By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Last week Josh Stephens of the California Planning and Development Report argued, “NIMBYism has had a good run: a good, multi-million-dollar fun for many millions of (relatively older, whiter, wealthier) Californians. That run is ending.”
While I must acknowledge encouragement at what happened in San Francisco with the heavy focus on housing in the special Assembly Election and of course the quick legislative override in Berkeley, not to mention the failure of opponents of SB 9 and SB 10 to mount an initiative drive—overall I am much more sanguine than Stephens about the death of NIMBYism.
Maybe it’s because I live in Davis, and see the ability of local residents to 
continually thwart efforts for new housing. Maybe it’s because I see the ability of small groups to block and delay projects even after approval.
Stephens argues, “After NIMBYism went nearly undefeated and scarcely contested for four decades, its losses are piling up. It’s not dead, but it’s sputtering.”
He makes a strong showing here, but argues, “None of those single events, of course, gives California and its cities free rein to build the 2-3 million units that are needed. But collectively they point to a political shift that, coupled with structural economic and demographic trends, suggest that NIMBYism is not what it used to be—and probably never will be again.”
Here are some of the highlights that Stephens mentions in his 12 examples.
First, he writes, “NIMBY-oriented petitions to force recall elections in Los Angeles and San Diego failed to even get on their respective ballots.”
Second, he notes, “Statewide ballot measures like 2020’s Prop. 21, a rent control measure sponsored by NIMBY group AIDS Healthcare, failed handily.”
Stephens noted that “Our Neighborhood Voices” ballot initiative “advanced by a group of local elected officials who talked big game about recapturing local control from the state” ended up pulling their petitions having failed to garner significant numbers to force a ballot initiative.
Stephens also noted that the YIMBY movement has advanced from their early days to “the remarkably effective lobbying and advocacy efforts of California YIMBY.”
He also noted, “The demise of single-family zoning in cities like Sacramento and Berkeley (pre-SB 9) illustrates a powerful confluence of social justice and housing advocacy.”
Meanwhile, he argues that Livable California, “an organization that probably seems powerful, forceful, and righteous within the echo chamber of its membership—looks increasingly ineffectual and cartoonish.”
We have seen a strong legislative record of pro-housing laws, “with relatively few failures and vetoes,” though he acknowledges high-profile failures like SB 827, SB 50, and AB 1401. He argued that these “provided cover for more subtle pro-housing laws.”
Stephens also points to the new RHNA process, “which while not perfect, is very real.” He adds, “The attorney general is keeping tabs on cities, calling them out for noncompliance, and threatening to file lawsuits.”
While San Francisco Supervisors killed a high-density apartment building “that had checked all the planning boxes,” that “seems like a victory, except for the outcry and derision that it inspired. San Francisco voters may face a ballot initiative in November that would make it harder for the supervisors to deny projects.”
Finally, he pointed to the Berkeley lawsuit that was won by a neighborhood group, and “would have prevented UC Berkeley from building a new mixed-use dorm and, more importantly, forcing it to reduce enrollment.”
“Initially, it seemed like an enormous, potentially devastating win over one of the world’s great public institutions,” he writes. “And yet, not two weeks later, the legislation and governor, in an astonishing display of unity and effectiveness, passed a law to negate the lawsuit. Students of Classical history at Berkeley will know this as a ‘Pyrrhic victory.’”
Stephens concludes that “while I do not support unbridled development and appreciate many stakeholders’ concerns, I think this evolution will, on balance, be good for California and Californians.”
He points out “an increasingly small share of California’s population benefits from Prop. 13. The primordial Prop. 13 beneficiaries have made out like bandits. And anyone who’s purchased a home in the past decade or so is probably sufficiently resentful of the fact that they are paying property taxes that might be, in some cases, many times greater than those of their longer-tenured neighbors.”
He believes that the demise of NIMBYism will allow California planners to “actually plan.”
He noted that “planners today are less encumbered than ever before by NIMBY-inspired restrictions.”
From a political perspective, he argues, “I think they’re going to hear increasingly fewer strident voices of opposition at public meetings in the coming years. Those voices might not be any less loud, but they’ll be less numerous.”
I actually think we have already seen this locally. I’ve noted that the last few Measure J elections, the number of anti-housing/anti-development voices have been relatively few. Even looking at places like NextDoor, the number of people actively engaged and hostile to the recent DiSC project are relatively few.
