The flip side of NIMBY is YIYBY, or Yes in Your Back Yard. Basically, it is when other people, outside of your community, decide what will be in YOUR backyard. Maybe they stand to profit off of building in your backyard. Maybe they want to solve the homeless problem by putting a shelter in your backyard. Or maybe they want to put a housing projct or a Cross Bronx Expressway in your backyard. Well, they’ve said NIMBY and then decided on YIYBY since it’s no skin off their back. Why should you not then get to fight to protect your community and home?
7
Over time I've begun to look at developers as a plague on our country. Yes, they have a right to purchase land and develop it. The problem in many cases is that they do not actually live in the community they are changing. They build their homes (usually high end nowadays) and then they leave.
We are having that fight right now in Prescott. There is a developer who lives in London who wants our city to annex his land to Prescott so that he can build willy nilly on his land which abuts "the Dells" a beautiful natural area that should be a national treasure. The citizens are up in arms because he wants the right to infringe on a piece of land that is "open" and belongs to the citizens of Prescott.
If he gets his way, and our City Council seems not to have ever seen a developer they didn't like, this piece of land will be forever gone.
I'm not against allowing building in a more rational way. But we need to re-think what we've been doing for the last 60-70 years. What we are currently doing is not working. Too many people cannot access affordable housing. It wasn't hard back in the 50's and 60's when my husband and I were young and poor. Now it's almost impossible.
8
This article trots out the usual line that residents oppose high rise to protect their property values. But the people cleaning up in Australia (apart from property developers, who unfailingly dominate our Richest lists) are home owners who sell homes in areas rezoned for high rise. By opposing changes they see as negative for a whole neighbourhood, the maligned NIMBY is acting pro-socially, not anti-socially.
4
but a lot of NIMBYs are opposing almost any development in their neighbourhoods, not just high-rise. In my part of Melbourne, some don't even want medium-density - and without that, where are people going to be able to live?
2
Maybe the sentiment reflected in the article is more than about the emotional state of the nations inhabitants than thier readiness to use zoning regulations to achieve their ends. On the other side of the regulation coin there are groups of peole who pursue takings claims against restrictions on what cannot be done due to regulation, also citing a reduction of valuation as their justification. As ususal the moderates get chewed up by the extremes at both ends of the spectrum. The logic outlined in this article doesn't really accomodate for the motivations of the other end of the spectrum. Maybe its just people chafing at whatever regulation is in their way and they are clever enough to find a way to put a wrench in the gears of change. Maybe people are just getting tired of being told what to do and they are getting cranky.
2
From a different perspective, development by institutions such as museums, universities, and hospitals often fly past zoning or other restrictions without concern for surrounding neighborhoods. The powers that be definitely don't want to block this kind of development. What's the value of a park or a street narrow enough that kids can cross compared to a new university dorm?
2
A home is security against rising rents. If you can lock in on a mortgage for 30 years that you can afford then in this day and age where you're lucky to get an annual wage increase that keeps place with inflation, it is the difference between you being on the street later in life or not.
11
A friend just sent me this. Honestly, as someone who's living through the so-called NIMBY battle on the ground in Seattle, I'm having a real hard time not blowing off an hour to shred this piece. Ms. Badger's goofy logic and paper-thin (or off-topic) knowledge are glaring to anyone with real-life experience with this issue. So I'm just going to leave it at: this piece is dumb.
Good on her for giving it a try, but, no. Keep working, Badger. Get out there.
8
For many people who have owned/lived in the same house for decades, and planned to pass at home in bed, hopefully painlessly while sleeping...our residence was a home before a financial investment. We created a community with other long-term residents. Our neighborhood had a flavor we created and contributed to. We made an emotional investment in both.It's heartbreaking to watch our little neighborhood be bulldozed, as properties are purchased by builders rather than owners, for profit rather than for the security of "shelter." I live in a residential area, formerly zoned for houses and small 2-story apartments. Normally, I am a big fan of Gov. Brown. However the recent state laws that override local zoning laws have only provided a holiday for builders and speculators to construct ugly, cheap, likely unsafe housing that will not solve, but create, homelessness. I tried to attach a photo of the 2-on-1 lot 3-story 45' high boxes, that are being constructed next to my 1-story 1923 stucco home-it's funny/sad (adjacent property formerly was a SFH with 3 beautiful, old trees that were the first to go) The bottom floors will be carports, the top two are apartments or condos, buyers' choice. I am harassed daily by aspiring robber-baron-builders who want "to develop"my property, including LA City employees who, with the help of the LADBS,are finding ways to profit despite the conflict of interest. Change isn't the issue;the change in the power that ownership grants, is.
