How to turn NIMBYs into YIMBYs

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by C.

Of course those are the excuses said in public. But if that was true, NIMBYs would be protesting sprawl on the fringe of cities as that’s the true driver of traffic and straining public services. But nope, it’s always about development in their back yard, even if it’s appropriately situated to take advantage of transit and existing infrastructure. They simply do not want additional people on their neighborhood because it may be the wrong kind of people. IMO.

There are lots of cases of NIMBYS opposing projects clearly not intended for people of color, such as yuppie housing or in college towns/neighborhoods.

When it comes down to it, the average NIMBY is an older, retired or semi-retired person with lots of time on their hands to go to community meetings and kvetch. They like their neighborhood the way they remembered it 20-30 years ago when they bought in, and they don't like anything changing it.

These days it seems a lot more common TBH to see these NIMBY types recruit POC activists to help them kill projects by claiming it's "gentrification." I mean, densification in established white wealthy parts of cities is basically politically impossible in most places, meaning where densification happens is only in areas which are gentrifying (because low-income areas typically have looser zoning, though they lack the market to develop until property values rise) or in areas with a low enough residential population that no one gives a damn.

[C.]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Here's the sort of thing that has happened historically:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7930...7i16384!8i8192

I rather live in that Chicago neighborhood than 90% of the suburban crap build in America today. I suspect many others would too, but these diverse non-homogenous mixed-use neighborhoods are rare finds. Plus rents are extremely high.

[C.]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Right, I feel that zoning needs to be more inclusive.

Absolutely! Zoning is the way it currently is by design, but there will be a reckoning as housing affordability and homeownership becomes increasingly out of reach for the majority of the county's Millennials and Generation Z.

Would love to see starter homes make a return, but for that minimum lot sizes need to go the way of the dodo.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by hughfb3

Tools put into place to affect one group of people, will eventually come back around and affect all people. NIMBYism comes from a practice based decades ago. I say these things because there is a root to go after. A place to look is at the history of why the suburbs were built in the first place. Prior to the civil rights movement in the 50's/60s, people lived in cities and cars were a rarity in life. Many people made their money from their homes with their shop facing the street and living above, or a shop walking distance away. The Suburban concept was in its infancy in the 1940's separating people from their work by deeming a single family home was not a place of business...white people generally having more money and owning more businesses, they thought this a way to keep blacks out economically. After the civil rights movement, America went bananas in building these neighborhoods. Once black people were allowed more freedoms, White people began to desire these places away from all the blacks in the city, so they marketed the American Dream of the Single family house, yard and picket fence only accessible via a car to the "average american." What they didnt realize was that Black people would be inspired by this dream; had enough money to access it, and would soon follow.

When economic separations didnt work, they turned to creating new vaguely worded laws under the guise of progress. The city of Los Angeles was the first city to employ a zoning code in USA. In the 1950s-60s, Foundational Black Americans were escaping the south en masse and moving to the North and West. Los Angeles experienced an influx into its first wave suburbs; the then predominately white neighborhoods of Compton, Watts, Inglewood, Crenshaw etc. "White Flight" Happened and White people moved en masse from theses areas to the San Fernando Valley, Hawthorne, Glendale, Burbank and other places; building over what was once very fertile and productive farmland, and creating unofficial "Sundown Towns." This is when the second wave of suburbs were built in the 1950s-1960s (much of the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles). When they did this, they instituted Zoning codes, deed restricted property covenants, "environmental laws" other measures to prevent "other people" from moving there. The more "other people" moved in... the further the city spreads out... creating more traffic, pollution and ever expanding freeways.

Everything NIMBY is based from this concept. Since the civil rights movement, one couldn't explicitly say they were keeping blacks out, its gotten cunning... these laws are left over from a time past and get to be removed and or reworked. Things like CEQA have been weaponized from what could have been a good intentioned way to stem pollution, to now being used to keep people out. CEQA is now just one of the many tools that keep "white supremacy" in place; while only allowing a selected few of others that "obey the rules" in. It has nothing to do with the environment, traffic... its all to keep control over who gets to live where and what they can do with it... either with laws, economics, HOA's, building codes, etc. All these tools put into place now affect all people, ranging from homelessness, mental health, poorly funded schools and ever escalating student loan debt. I mention this so that we don't just look at the symptoms, but we see the root cause... the laws, rules, and regulations from the past still in existence today and cloaked from their true intentions, and speak of how we can address