Still, as we have seen in Davis, while there have been victories for housing—Nishi and Bretton Woods in 2018 for instance—the anti-housing forces can still muster victories.
Stephens noted that “some NIMBY-friendly policies and institutions will take awhile to catch up with public opinion. CEQA will always complicate planners’ work, and it will always favor the status quo.”
He added, “NIMBYs will still win occasional victories, through clever use of CEQA and political pressure in certain slow-growth redoubts, like the San Francisco Peninsula and Orange County. But they’re also going to lose. Their losses will lead to frustration. But frustration is not policy. And the more time passes, the more evidence will mount that the sky remains intact.”
Overall, I think he makes some strong points. I’ve often noted locally that there is a huge generational factor, with older homeowners acting as the last gatekeeper for new housing opportunities in Davis and that pool will slowly decline in strength and number of time.
Still, I would not count myself as optimistic. At least not yet.
“Maybe it’s because I live in Davis, ”
Where we have Measure J,R,D.
“I’ve often noted locally that there is a huge generational factor, with older homeowners acting as the last gatekeeper for new housing opportunities in Davis and that pool will slowly decline in strength and number of time.”
If only those thousands of new on campus residents got to vote on measure J elections.
Actually, my experience is that is the ‘middle-agers’, early ’40’s to late ’50’s who are the ones that want to “build the moat, and raise the bridge”, in Davis.
Why sure it is, everyone wants their community to look just like Elk Grove.
As opposed to…
Or this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_oSmm9I3_F9E/THXrO6CpjLI/AAAAAAAAAT8/AoZcXcgWa8o/s1600/urban-sprawl-in-united-states-eden-prairie-aerial-florida.jpg
Your counter to a real world issue in California is a photo from Florida?
Just as your counter to Elk Grove type of urban sprawl was a picture of urban sprawl.
LOL
The issue is the $1 million homes in Orange County as a result of growth control policies that are unbalanced. If your response is the other extreme, fine. I agree. We should not go to the other extreme. But there has to be a middle ground. And right now, there’s not.
I’ll say again (as I did in another post), that I do not believe that forcing housing policies down the throats of local communities is the answer to the housing issues. You’re going to get pushback that may slow or derail efforts to produce more housing.
I’ll say again that there should be optimal population growth target for the state and local regions (instead of a fait accompli about population growth). Planning should be done with that optimization in mind.
New housing growth should be encouraged as urban infill as well as new urban neighborhood communities (somewhat like DISC…no more stand alone business parks and shopping centers). And most importantly; NEW COMMUNITIES NEED TO BE CREATED. So the state and counties need to consider infrastructure creation and expansion for new community growth. Create new semi-urban pockets of growth (biz parks, shopping centers with mixed use and denser residential units around it…and some new single family homes) in areas near cities that do not want to grow.
“I’ll say again (as I did in another post), that I do not believe that forcing housing policies down the throats of local communities is the answer to the housing issues. ”
On the surface I would agree. But if you look at a lot of the examples provided in this, what you see is less a force than an active battle between those trying to stop housing and those trying to approve more. Berkeley for example – the neighbors were opposing some projects, but it was the elected city council that was on the other side. We see that dynamic at work in Davis as well. So I’m not sure what you are describing is accurate.
Would you prefer one from SoCal?
Read my other post below. What did I say about real estate? location, location, location.
People care when it’s in their almost literal backyards. Otherwise…yeah they’re all for new housing for the poor unfortunate people that need housing.
So you’re going to get a continuous cycle of pro-development for the good of the poor people and city….and then you’ll get anti-growth counter push from neighborhood locals…which if pushed too far will include those outside of the neighborhood for those concerned about state government overreach.
I should add to my ideas about no more stand alone biz parks and shopping centers; that if new shopping centers are built that I think it should be required to plan for either mixed use or dense affordable residential units at or really close to that shopping center. If a city is taking on new retail jobs; it should plan for housing for those retail jobs.
“People care when it’s in their almost literal backyards. ”
Which of course is by definition, NIMBYism. Given that, there is probably is no way at this point to avoid forcing development on at least some people.
So that’s why you ave the YIYBY’s.