17
This isn't new. CA neighborhoods and towns often object to changes, even changes for the greater good. Look at the wealthy enclaves of Atherton and Palo Alto in their fight to keep high-speed rail from using the existing commuter rail corridor that runs through their towns, even though it comes with improvements to existing rail system (electrification) and will result in fewer SFO-bound aircraft circling over their garden parties. Seems opretty short-sighted.
3
This is a flawed article, painting too broad a brush on the topic. Starting with a glib passing comment on Seattle, with no follow up. The devil is in the details. There is a major difference between racial covenants vs. a 'safe injection site' for heroin addicts. Between a nicely designed multifamily structure or a bloated building filling the entire lot, with no parking included. Between a school and a halfway house, an organic farm or a factory pig feeding operation.
I imagine there is not a single person responding to this article or the author herself who would not be deeply distressed and vocal were they in the vicinity of any number of proposals. Human nature, civic pride and more inform all of us. No apology needed when we care and attempt to influence plans that impact our homes and lives.
12
This article should be published as an opinion piece. It does accurately depict one side of a vigorous argument now being conducted in many communities. But a journalistic treatment would surely avoid the moralistic tone and would present the other side of the argument.
Not mentioned here is the YIMBY movement (Yes in my back yard) which espouses density and upzoning as this article appears to. That movement also adopts the moralistic tone seen here. It is difficult to resolve issues about the future of a community when one side is condemned in such terms at the inception. (I call the YIMBYs Yes in Your back yard.)
8
Zoning (community inspired), deed restrictions (selling point for subdivisions, and HOA controlled developments have long (more than 100 years) provided neighbors a degree of control over the who, what, where, and how of neighborhood (i.e., neighbors and nonresidents, alike) activities and aesthetics.
2
As a gardener who grows a significant portion of the vegetables we eat, I have a lot of sympathy for someone who doesn’t want a 10 story apartment building going up next door and blocking all the light. But a bigger underlying issue that is not addressed in this article is the question of who profits when neighborhoods are developed. Usually it’s the developers at the expense of the people actually living there, whether the development makes the neighborhood more or less desirable. So you have change that is (hypothetically) good for society, bad for the locals but definitely profitable for developers. Maybe if people saw some profit/advantage coming to them with development to help compensate for what they are losing, they would be more open to it.
16
This is not a single issue problem. To begin with, property tax and mortgage deductions are really a different ball of wax, imo. Deductible or not, it is about pride and privacy. On one hand, you would be up in arms too if you know a drug gang or sex trafficker moving next to you too. However, a medical mj dispensary or a legit regulated house of pleasure? Maybe. Then, low income housing. Years ago, some of my neighbors actually resisted a CVS setting up shop at a former synagogue. In a way, having a drugstore next to you should be a good thing, right? On the other hand, some communities actually restrict the shape of your window shutters. And they are not historic towns. It is a range.
A lot of times though, NIMBY is a redlining mechanism. That said, Boston busing has caused some blight until it becomes trendy for professionals to live in town. Suddenly, those who have hung on to the dark hours got thrown out. Fair and equitable are always difficult. Perhaps you need good managers to temper the mob mentality
1
Perfect example of negative fallout is the recent spike in natural gas prices in the northeast. NIMBY crowd has prevented pipeline construction for a decade, limiting regional imports of gas. As a result, we have some of the cheapest gas in the world (Marcellus sourced in western PA) in oversupply, while Mass. residents pay some of the highest prices in the nation for heat.
