparents end up with a much more robust set of social skills. Objectively, isn’t a more robust set of social skills a good thing.
Further, when grandparents are living in the same household as their grandchildren, the chances that the children end up being latchkey kids is significantly reduced.
When I was a student, I shared a room with one or more roommates. That was the norm. Expecting otherwise would have been an unheard of level of entitlement.
Times change though.
Matt you sound like J.D.Vance. If only people stayed in unhappy relationships we wouldn’t need more housing. LOL.
Ron, you jump to an unwarranted conclusion. There was no “if only” in what I said. I simply laid out the changed societal reality that has caused a substantial spike in housing demand without adding a single body to the population.
Perhaps you should get your own mind out of the gutter.
I think there would be much less NIMBYism if the quality of development were higher. Plopping down a five story apartment next to a small 2 or 3-bedroom house COULD be acceptable DEPENDING on how it is done. The reason NIMBYism gets as much traction as it does is not only racsim, but just plain old crappy planning and design. What people, all people regardless of so-called race, like about “small town feel” is that it’s walkable, you can let your kids wander and it has amenities that do not require a more than a five minutes automobile trip to access. Those characteristics, among others, are frequently lost when larger scale development takes place including, I should add, massive single family dwellings like Mace Ranch with walls and no services but by car. I think it is a bit of a cop-out to paint NIMBYism with too wide a brush. What we want is quality development for everyone which I have no doubt is “uneconomical” and “doesn’t pencil out”. What we need is architectural vision that incorporates density and open space and solves walkability. When that is the focus, the NIMBYs are far fewer and not as loud.