Yes In Your Back Yard
You’re not really seeing the forest for the trees concerning my comments.
I said below in another comment that almost EVERYONE gets to a tipping point about how they feel or to what degree they believe their community should be in terms of traffic, parking, crowds, quality of life (some like living around open space for example)…and yes economics. EVERYONE has their their belief about how they view their community and inevitably growth in one form or another will oppose one or more of those beliefs of most people at some time.
NIMBYism is a different issue than concerns regarding sprawl.
YIMBYs are not grass-roots organizations. They are funded by special interests, especially the technology industry.
https://48hills.org/2021/05/the-big-yimby-money-behind-housing-deregulation-bills/
https://www.housinghumanright.org/inside-game-california-yimby-scott-wiener-and-big-tech-troubling-housing-push/
https://www.housinghumanright.org/why-is-california-yimby-hiding-the-names-of-big-money-contributors/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-is-california-yimby-hiding-the-names-of-big-money-contributors
What’s the most basic premise about real estate? location, location, location.
People’s attitudes towards new housing laws and a reversal of NIMBYISM are being conflated. It assumes rational thought by people/voters that one is in opposition to the other. But it’s more like:
Voters: More housing across the state for the all the unfortunate people that need housing? That’s a big YES!
Voters (a few years later): Wait! You want to push housing into my community? And good god! Not AFFORDABLE HOUSING! What will that do to my home’s value????
Yes, but you forget that once those that have struggled to buy a home, finally do; give them 10 years and then they’ll be the ones protecting their community and investment.
10 years? How about immediately?
I believe that is true for ~ 60% of folk, and that the vast majority of those, figure the way to “protect”, is make sure no one else can follow in their footsteps… the “I’ve got mine, to H-e-double toothpicks” with everyone else” crowd… here, the term “entitled” actually gains some traction… and not based on race… ‘it’s about the (perceived) economics, stupid’…
https://48hills.org/2017/11/housing-crisis-caused-much-growth/
https://48hills.org/2022/04/haneys-victory-does-not-mean-progressive-candidates-have-to-move-to-the-right/
Ask and you shall receive, Southern Cal urban sprawl..
Think of the melody “Isn’t She Lovely”
https://live.staticflickr.com/2171/2364698804_9fd150d561_b.jpg
Keith, your posts make the binary assumption that if you dont have nimby’s or you will have endless urban sprawl.
This is a false dichotomy.
The truth is that most Yimby groups are AGAINST R1 zoning, and car-centric urban design, and instead advocate for infill when possible, and “missing middle” mixed-use zoning which is more sustainable on an economic and environmental basis.
Here is davis, we really cant avoid growth. It’s a crisis. But nobody except the developers are saying that we need more single-family housing.
And that really is the problem with Nimbyism I think… the “no-at-all-costs” kind of mindstet which turns every development proposal into a shouting match pretty much guarantees that we only get half-measure, limited, “dont rock the boat” low density propsals that dont piss off the neighbors too much by developing more of the same car-centric single family housing…
No, I’ve repeatedly said it. So I’ll say it again: we need more single-family housing in Davis.
Presently the single-family homes that potential Davis homebuyers would purchase are being built in Woodland and Dixon.
When they stop building them in Woodland and Dixon, let us know.
(Including the 1,600 housing units planned at the Woodland technology park, after failing in Davis.)
Though I’m hearing more-and-more about a decline in the housing market, due to significantly-rising interest rates.
There’s also the “pre-owned” market, by the way. (Watch for the market to change there, as well.)
No. Builders are in the business of making money. Builders build what will sell. What sells are single family homes. That means people want single family homes. If given the choice between a 1,400 sqft townhome with little to no yard on the outskirts of East Davis or a 2,000 sqft single family home with a yard in Woodland; more than likely most buyers are going to buy the 2000 sqft home in Woodland….which is what they’re doing.
Well, there is one little patch of green that might be a park . . . so there’s that.
“Yes, but you forget that once those that have struggled to buy a home, finally do; give them 10 years and then they’ll be the ones protecting their community and investment.”
You mean like the people who bought in Mace Ranch 20 years ago and now oppose Disc? Many complain about the traffic they contribute to when they drive.
So should they now vote to make it even worse?