3
I cannot help but feel that this article (and a few previous ones on the same topic) is written on behalf of real estate developers, who want to build whatever they want, wherever they want, and blame those who resist their encroachment as selfish. Most home owners have their entire livelihood invested in their houses and properties. They not only pay for their houses but also pay (sometimes super high) property taxes for the maintenance and improvement of their neighborhood. Why shouldn't they speak up and defend their rights?
18
Every community needs to change? Why? If the change is for the worse, what is the benefit of that? Terrible communities need to change for the better, but bringing down a nice community benefits no one. Considering the skyrocketing cost of housing these days, can you blame people for wanting to protect this sort of investment.
14
the more important question is "when did the interests of the urban growth machine become 'morally' superior to those of local residents?'"
24
Thank you!
As a middle-aged-ish liberal, I'm increasingly baffled by how helping developers build big structures fast became the cause célèbre of the new generation of leftists. I understand why high rents (and its multifarious, deleterious affects) would feel utterly exigent to younger people. But there are ways to go about improving that situation - which would, yes, include more multi-family housing and some zoning changes (and many, if not most, people called NIMBY's actually support a lot of that) - that don't run roughshod over the things we (lefties/liberals) also used to care about, like community, green space, wonderful schools....
I worry that my city - Seattle - will regret the long-term affects of our haste, however well-intentioned. We've seen it plenty of times before.
6
This article completely omits consideration of the increasing density of the US population and the problems that arise as overcrowding increases. Since 1970, i.e. in less than 50 years, the number of people in the US has increased by 115 million.As more and more people struggle for living space conflict is guaranteed to increase.
8
It has always been not-in-my-neighborhood. Think redlining and gentrification disguised as urban renewal.
Zoning was used to impose racial exclusion starting in the late 19th century on the West Coast (against people of Asian descent) and then in Baltimore (and many other places) against African-Americans. The Supreme Court declared racial zoning unconstitutional in 1917 and several times thereafter. See generally Richard Rothstein's excellent book, "The Color of Law."
1
Ever live in those high rises that have formula apartments? I do, they are not the prettiest things in the world so I can understand their feelings but to separate people into categories is stupid.
1
In many California cities, a person applying for development that requires any type of government approval (use permit, building permit, etc.) must notify all the neighbors within a 300 foot radius. A public hearing then follows before the permit is voted on. This requirement enjoys widespread acceptance and is intended to ensure a project reflects community values. This seems an appropriate and democratic example of meaningful public input.
2
In our town asking for 40B housing developments to be about actually providing good, sustainable housing that doesn't overwhelm the neighborhoods rather than developers making a buck off the law have brought forth accusations of NIMBYism. It is so easy to toss out that acronym to give the person using it a patina of righteousness; it is just so much easier than having an honest discussion about needs versus realities, factoring in unreasonable fears and/or prejudice.
Yes, nuisances laws have been abused and are currently abused to keep "things the same" but sometimes there are actual, valid reasons why objections to new developments occur. Things aren't always black or white (no pun intended).
6
Airports, dog kennels, racetracks and other legitimate businesses come under attack or restrictions, even when grandfathered, been in business decades before zoning and the influx of self-protective neighbors guarding their property values and protections from pre-existing conditions. This, when initial purchase price of their property was low, predicated on the existence of those businesses.
1
The author states that "The Supreme Court ruled [restrictive] covenants unenforceable in 1948," and links to Shelley v. Kraemer.
I wonder how many people know that "The Shelley House" is now a National Historic Landmark? Take a look at it now, and tell me again how restrictive covenants are a bad thing: https://goo.gl/maps/LDBZLgh6it22
I lived in two of the most beautiful places in the world, Marin and Sonoma Counties north of the Golden Gate, for most of my working life. Migrating from the cornfields of Indiana to this place left me agog with the wonderfulness of preserving tons of open space and beauty for "us all" to enjoy. But I know now that the lack of housing and roads strangles most people's lives for the benefit of the elite, me included. I also know that developers don't give a jot about anything but their bottom line, which of course makes sense from a business point of view. Communities, such as those like Marin, need to find creative ways to use some of their available land to make life better for future generations. It needs to be a group effort across the board to continue to preserve land from developers, preserve rights of property owners and their families, but increase dignity and opportunity for all. We can do it.
