Three Levels of NIMBYism
Our political system is littered with acronyms: NAFTA, MAGA, the IRA, etc., etc. But perhaps no acronym describes American politics better than NIMBY — Not In My BackYard. NIMBYs recognize the need for more affordable housing but see this as a problem for some other area. Again, what defines America better than aspiring for something better — as long as we aren’t inconvenienced in any way? I will walk through three levels of thought that help explain the NIMBY movement and why it is ultimately detrimental for all.
NIMBYism
A homeowner may prefer limited development in their area for many reasons: new construction is noisy, leads to more cars, and changes the built environment. A homeowner may voice these concerns at a local planning commission when a multifamily development is proposed in their neighborhood. Nobody is there to advocate for the project since there are no existing renters in the unbuilt complex. Renters are also much more mobile and are not as invested in any particular neighborhood. Unfortunately, many planning commissions throughout the country mirror this same dynamic. This is especially true in the large cities with the most job opportunities.
NIMBYism creates a conflict between homeowners and renters. If this were isolated to just one area, the conflict could be easily resolved by some areas remaining low-density and renters moving to other areas with higher density. But again, this is replicated nationwide causing a national scarcity of housing leading to higher prices.
Level 1
My thoughts on this dynamic have gone through three distinct phases. The first level was the most generous. In this mode of thought, homeowners try to do what is best but have a parochial outlook. In other words, they prioritize local concerns without an adequate view of the broader dynamics. The worries over neighborhood feel and traffic are very concrete; things will be best if these are protected. There is fault in NIMBYs’ implementation but not their motives.
In reality, NIMBYs raise real concerns but miss the most important issues. Livability is subjective and influenced by many factors, but the ability to live somewhere is obviously paramount. NIMBYs seemingly don’t realize that prohibiting growth in their communities — and NIMBYs in other communities doing the same — leads to a systemic shortage in living spaces.
Level 2
The second mode of thought views homes strictly as assets. The vast majority of NIMBYs’ wealth is in their primary residences. They view this as an asset to protect. They realize the surest way to increase the value of their assets is to limit new supply. Consequently, new developments are opposed, so existing homes can increase in value.
Of course, that puts homeowners in direct conflict with renters. This tension is natural as asset owners and future asset owners have opposing goals about asset prices. NIMBYs feel no obligation to renters without roots in their community. They assume renters can move to some other area — or are unbothered by the ensuing homelessness.
Vancouverism
To understand the final level, we must first look at Vancouver, BC. Vancouver is consistently ranked as one of the most livable cities in the world. Over the last few decades, Vancouver made a proactive effort to build adequate housing near job centers, prioritize public transit, and implement other urban design concepts to improve the city for its residents (City Beautiful). Vancouver is typically seen as the epitome of smart urban design, and the associated policies are known as “Vancouverism.”
Vancouver, however, is an exceptionally expensive city. Vancouver is the most expensive housing market in Canada with a benchmark home selling for 50% more than the national average. Although sky-high prices may seem like an argument against Vancouverism, they actually point to the approach’s success.
Vancouver is expensive because people want to live there. Vancouver built many dense units as prices increased dramatically. This trend is unexpected since prices typically fall when the supply of something is increased. However, Vancouver is not a closed system. Vancouver became such an attractive city that residents from other cities and towns wanted to live there — and were willing to pay well above the national average to do so. The increased supply could not keep up with the colossal demand. One city, even a city focused on livability, cannot house an entire country. Because it is a desirable place to live, high prices constrain who can afford to live there.
Level 3
The third level of thought highlights the true absurdity of the housing crisis. Most homeowners’ wealth is tied to their primary real estate, and they are set on maintaining the value of this asset. They often do this by blocking potential developments that may increase the housing supply in an area. However, this is counterproductive. Vancouver shows that people are willing to pay more to live in a livable place. And Vancouver is no exception.
The densest areas of America are also the most expensive. Not everyone prefers dense city life. However, there are many more Americans who prefer this lifestyle than there are units to support it. As a result, prices are exorbitant in the densest areas. Any city could replicate these high prices through thoughtful design. Conversely, NIMBYs typically advocate against all development or at least any developments that incorporate elements of Vancouverism.
To summarize, there are 3 ways to think about NIMBYism:
1. Homeowners fail to see the broader dynamics.
2. Homeowners prioritize themselves over renters.
3. Homeowners misunderstand economics to the detriment of all.
The third level is the most accurate. NIMBYs try to preserve their assets by blocking new developments. This simultaneously lowers asset prices locally and leads to a housing crisis nationally. Until the demand for livable spaces is satisfied (unlikely), communities would benefit the country — and themselves — by building better, denser cities.