It is rather interesting to see how the state and the YIMBYs have “teamed-up” against cities:
https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/04/24/yimby-activists-help-california-enforce-new-law-ending-single-family-zoning/
Perhaps this is also something to keep in mind regarding DiSC as well, since the EIR itself notes that it creates demand for housing in excess of what would be provided onsite. You can be sure that the local YIMBYs will take note of that, if it passes.
I’ve asked U not to use NIMBY the pejorative.
There’s a reason for this. NIMBY sounds like there is no validity, nothing but selfishness. Is it so wrong for someone to finally scrape everything together and make a purchase in the biggest investment of their lives, and then have a desire to protect the character of the neighborhood they have bought into?
You see, the “envy” tribalism immediately makes those who have made the climb into “them”, the “rich”, when in fact they are probably now in debt and struggling financially, just with bigger stakes. So the crabs in the pot try to pull the ‘just barely succeeding’ crabs back into the boiling water. In the mean time, the big fat crabs are staring into the pot, laughing at all of us.
Do any of you believe that we will ever see apartments in North Davis Farms?, infill where the golf course was at Stonegate Country Club?, dense student apartments in El Macero (not Davis, I know)? These things aren’t happening, because the truly wealthy will never allow it, because they have the power.
So they create this dynamic where anyone with a house is “them” rich, and everyone who rents is “us”, and they, those truly in power, smile as those who achieved a modicum of success are brought down by envy politics, identity politics, and dirty state politics, diapered with “NIMBY” and torn down not from the wealthy, but now from whence many came.
And foolishly, the Davis Vanguard and Campus Democrats and all the others align with YIMBY and Weiner and all the developers because developers have learned that these people believe their lies that development-at-any-price is the solution to high housing costs. They don’t see they are being used. YOU don’t see you are being used — as tools.
I’m not saying all developers are evil. Because I know a couple of decent ones. What I’m saying is most developers are evil.
I’m also not a fan of what is referred to as the ‘anti-development’ crowd. Who will always say they are not anti-development. Which is a sign they anti-development. Sort of like drowning a suspected witch, no?
I’m actually in favor of DISC, because of the housing element, and the bike/ped tunnel infrastructure. But I’m voting against DISC, because they lost my vote by placing a sitting council-memeber who just voted to put their item on the ballot, as the chair of their election committee.
Nope. Just flaunting in our face the power dynamic. Nope.
And the suing of the NO committee members was just icing on the No on Carson cake.
I’m wandering . . . STOP CALLING PEOPLE NIMBYS! You are playing right into the mouth of the evil ones.
“ I’ve asked U not to use NIMBY the pejorative.”
Oh well. I’ve taken your request under consideration, but has chosen to disregard it primarily because it’s impractical at this time.
I do believe that you have overall twisted yourself into a pretzel on this stuff.
On the one hand, you oppose Measure J.
But on the other hand, you are voting against DiSC (apparently) based on capricious reasons (you say you like the project, but are angry at Dan Carson. Wouldn’t it make more sense to donate and work to defeat Dan Carson than it does to vote against a project that you like and utilize a process you don’t like?).
Baffling. You don’t agree with the right to vote projects, but you will exercise it when it suits your purpose.
Well…. being ethical is also not binary. Some people are more… make more ethical decisions and others, less so. Obviously I support Alan M.’s decision, though I disagree with his opinion about DISC… and more in general comments below…. but for now in relation to the implied protection of Old East Davis: I support the preservation of existing “single-family”, historical housing, but think that the two blocks with apartments therein should eventually be re-developed as three/four-story buildings between J and K and four/five between K and L… and with Identity Davis-levels of parking at most and no ability to park on the street (with exceptions for certain professions), befitting an area moments away from Downtown and even closer to the future “Gas” neighborhood built on top of the PG&E corporation yard and adjacent 5th St. corridor. During re-development could also narrow these streets that don’t have parking on them, making them safer. So there’s a bit of compromise in aesthetics, but car traffic impacts go down… these modern apartments can improve local housing values if done right. This density also makes more frequent transit more likely for everyone.
I do like pretzels — with mustard, no salt.
Thanks for noticing 😐
Not angry. Disgusted.
Done & Done
I don’t like it. I don’t like having a five-story building out my living room window either. But if peeps have integrity, a decent project, and community benefit, I’ll consider support. I was barely was on the support side, pre-Carson.
