- “Stopping housing construction doesn’t stop people from existing; it just pushes development to the fringes, where there’s less opposition, and encourages overcrowding in existing units.” — Jerusalem Demsas
Arguments against housing construction are often framed as pragmatic or even humane, invoking claims that communities are “too crowded,” infrastructure is “overburdened,” the planet is “full,” and that growth must therefore be slowed—or stopped altogether—in the name of environmental protection, quality of life, or future generations.
But when these arguments are examined closely, a darker throughline emerges.
Drawing on reporting and analysis by Jerusalem Demsas writing in The Atlantic, opposition to housing is frequently rooted not in climate science or environmental realism, but in an old and discredited worldview: population alarmism.
That worldview treats people themselves as the problem and scarcity as a moral necessity rather than a policy failure.
Recent reporting on housing, land use, and environmental politics shows how deeply this thinking continues to shape local opposition to growth, even among self-identified liberals.
This thinking reveals why these ideas persist despite decades of evidence showing that density, not sprawl, is better for the environment—and that constraining housing does not solve climate change but actively worsens it.
Urban density reduces emissions—a notion that should be uncontroversial by now.
As Demsas notes, “the average carbon footprint of households living in the center of large, population-dense urban cities is about 50 percent below average, while households in distant suburbs are up to twice the average.”
Dense cities shorten commutes, support public transit, reduce per-capita energy use, and preserve open land.
They are among the most powerful tools available for reducing emissions without coercion or deprivation.
Yet many of the people most worried about growth have no pro-density history—quite the opposite.
As urban planner Greg Morrow documented in his research on population activism, overpopulation movements in the 20th century frequently aligned themselves against housing construction and urban density.
In the early 1970s, Fred Abraham, then president of Zero Population Growth in Los Angeles, argued bluntly, “We need fewer people here… We must request a moratorium on growth and recognize that growth should be stopped.”
Morrow notes that the Sierra Club went further, recommending “a freeze on zoning to limit new residential construction.”
Half a century later, these arguments have largely been rebranded rather than abandoned.
NIMBYs still invoke overcrowding, traffic, and environmental degradation to oppose new housing.
They warn that allowing more people will turn American cities into Bangkok or Jakarta.
In Berkeley, a prominent anti-growth activist told Slate that the city could “end up like Bangkok, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur” if more students were allowed to attend UC Berkeley.
The imagery says a lot: density is cast as something alien, disorderly, and dangerous, rather than what it often is—efficient, sustainable, and deeply human.
This fear of people has real consequences, because blocking housing does not stop growth but instead pushes it outward to the fringes, where car dependence rises, emissions increase, and infrastructure costs soar.
It also encourages overcrowding in existing units, worsening living conditions while claiming to preserve them.
As Demsas puts it, “Stopping housing construction doesn’t stop people from existing; it just pushes development to the fringes, where there’s less opposition, and encourages overcrowding in existing units.”
Population alarmism often presents itself as environmental concern, but its logical endpoint is deeply troubling.
If the planet is truly “too full,” then solving the problem requires reducing the number of people.
That is not a neutral proposition.
As Demsas notes, the only ways to rapidly lower population are to “kill people, limit the aid you give to sick people, and/or stop new people from being born.”
Some suggest contraception as a humane alternative, but even there the data undermines the premise.
“Survey data show that women are actually having fewer children than they would like,” meaning expanded family planning cannot plausibly deliver the population cuts alarmists imagine.
More importantly, population alarmism has been wrong—repeatedly, spectacularly, and dangerously. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb predicted mass famine and social collapse by the end of the 20th century.
He warned that Britain might cease to exist and that hundreds of millions would starve.
None of this happened; as the Atlantic dryly observes, England still exists.
Overpopulation theories consistently underestimated human ingenuity and the adaptability of social systems. They assumed resources were fixed, technology static, and human beings interchangeable.
But history proved otherwise.
Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution dramatically increased agricultural yields and saved countless lives.
As Greg Easterbrook later noted, Ehrlich once called it a “fantasy” that India could ever feed itself. By 1974, India was self-sufficient in cereal production.
The same pattern appears in climate and housing debates today.
Overpopulation alarmists underestimate innovation, ignore the benefits of density, and default to policies of restriction.
They demand a politics of scarcity.
