BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

What Is A Yimby?

This article is more than 7 years old.

The term "Yimby" won’t make much sense to someone unless they are familiar with the idea of Nimbyism. And if they've been following urban land use debates for the last decade, they know all too well about that latter term.

Nimbyism, which is an acronym for “not in my backyard,” has become the routine resistance against new construction in America, even by those who are sometimes remotely effected. In his 2015 article "Nimby Nation: The High Cost To America Of Saying No To Everything," fellow Forbes writer Christopher Helman described Nimbyism as a political phenomenon that prevents or increases costs of practically every new public and private infrastructure project, from high speed rail to interstate expansion to oil pipeline growth.

But the phenomenon is best known as an impediment to new housing. In recent decades, destination cities like New York, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, DC, have become safer and more prosperous, causing an influx of wealthy residents into their cores. This has elevated the price of housing, compelling developers to build more. Certain forward-thinking activists and officials support such construction, viewing it as necessary to keep living costs down and increase the number of people who can access some of America's strongest job markets. But they have been outweighed by anti-growth activists who will counter with an entire kitchen sink of reasons not to build. New development, the Nimbys claim, will block sunlight, inhibit views, damage air and water quality, increase traffic, strain social services, and hurt neighborhood character. These activists use zoning and other land use regulations to stop projects.

Now there is a backlash to their arguments. Over the last few years, there have been a host of self-described "Yimby" organizations ("yes in my backyard") that have popped up in different cities, especially liberal ones, where the housing prices are highest and the anti-development sentiment is strongest. Organizations include Seattle For Everyone (SFE), the blog New York YIMBY, or the advocacy group San Francisco Bay Area Renters' Federation (SFBARF). These groups have accepted the common-sense economic argument that when urban populations grow rapidly, so too must the housing stock, to stabilize prices. This means Yimbys support new housing growth--both market-rate, and sometimes subsidized--and engage in political activism, calling for zoning changes and pro-growth political candidates.

This June, the Yimby movement reached the next level, when these groups--along with some like-minded individuals--organized a conference in Boulder, CO. The conference, which I attended, was hosted by Better Boulder, a Yimby organization that has been trying to reverse the anti-development sentiment in highly-regulated Boulder. It was a collection of 150 activists, architects, developers, journalists, Boulder locals and public officials who had unified around the cause of housing growth. Keynote speakers included Sonja Trauss of SFBARF, Sara Maxana of SFE, and environmentalist Alex Steffen. But the conference, which took place June 17-19, included dozens of informal group meetings--organizers called it an “unconference”—where speakers and audiences participated together. These sessions ranged from policy lectures to political strategy sessions.

The most interesting--and encouraging—thing about the conference was that it was dominated by people who identified as progressive. Before attending, I had expected "Yimby 2016" to be a gathering of buttoned-up real estate professionals who were there to discuss deregulation strategies. The conference was light years away from that; it was largely people in their 20's and 30's who were coming from progressive cities, and who embodied the tenants of modern liberalism in their appearance and sensibilities. Although they displayed an understanding about the economic benefits of housing growth, their calls for denser development seemed more driven by a desire for good urban design, environmentalism, and social justice, since tight land use regulations disproportionately push out the poor. As Trauss later explained by email:

A YIMBY is someone who thinks it's good for their city to grow. They might come to that conclusion for a variety of reasons. Some yimbys are motivated by the environmental benefits of density, they want to protect agricultural land and natural areas. Some yimbys like density because they don't want to have to drive and they like having access to diversity of people and arts. I'm in it because I believe in open borders. People have all kinds of reasons to move to the city. I want them to be able to.

Although the conference was fueled by enthusiasm, it is tough to say how much traction the Yimby movement will get. There are already entrenched organizations, from the Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Realtors, who support more development in localities, but pro-growth activism doesn't generally surface at the grassroots level. For Yimbyism to grow as strong as Nimbyism, there would have to be locals showing up at public hearings all over America saying "yes," just as there are now activists at each one saying "no."

But even if Yimbyism becomes a force just in the largest liberal U.S. cities, it will pose an interesting juxtaposition between modern American progressives--in fact, one divided along life status. The people who are Nimbys in these cities are often established older people who have homes, families and stable jobs. To them, more density is not a positive cultural feature, but something that will purportedly bring traffic, crime, chaos, and reduce their home values, by placing more supply on the market. If the Yimby conference was any indication, the "yes" people would be younger residents--college students, young professionals, artists, newly-arrived immigrants--who are renting, and don't yet have stable careers. For them, housing growth would mean more density and culture, which young people tend to like. But more crucially, it would be in their financial self-interest, by reducing rents and creating new jobs.

Indeed, as weird as it sounds, the Nimbyism vs. Yimbyism debate taps into an age-old battle between established property owners, and the renters who have to pay them, with the latter group fighting against the protectionism that harms them. If that Yimby group forms into a legitimate urban voting bloc, it could topple the anti-development climate in key cities, just as Nimbyism now reinforces it.

Check out my website