I don’t like taxes either, but I work with what I’m given . . .
“I don’t like taxes either, but I work with what I’m given . . .”
That’s an exceedingly poor analogy, given that you are compelled by law to pay taxes so unless you wish to pull a Thoreau, you have no choice but to acede. On the other hand, you are choosing to not only participate but perpetuate a system you oppose by voting no in any Measure J election. You are trying to have it both ways – argue that we shouldn’t vote on projects and then using your vote to oppose a project. That’s a fundamental inconsistency.
The decline of NIMBY influence is driven by the unaffordability of housing for renters. An electorate with a large share of renters are now ready to vote down homeowners in those communities. Not sure where Davis will end up because while having a large share of renters, many are transient students who don’t participate much in local elections.
Those are generally two different groups. Single-family dwellings are not going to be torn down in mass to convert to apartment buildings. (And if they are, wouldn’t that deplete ownership opportunities for single-family dwellings?)
Tenant advocacy groups support rent control and increased protections against evictions. The development YIMBYs do not.
San Francisco might be an exception, regarding replacement of single-family dwellings with group (megadorm-style) apartment housing for tech workers. With resulting parking needs foisted upon the neighborhood as a whole. (In the case below, even the bicycle parking and a “group kitchen” was proposed to be eliminated.)
https://48hills.org/2022/03/bogus-group-housing-plan-approved-sort-of/
Just happened-upon this article.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/what-if-california-s-housing-crunch-doesn-t-really-exist/ar-AAWA1A0
Tom Elias opinion piece. :eyeroll
Not familiar with him, but again – this refers to a state audit report, and includes quotes and data from that.
So if you have a disagreement with the state auditor’s findings, maybe you should contact them.
No, I have a disagreement with Tom Elias’ interpretation of the auditor’s findings.
You’re free to look it up and critique it yourself. I might do so at some point, as well.
But there are facts quoted in the article.
It’s over a month old. It was widely covered. I think it was covered in the Vanguard.
First I’ve heard of it, and I’m probably “fed” these articles via an algorithm.
I think I would have noticed that, if it was.
Right off the bat, I’m finding the figures regarding Newsom amusing. Both in terms of what’s been built, and the changing “need”.
https://davisvanguard.org/2022/03/state-faulted-for-being-too-slow-in-offering-affordable-housing-according-to-an-audit/
Looks like you commented on it.
Thanks.
Looks like David limited his focus to “surplus” state property that might be used for Affordable housing.
Hence, the reason I didn’t recall his “analysis”. Certainly a different focus than the article I cited.
Both articles should probably include a link to the actual state audit.
Argh… David Greenwald’s constant stream of abuse of the truth makes me want to puke. Where should I puke? I can puke in the all large parking lots and empty fields spread all over the City, some close and some very close to Downtown and Campus.
Sadly, many who lean quite Left and support the Vanguard’s actually good and principled stand on particular social justice issues – and I think similar with Mayor Partida – are completely silent with the way the Vanguard paints the diverse opposition to DISC – notably utilizing the amateur journalism of DISC- and Carson-supporters, and the Mayor’s arguments absent of any negatives about DISC, joining the Vanguard in saying that anything but DISC is impossible.
With the Vanguard it’s unfortunate but it’s a kind of Goebbelsianisch storytelling – i.e. the repeating-the-lie-often-enough thing, which may have not been said by the former Minister of Propaganda, thus the “-isch” — and with Partida it’s even more unfortunate – as she was elected, etc. – as a kind of weaponization of equity.
Anyway, branding is reductionist and abusive – and can be abused – but we need to think of other -IMBY-type terms, such as IAHBMSWJFE (I Have No Backyard, Make Something With Joy for Everyone) or IMSaQBY (In My Shared and Quiet Backyard) or CANBNSECEIMBYED (Cars Are Nice But No One Should Eat Cake In My Backyard Every Day)… and so on….
Seriously dude….[edited] I mean, if you have an opposing point of view, some new facts or a different interpretation of the YES campaign’s conclusions, by all means publish it. But…geeze…your post is some piece of rambling….and that’s coming from a guy that often quotes “The Simpsons” and “South Park” in his comments.