“A politics of scarcity demands inhumane policy interventions,” the Atlantic warns. “Enough with the innuendo: If overpopulation is the hill you want other people to die on, then you’ve got to defend the implications.”
Those implications are rarely defended openly and instead surface indirectly through opposition to apartments, student housing, transit-oriented development, or infill, where growth is framed as reckless.
Preservation then becomes an excuse for exclusion, with communities defined as belonging to “the people who already live there” and newcomers—immigrants, students, and young families—treated as burdens.
This mindset also undermines climate progress, because dense, energy-efficient communities are essential to decarbonization.
Blocking housing in job-rich regions forces longer commutes, locks in car dependence, and raises emissions.
Research from UC Berkeley confirms that “population-dense cities contribute less greenhouse-gas emissions per person than less-dense places.”
If environmentalists of the 1970s had truly prioritized ecological outcomes, the Atlantic argues, “they should have promoted the development of dense, energy-efficient communities.”
Some still argue that even if population growth is not the central concern, communities are simply “full,” but fullness is not an objective condition—it is a political choice.
Cities can accommodate more people if they allow apartments instead of exclusive single-family zoning, invest in transit rather than parking, and treat housing as essential infrastructure rather than a threat.
The hostility to density often reflects an ideological discomfort with liberalism itself.
As historian Jacob Anbinder has observed, anti-growth attitudes are “very firmly embedded ideological roots within… liberalism,” making them difficult to uproot among people who nonetheless see themselves as progressive.
The contradiction is glaring: advocating environmental protection while opposing the very forms of development that make sustainability possible.
Immigration further exposes the moral failure of population alarmism, because opposing it in the name of environmental protection not only misunderstands emissions but actively diminishes the United States’ capacity to innovate.
Thirty-seven percent of American Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, medicine, and physics from 2000 to 2020 were immigrants. A growing population, far from being a liability, generates ideas, solutions, and resilience.
Housing opposition grounded in population fear ultimately collapses into an anti-human worldview, treating people as externalities rather than participants, growth as a threat rather than a challenge to be managed, scarcity as virtuous rather than harmful, and moral panic as a substitute for policy analysis.
The housing crisis is not a population problem driven by too many people wanting to live in thriving communities, but the result of political decisions that restrict housing supply, prioritize exclusion over inclusion, and elevate fear over evidence.
Cities are not failing because they attract people—they are failing because they refuse to build for them.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
I’m not a fan of density. I think it comes from growing up in West L.A. as it densified but otherwise this article reads like everything I’ve been saying here for 20 years.
For the most part I agree with the premise of this article, and other than by Ron Oertel I don’t hear any of these arguments being made in Davis housing discussions. So, is this simply a personal hit piece … somewhat like Ron Glick’s repeatedly calling David a hypocrite about Measure J? Only our hairdressers know for sure.
With that said, there are a number of interesting quotes in the article. The first such example is, ““Survey data show that women are actually having fewer children than they would like,” meaning expanded family planning cannot plausibly deliver the population cuts alarmists imagine.”
I have a hard time believing that as an across the US female population reality. The number/proportion of women who are choosing to have no children at all has significantly increased. That choice and action pretty clearly makes their answer on the survey, “I’m having the exact number of children that I want … none.” So, the survey’s reported results must be from the weight of the women who are balancing the practical requirements of both being a parent and having a career. There are always tradeoffs in life. However, if David will post a link to the survey, it would take the guesswork out of any discussion of this survey.
The second interesting quote in the article is, “As Demsas notes, “the average carbon footprint of households living in the center of large, population-dense urban cities is about 50 percent below average, while households in distant suburbs are up to twice the average.”
Dense cities shorten commutes, support public transit, reduce per-capita energy use, and preserve open land.”
If that is true, then why is our Davis government not doing more to move vertical projects downtown forward instead of moving suburban Davis low density projects forward?
The third interesting quote from the article is, “Blocking housing in job-rich regions forces longer commutes, locks in car dependence, and raises emissions.”
My question to HUD and SACOG about their RHNA allocations is “Why are you forcing a proportionally higher allocation on a jobs wasteland jurisdictions like the City of Davis, while imposing no allocation at all on a jobs rich jurisdiction like UCD?”