This isn't really a completely accurate view of history. The idea of a "suburb" as we would understand it goes back well into the 19th century. The earliest of these were the "horsecar suburbs" and "railroad suburbs" - which allowed for the wealthy to live some distance from heavy industry in more strictly residential zones. But this reached down heavily into the middle classes by the 1890s with the development of the electric streetcar, with streetcar suburbia showing most of the hallmarks of later suburbia (long blocks full of tract single-family housing, no job centers nearby, limited commerce concentrated in a single street, ect). And by the 1920s you had full on suburbia, with the only real difference that garages were still generally detached. Although true zoning didn't really exist in these areas until very late, you had restrictive covenants attached to deeds which often functioned like zoning (and explicitly excluded blacks and Jews - which is one reason why Jewish neighborhoods often later became black neighborhoods - they lacked racial covenants).

Then the Great Depression and World War II happened, and the U.S. built very little new housing for 15 years, causing a major national housing shortage. This was the single major reason for the burst in suburbanization in the late 1940s and 1950s. Cities were crowded and dirty, but that was the reason people had been moving out of urban neighborhoods for decades. True white flight didn't really get rolling until 1960 or so (when the urban riots started in full force). People were running "to" suburbs because they could get houses there cheap. Black people were explicitly excluded from the new suburbs by design of course, but white people weren't (yet) leaving the cities primarily due to black people). The "rush for the exits" was more a 1960-1980 thing.

The origins of classic NIMBYism can in part be drawn back to neighborhood opposition to the construction of low-income housing projects (often large towers) within middle-class neighborhoods in the 1960s and 1970s. However, this is just one strand. Jane-Jacobs-inspired opposition to building highways through historic urban neighborhoods is also a major origin point of NIMBYism. In Philly, a major organizing moment was when residents around Rittenhouse Square organized to stop the conversion of the park into a parking lot. Once these urban professional neighborhoods self-organized, they got interested in "historic preservation" and "neighborhood character" which often led to blocking anything new.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Setting aside the issue of race (momentarily), I think that zoning raises the question of whether we can plan cities or not.

In the absence of zoning, you could theoretically have any housing be built in any residential area, which might result in an increase in supply, but also a lack of homogeneity of building types.

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Almost every interesting urban neighborhood which was constructed in the U.S. predates zoning. These neighborhoods are interesting because of their heterogeneity. You never know when you turn the corner if you'll find a random storefront in the middle of a block, or an old warehouse stuck between two houses converted into apartments, etc. They're fun to walk around in a way that blocks and blocks of monotonous houses (even if they're urban styled) simply are not.

[C.]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The origins of classic NIMBYism can in part be drawn back to neighborhood opposition to the construction of low-income housing projects (often large towers) within middle-class neighborhoods in the 1960s and 1970s. However, this is just one strand. Jane-Jacobs-inspired opposition to building highways through historic urban neighborhoods is also a major origin point of NIMBYism. In Philly, a major organizing moment was when residents around Rittenhouse Square organized to stop the conversion of the park into a parking lot. Once these urban professional neighborhoods self-organized, they got interested in "historic preservation" and "neighborhood character" which often led to blocking anything new.

This is true. I'll add that back then the construction of major highways including the Interstate system was also sometimes used as a tool of urban renewal, to remove undesirable parts of town. I view Jane Jacob's advocacy back then as speaking up for inclusion.

[C.]

Latter day NIMBYs defending their positions reminds me of the older generations speaking out against the renaming of high schools named after Confederate generals.

“It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do about remembering our heritage.”

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by C.

This is true. I'll add that back then the construction of major highways including the Interstate system was also sometimes used as a tool of urban renewal, to remove undesirable parts of town. I view Jane Jacob's advocacy back then as speaking up for inclusion.

Jane Jacobs heart was in the right place - and cities are structurally better due to her intervention. However, historic preservation of urban neighborhoods taken to its logical conclusion freezes moderate-density neighborhoods in place and makes them playgrounds of the wealthy and those who bought in decades prior, to the exclusion of everyone else.

Originally Posted by C.

Latter day NIMBYs defending their positions reminds me of the older generations speaking out against the renaming of high schools named after Confederate generals.

“It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do about remembering our heritage.”

I'm not denying NIMBYs like this still exist, but this tends to much more be an issue in suburbia rather than urban neighborhoods. While we do need more apartments everywhere, when you're talking about where densification is most important, it's in urban zones near transit corridors. And those aren't the kind of NIMBYs who block things there, in part because most everyone knows that poor black people aren't going to be moving into new market-rate apartment buildings.