Don’t Count On a Housing Slowdown to Improve Affordability – The Washington Post/ Bloomberg
By the way, what part of Davis was that photo (for the article) taken from?
And, how much rent do they want for one of those enclosed cages in front? (Or, is that part of their “live/work” space? Maybe an architectural firm or something similar, in that work space?)
Or is that just for chickens?
I am glad to see some clothes air-drying, regardless.
NIMBY, YIMBY, Conservative, Liberal, Red state, Blue state, Right-Wing, Left-wing, Democrat and Republican.
This lazy lumping of complex, free-thinking, decision-making human beings into boxes of identical, “us” versus “them” widgets is demeaning, divisive and, ultimately destructive to the concept of people of all persuasions working together for the common good.
Some people seem to purposely nurture such divisions, using “divide and conquer” as a weapon to achieve their objectives. Others just can’t seem to believe, or accept, the concept that people of different persuasions can, and must, work together to achieve real progress.
Housing’s a weird dynamic. Some people make the mistake of believing that the center of power is the developer – they have the money, they buy the access. The problem with that conception is that the gatekeepers are neighbors and homeowners. You might think of them as the little guy against the big developer. The problem is that many homeowners are wealthy by definition since they own expensive houses and they can join together to have strength in numbers. Who gets screwed? The true little guy – the dude trying to buy a home or pay his rent. Or the younger generation struggling to buy houses or afford their rent and pay the rest of their bills.
As far as rent, that’s what rent control is for.
Younger people (in particular) also have to be willing to move. And they are doing exactly that, for sound reasons.
Even so, the “cheap” areas (such as Texas) have had some of the biggest run-up in housing prices, recently. Florida has also been leading the way, regarding that. And most of those places have never met a development that they didn’t “like”. (For that matter, most of the region falls into that category, as well. When was the last time that Woodland turned down a housing development proposal, for example?)
Davis itself is probably half made-up of expatriates from the Bay Area. And that trend has accelerated in recent years, throughout the Sacramento area.
America itself is made-up of the descendants of people who “moved”. (Well, they moved onto land that was partially-occupied by other people, but that’s another story.)
Read my 11:20 a.m. comment again.
Amen, brother RE!
Thanks, Alan. Let us pray.
Or as en evil developer might say, “Let us prey.”
Not that all developers are evil . . . 😐
So yeah, if you don’t want to create local housing shortages, you might want to avoid approving a development that claims to create 2,500 jobs, while only providing 460 housing units.
Creating demand for 1,269 additional housing units, beyond the 460 provided onsite (per the EIR).
There is no plan to address this induced need. Instead, the development activists are claiming that the existing housing element will be sufficient to accommodate this additional demand. (Keep in mind that these are the same folks who aren’t satisfied with the limited number of housing units in the housing element in the first place.)
The problem being that the development advocates’ argument “pretends” that there is no other demand for additional housing. (Keep in mind that these are the same folks who aren’t satisfied with the limited number of units in the housing element in the first place.) In other words, they’re now “suddenly” claiming that the housing element was “created” to accommodate the demand for DiSC, and is sufficient to accommodate the demand from DiSC and all of the other, pre-existing demand. (The exact opposite of what they usually claim.)
Using their argument, the (current) housing element could be reduced by 1,269 housing units, if DiSC is not approved.
So, I don’t know if I’ve explained this clearly enough, but if not – I’m not sure I can help anyone see how duplicitous they actually are.
This goes beyond the “normal” nonsense on here, and speaks to a lack of personal integrity from these people. They’re speaking out of both sides of their mouth, and undermining their own stated “concerns”.
So yeah, I’m going to ask again why the development activists claim that pre-existing housing plans (in the form of the housing element) are intended to accommodate the increased demand from a proposal (DiSC) which hasn’t even been approved, and wasn’t even considered when establishing the housing element.
And if the EIR itself is claiming this, then the EIR is making that same illogical assumption. While it simultaneously notes that the proposal itself creates additional demand for 1,729 housing units, of which only 460 are provided onsite. Again, this demand is NOT accounted for, in the current housing element. This isn’t even a matter of dispute – it’s simply a fact.
Think about this overnight (Craig, David, or Wesley) so that you’re prepared to answer your illogical claim when challenged again. (Really, there’s no way to prepare for it – even if you “team up” to try to figure out a response.)