UCD is making its own contributions to the housing affordability crisis in Davis. The monthly rents on-campus are just as high/unaffordable as the rents in the newly built apartments in Davis, and considerably higher than the rents in the older apartments in the city. In addition, Nishi 2018 should have been approved for 5,000 to 7,000 students (at the same 67 units per acre density of Nishi 2016 rather than 27 units per acre) with all of them walking to their “job” on the campus.
To match the RHNA allocation to the realities of the job market, HCD and SACOG should give one allocation to Yolo County and let the County and UCD and the four cities work together to put the housing where the jobs exist.
Matt
“If that is true, then why is our Davis government not doing more to move vertical projects downtown forward instead of moving suburban Davis low density projects forward?”
We know the answer to that–you and I have discussed the lack of initiative in the City planning department. Developers with the resources to pursue these have been discouraged from taking on projects that appear to have too much risk and paperwork compared to other cities. The City government needs a major transformation in culture. The CAAP appears to have been tossed aside.
UCD and Davis are one. Any residents in UCD are disenfranchised in that community and should not be housed there–that’s the responsibility of Davis who is a primary beneficiary of being collocated with UCD. The amenities and schools are better here because UCD is present. The property value premium reflects its presence and that premium is built by the higher income that homeowners enjoy in Davis. (The lower median income is from the presence of 15,000 student renters.)
That said, inside city limits, Davis itself still has about 20,000 jobs–UCD provides only 11,000 more. The number of workers in Davis+UCD is about equal to the size of the labor pool. I write here about this calculation https://mcubedecon.com/2025/11/24/reconciling-census-on-the-map-commuter-patterns-with-other-employment-data-a-case-study-in-davis/
This article confuses NIMBYism (which is an actual “thing”) with sprawl.
But obviously, neither endless infill nor sprawl is sustainable.
Perhaps the real question here (regardless of how many people the planet can accommodate) is “why” anyone would want to test that?
There isn’t a single environmental problem (whether it’s climate change, extinction, habitat loss, diminishing resources) that isn’t made worse by pursuing an ever-expanding population.
As far as the comment regarding women “having fewer children than they’d like”, who says so? In any case, isn’t THAT in fact, the solution to every environmental problem (as well as the solution to the fake housing shortage)?
1.6 kids nationwide. What’s actually happened is that the population is stabilizing – the “Malthusians” and “Ehrlichs” have already won in the developed world. It’s the “endless growthers” who haven’t been able to accept this change. Therefore, they continue to operate in the rear-view mirror – trying to “force” growth. (That’s ultimately what the state’s “mandates” are about.)
I knew I’d get the 1.6 kids figure!
It’s one of my favorite figures – and it’s even lower in California.
If coupled with Trump’s actions regarding immigrants – we’ve really got something, at this point.
That’s really the question for the developed world – are they going to restrict immigration (and essentially let those countries deal with their own problems).
There is quite a backlash against immigration in Europe, as well.
But the concerns regarding immigration are not generally about overall population size. (Probably more akin to NIMBYism.)
NIMBYism is understandable, though.
Demographics aren’t destiny
Sounds deep.
Tell that to the school districts. (Not just the one in Davis.)
But actually, they already know that. At this point, they’re just trying to poach from other districts, instead.
Personally, I’m starting to think that parents/kids should hold out for the “highest bidder”.
(I’m tempted to let young students know that their teachers need them, more than they need their teachers. They’d probably get a kick out of that.)
And since it’s based on “daily” attendance, I’d suggest a daily stipend for students to encourage them to attend. :-)
And here you thought I didn’t like kids . . .
Ron O
If Trump’s policies continue past 2028 we have much deeper problems that a decline in population due to immigration restrictions. Likely we’ll wipe out the research industry sector that UCD is part of and the national economy will decline precipitously as it has in Britain after Brexit and Russia after Putin. (And in other recent authoritarian nations.)
Remember that Paul Ehrlich lost a bet with Julian Simon about future resource prices that he made in the 1970s. These forecasts can go badly wrong. Instead we need to plan for what is reasonably foreseeable with flexibility to change course. Committing to your preferred future means increase misery for today’s people, and if you’re wrong it gets even worse.
Ron O
You’re focus on speculation about a matter that won’t come to the fore for several decades does not address the housing crisis now. What are we to do NOW when we have a shortage created by our own policy decisions? The number of people per household increased 10% in California between 2010 and 2020 from 2.9 to 3.2. That conflicts with your assertion about falling population driving down housing demand. The market price increase (especially after adjusting for mortgage rates–monthly payments rose 30% from 2021 to 2025) further rebuts your premise.