I mean, lemme give you a local example. There has been plans to redevelop this ugly mid-century shopping plaza in my city. It's located on the fringe of a wealthy neighborhood (Shadyside) but right next to a historically black neighborhood which has seen massive gentrification over the last decade (East Liberty). It's also immediately adjacent to a BRT station, and hundreds of new apartments have been built just on the other side. There are no local residents to displace, but the grocery store there has historically been used by poorer black residents. The developer (which is actually the company that owns the grocery store chain) wants to build new buildings fronting on the sidewalk, including a replacement grocery store, additional retail space, and about 250 units of market-rate housing.

Immediately behind the grocery store there's a gated community built in 1990s (Village of Shadyside). It's truly awful urban form, with no entrance on the main thoroughfare which is increasingly redeveloped, only a single access point under guard off a side street. The residents have opposed this development every step of the way, arguing it will cause traffic issues for them, that their units will be in shadow for much of the year, and other various excuses. They have also recruited anti-gentrification activists from the next neighborhood over to oppose the project with them, using the language of racial justice to argue that it's going to replace a historically-black grocery store (which I'm sure none of them shopped in) with a "gentrified" one.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm not denying NIMBYs like this still exist, but this tends to much more be an issue in suburbia rather than urban neighborhoods. While we do need more apartments everywhere, when you're talking about where densification is most important, it's in urban zones near transit corridors. And those aren't the kind of NIMBYs who block things there, in part because most everyone knows that poor black people aren't going to be moving into new market-rate apartment buildings.

overall, your nuanced view is 100% correct. sometimes NIMBYism has a racial component, and sometimes it does not. however, racist motivations are not exclusively found only in suburban NIMBYism. racist NIMBYs still rear their ugly heads in urban neighborhoods too. neighborhoods like mine, unfortunately.

there's a large city-owned surface parking lot across the street from an el station about 2 blocks from our home (a colossal misuse of land, being located so close to heavy rail transit and 2 major CTA bus routes). the city wants to essentially give the land to a developer to build a 5 story building with ~50 units of much-needed affordable housing, along with ground floor retail and structured parking along the alley in back.

of course, the local NIMBYs hate it because change. some oppose it because they see it as a "give-away" by the city. some local store owners oppose the loss of public parking (even though the new development replaces the public parking spots with structured-parking). and the local german-american society opposes it because they host their big annual oktoberfest on the parking lot every fall. but because it's "affordable housing" there's a also very obvious undercurrent of fear of "the others" at play too. now, a lot of it is just good old fashioned classism ("we don't want no stinking poor people living here"). however, last month one anonymous local NIMBY idiot hung home-made banners on the fence of the proposed site saying "Hey Alderman Martin, no CHA in Lincoln Square!".

now, the proposed project has absolutely nothing to do with the chicago housing authority or its notorious highrise public housing projects of decades ago, where the city sequestered and warehoused the poorest of its black citizens and then proceeded to ignore them as the projects spiraled down into a black hole of social dysfunction. however, the creator of those banners knew exactly what he was doing, trying to foment racist paranoia in the neighborhood by tagging the proposed development as "CHA", even though it has nothing to do with it. it was 100% a very obvious and disgusting display of racist NIMBY dog-whistling.

so even in certain urban neighborhoods, racism can still be a one of the components of NIMBYism.

[sopas ej]

NIMYBism can also be about being anti-freeway, and being anti-prison.

In the late 1980s, the very Latino and lower income community of East LA had had about enough of their area being carved up by freeways and being dinked with polluting industries, to the point that when the County wanted to put a prison in East LA, the residents said NO WAY. They were actually successful in fighting the prison, and the prison ended up being built in the Antelope Valley.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

overall, your nuanced view is 100% correct. sometimes NIMBYism has a racial component, and sometimes it does not. however, racist motivations are not exclusively found only in suburban NIMBYism. racist NIMBYs still rear their ugly heads in urban neighborhoods too. neighborhoods like mine, unfortunately.

there's a large city-owned surface parking lot across the street from an el station about 2 blocks from our home (a colossal misuse of land, being located so close to heavy rail transit and 2 major CTA bus routes). the city wants to essentially give the land to a developer to build a 5 story building with ~50 units of much-needed affordable housing, along with ground floor retail and structured parking along the alley in back.