12
Design as a force for inequality has been a constant, if not subtle, force enabled by zoning laws and little else. I live within 2 miles of some of the best architecture schools in the country (MIT, GSD). You would think our residential architecture is a Taliesin East. Not quite. Hampered by zoning to make sure Boston and especially Cambridge continue to look like overpriced sets in the movie Mystic River preempt buyer’s abilities to invest in affordable designs that cover the pages of modern European starter home magazines. Our homegrown architects often design those overseas. Who gets modern homes in Cambridge and Boston? Wealthy developers and home buyers who can jump through hoops to make a case for “sustainable design” which has become more of a greenwashing of expensive materials just to get a zoning exemption. It’s 2018, we should design our neighborhoods like we imagined 2018 to look like, not zones of the past.
4
We have a neighbor for six years who is a menace. He knows no boundaries- as the angry guy with the leaf blower. He constantly talks of “foreigners” (hey dude it’s CA) ( you know the people who actually increased your property worth)- as trouble on the neighborhood websites. Oh course they do nothing when you report them.
His starting line is ... as someone who has lived here for 30 years... but you know what? This counts for nothing in a mobile society! Get with the program! Don’t like how things have changed in the neighborhood! Leave! We need positive new Californians who still see an inclusive land of dreams! Sell out, house rich man and go find a watering hole with like minded individuals to talk about the good old days.
8
"inescapably, about race". A ridiculous remark. If everyone in a city was the same race you would have exactly the same issues. There is a patina of race here because there a patina of race about everything. It has little to do with the resistance to change.
10
@justsomeguy classism and incomism are as serious as racism.
The term NIMBY is a derisive term and those thinking that they are going to change policy by branding this term about in the angry accusatory way they do are making a serious miscalculation. The co-op movement in Boulder regularly makes this accusation in our town, and coupled with their questionable alliances with developers, they were wiped out in the recent city council election. Affordable housing in expensive communities like Boulder requires empathy from both sides, including home owners that hold enormous political power. The anti-NIMBY power play backfired in Boulder and its supports of more housing choice need to work with neighbors rather than just appealing to guilt.
3
Here in Vermont, NIMBY has been replaced by BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anyone Near Anyone. That includes solar farms and wind turbines. The only exception appears to be anything connected to the ski industry or the military.
2
One observation - in San Jose, the pushback was not against tiny houses. It was against housing homeless people in residential neighborhoods (in tiny houses, but that was completely irrelevant to the neighborhood uproar). This has been going on for a very long time. I never know exactly how to react to this sort of NIMBYism - on one hand, I am quite sympathetic, having lived near Skid Row for many years in L.A. On the other hand, I have deep sympathy for the homeless and support efforts to transition them to more stable lives - again, having lived near Skid Row in L.A., I am very familiar with what they have to endure. But if I had small kids and lived in a quiet, nice neighborhood with a park, would I want a homeless community right nearby? Probably not. Does that make me a bad person? I just really don't know ... it's a very, very tough question.
27
Very Good article; zoning ordinances are one of the worst types of nuisance laws undermining cities throughout the United States. Ordinances outlawing dumps or junkyards are a good thing, but zoning laws that make it illegal for a property owner to establish a bake shop, mom and pop grocery store, barber shop, newsstand or coffee shop are dead wrong. Such ordinances hurt the overall community and erode individual property rights. Over the years zoning laws have eroded the traditional neighborhoods of cities, and stopped positive development that would have benefited communities. Anyone who doubts this should read "The Death and Life of Great American cities," by Jane Jacobs. The only positive zoning ordinances are those that ban what is "proven to be harmful" as Badger suggests. Cities across America experienced their greatest growth and economic development when zoning ordinances did not exist in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
2
I think residents of a community should be concerned about how where they live and how the people that live there progress as a whole. Change is good and inevitable, but many developers see areas of cities only as dollar signs and develop without any regard to the surrounding area. A series of blocks with houses and apartment buildings where people live their lives is only a a profitable piece of land. There is a massive amount of building going on in the area where I live because of the current appeal of urban living. I am concerned about large companies (like Kushner Companies, and smaller companies as well) controlling the shape of communities. Just because they have the resources doesn't mean they should be able to reshape entire communities and decide the future of where large amounts of people live to make money. Zoning offers people the ability to push back, albeit in a minimal way. The real racial fear we should be concerned amount is the influx of wealthy white people moving into urban areas, driving up rents and property values and displacing minority and middle class people because it is currently an entertaining and recreational way to spend your wealth as a privileged person.