You refuse the accept the fact of why people move to new locations–to gain higher paying jobs. Jobs do not follow population as I have repeatedly shown on these pages. (You have yet to provide any evidence supporting your speculation.) History is full of the growth of agglomeration centers such as NYC, Pittsburg, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, LA and San Jose. This is going to happen regardless of what happens with future population.
“You’re focus on speculation about a matter that won’t come to the fore for several decades does not address the housing crisis now. What are we to do NOW when we have a shortage created by our own policy decisions?”
Yesterday, I posted an article regarding the University of Kansas (home of “cheap” housing) which noted that the declining birthrate (since the last housing crash in 2008) is already impacting their IMMEDIATE projections.
Do you need me to post that again?
The year 2008 = 18 year olds, THIS year.
CA Dept of Finance is projecting Yolo County population to increase approximately 0.6% to 1% each year 2025 – 2030, with expected county population 2030 would be 3.5% increase over 2025.
Over the whole decade 2025 – 2036 they are projecting 8.6% population increase for the county.
https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/projections/
Methodology here: https://dof.ca.gov/media/docs/forecasting/Demographics/projections/Methodology_Report.pdf
For the record, the Sierra Club has taken very pro-housing positions officially in the last few years:
https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/default/files/sce/sierra-club-california/PDFs/SCC_Housing_Policy_Report.pdf
But in practice, the only housing positions I can find regarding the Sierra Club are opposition to specific projects. I find no record of them ever endorsing housing projects.
The only reason that a given locale (such as Yolo county) would experience a population increase is if it’s attempting to accommodate people who move from somewhere else.
In other words, it’s a decision that’s made – not a natural inevitability.
As David might say, projections are not destiny.
But yes – you are correct regarding the Sierra Club (especially the local chapter). The Sierra Club has been at the forefront of a broader change regarding environmental organizations, which started some time ago. (That is, they’re becoming less interested in the environment – as their concern for social justice has taken center stage.) But I don’t think that’s the underlying reason that the local chapter is headed up by a guy who clearly supports Village Farms.
I didn’t coin the phrase. I borrowed from Nate Silver, although it didn’t originate with him either.
Irrespective of national population trends, Yolo County and Davis are expected to grow for the next couple of decades, and the state uses those growth projections to determine the RHNA numbers. Enrollment at UC Davis is expected to grow as well. Demographic changes aren’t likely to impact UCD enrollment totals, just their distribution.
So between state mandates and increased local demand, there will be a need for more housing in Davis and the city won’t be allowed to block it.
Both of those “expectations” are fake.
College enrollments are dropping, for the same reason that public school enrollments are dropping (not just in Davis). At this point, what we have is institutional “competition” for a declining pool of customers.
The state’s housing mandates are also fake/unachievable, and are no based upon any underlying “justification” whatsoever – unless one thinks its a legitimate goal to PURPOSEFULLY seek to house Bay Area expatriates.
If those apparent goals were more “honestly” acknowledged – we’d at least have a starting point regarding the actual arguments.
In other words, if one’s goal is to continue to poach students (both in the public school system and at the university level, apparently intended to justify the state’s fake housing “requirements’) – we’d at least have a starting point regarding an honest discussion.
“So, is this simply a personal hit piece … somewhat like Ron Glick’s repeatedly calling David a hypocrite about Measure J?”
No, there is a difference. I always believed David was smart enough to know better. Although it took many years, because of David’s low sloped learning curve, he has finally recognized what I have been saying for decades has been correct. To wit, I say welcome to reality David. On the other hand I think there are those who will never change despite all the evidence, but David, having admitted that we have failed, seems now liberated to speak truth without reservation. I find it refreshing.
David has been advocating for growth/development (albeit without explicitly stating that he doesn’t support Measure J, for example) – for at least the 11 years or so I’ve been reading/commenting on the Vanguard.
What you “actually” objected to is that he wasn’t explicitly stating that. And frankly, I agree with you – not sure why David was “so afraid” to acknowledge his own dark side. (It’s not as if he had anything to lose.)
He lost the support of the local “slow growthers” more than a decade ago, at this point. So why not openly embrace Darth Vader – I say. (At least you know where you stand with Mr. Vader – who is less-concerned about popularity contests, so to speak.)