of course, the local NIMBYs hate it because change. some oppose it because they see it as a "give-away" by the city. some local store owners oppose the loss of public parking (even though the new development replaces the public parking spots with structured-parking). and the local german-american society opposes it because they host their big annual oktoberfest on the parking lot every fall. but because it's "affordable housing" there's a also very obvious undercurrent of fear of "the others" at play too. now, a lot of it is just good old fashioned classism ("we don't want no stinking poor people living here"). however, last month one anonymous local NIMBY idiot hung home-made banners on the fence of the proposed site saying "Hey Alderman Martin, no CHA in Lincoln Square!".

now, the proposed project has absolutely nothing to do with the chicago housing authority or its notorious highrise public housing projects of decades ago, where the city sequestered and warehoused the poorest of its black citizens and then proceeded to ignore them as the projects spiraled down into a black hole of social dysfunction. however, the creator of those banners knew exactly what he was doing, trying to foment racist paranoia in the neighborhood by tagging the proposed development as "CHA", even though it has nothing to do with it. it was 100% a very obvious and disgusting display of racist NIMBY dog-whistling.

so even in certain urban neighborhoods, racism can still be a one of the components of NIMBYism.

I should state that in my previous neighborhood I am aware of a project which was defeated largely due to racial animus. It was a (formerly) working-class white area, which meant there were a lot of people still around with long memories about the bad old days. A developer who happens to be of Nigerian descent is active in the neighborhood, and bought a historic church/Catholic school in hopes of converting into apartments - something which needed variances given it's in an area zoned for rowhouses. A group of local residents became convinced he was trying to bring "section 8" into the neighborhood, and hired a lawyer to block the project into oblivion.

However, things like this rarely happen these days, even in that neighborhood, where the black minority has fallen by like 2/3rds in the last decade. Everyone knows now that if a new apartment is going up few black faces will be seen. Indeed, the same Nigerian developer successfully built a condo project of similar scale, and is now working on a second one. The church was threatened with total demolition once plans fell through and replacement with townhouses allowed by right, but a compromise with lower-density multifamily was eventually found.

[C.]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

NIMYBism can also be about being anti-freeway, and being anti-prison.

In the late 1980s, the very Latino and lower income community of East LA had had about enough of their area being carved up by freeways and being dinked with polluting industries, to the point that when the County wanted to put a prison in East LA, the residents said NO WAY. They were actually successful in fighting the prison, and the prison ended up being built in the Antelope Valley.

This is called Environmental Justice.

EPA has a decent write-up about it: "Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.

Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies."

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljus...mental-justice

Highways and prisons are necessary, but must they all be concentrated in the poor and/or minority section of a city, to the detriment of existing residents? Good for the community about speaking up here.

I've also been reading about "Cancer Alley" in Louisiana recently and all the chemical spills after Hurricane Ida. People really should be moved out, but sometimes these areas contain the only affordable housing options available, even if it means the location is literally slowly killing you and your families.

Funny how land use and zoning that was originally intended to provide a separation from these hazardous but needed industries evolved into separating classes of people.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

overall, your nuanced view is 100% correct. sometimes NIMBYism has a racial component, and sometimes it does not. however, racist motivations are not exclusively found only in suburban NIMBYism. racist NIMBYs still rear their ugly heads in urban neighborhoods too. neighborhoods like mine, unfortunately.

This is very true! It's not uncommon to see minority communities protest any new market rate development and scream gentrification. The kicker is if there isn't enough new supply of housing being built to meet the demand of new residents moving it, existing residents will need to compete with the new residents, which causes rents to rise and displacement to occur.

The best way to prevent gentrification causing widespread displacement of existing residents is to ensure there is more than enough new housing so everyone has a home at all income levels.

[SFBruin]

One way to convert NIMBYs in to YIMBYs might be to promise them things.

For example, my corner of Seattle (West Seattle), might be able to support a light rail line if we densify.

Of course, your mileage with this approach may vary...

[RST500]

Are YIMBYism and Enclavism Compatible?

"While the debate over housing segregation disregards enclavism, it has some legitimacy due to the severity of the housing scarcity, which has caused demographic displacement. If there wasn’t such a scarcity, then the discussion over segregation would change altogether. Under enclavism the battle between YIMBY vs. NIMBY would likely be resolved as different areas would be able to grow at their own rates and figure out their specific zoning and housing needs. On the other hand if YIMBYs are successful in ending the housing crisis and easing displacement, complaints about segregation would be moot or just a symbolic culture war issue."

https://robertstark.substack.com/p/a...ism-compatible