7
"Racial fears linger even if they’ve become encoded in other language."
That is not universally true for a very long time now. While in some areas, particularly in the Deep South, this could still be true, that's no longer the case in urban cities. These days, it's the wealth that divides/defines you. (But of course, you can still argue that wealth is inherently tied to racial make-up, but a lot of people, myself included, would disagree with you.)
Most NIMBY set just want to maintain their class/status. That would mean, "I don't want that elderly home next to my property," or "I'm all for low-income housing, but build it somewhere else," or "Yes I voted for legalizing weeds, but we CANNOT have a pot shop down my street," or some such.
By the way, this has NOTHING to do with political party affiliation, since this can easily apply to the liberal leftists and the conservative rights. These days, it's not about race, it's all about throwing their weight around because they enjoy exercising their powers that comes with their wealth. And it's definitely NOT about building community.
2
It is very sad to look at America from abroad.
It is becoming an increasingly divided and angry country.
Traditional American values of community, faith and trust are being discarded.
3
When exactly was the "golden" time when it was not divided and angry? When did the communities of faith and trust exist? Before the civil rights movement? Before Japanese-Americans were forcibly put in camps?
Before the civil war? Before women had the right to vote? Before the slaughter of Native Americans? Or do you just mean a time when those with power and privilege could enjoy their spoils relatively unbothered by minorities, women, and the disempowered?
9
This article could've been more simple (en)titled: "White Privilege Knows No Boundaries."
1
God Bless the hard working men and women of this great country!
This is much more about class than race. Upper middle class minorities end up wanting the same things that upper middle class whites do. Class is a much more complex issue than race and one we tend to try and ignore.
8
The problem is not that homeowners take an interest in what happens around them. Homeowners are more likely to be heard than renters, and wealthier homeowners more likely than poorer ones (single family owners more than condo owners). Nonetheless, residents have a legitimate interest in public and private actions near them.
The problem is when the homeowners are effectively given a veto on everything in the neighborhood. With a proposed apartment building, homeowners have a reason to comment on its impact (even though they are likely to exaggerate it).
But there is also a citywide interest in building housing in the many housing short American cities. That housing must be built in some physical place, next to someone and/or something. Planning and zoning commissions and City Councils should not just bow down to the objections of nearby homeowners. Instead they should weigh multiple interests (e.g. allowing young adults to live in the city) and act accordingly. Sometimes decisionmakers need to say no to NIMBYs, for the good of all.
4
I really appreciate Ms. Badger's in-depth stories about complicated housing issues. You can only include so much in one article. Coincidentally, just before reading this I hear a story on NPR, produced by WNYC, that could easily be a companion to this article. NIMBYism is harder to tolerate when you put it into the context of the universality of the need for safe shelter WITHIN safe neighborhoods: http://www.wnyc.org/story/new-hud-rule-could-move-hundreds-thousands-fam...
1
In Minneapolis, the stack and pack development craze is is full force. Huge apartment highrises in residential areas. Squeeze as many people in one place as possible and ignore completely how it changes the character and the footprint of neighborhoods. We have a neighborhood called Uptown which was a residential neighborhood by the chain of lakes. Now it is jam packed with store, bars, cafes etc. No sane person drives there and it has traffic gridlock at all times. This is our cities idea of how we want to live. The only option for those who are not interested in high density and looming buildings which tower over regular housing is to leave the neighborhoods we love and have chosen for their residential qualities. The worst part of this loss is the scorn with which someone tells you what a NIMBY you are.
12
But the wonderful thing is that now, more people have the opportunity to live in a thriving urban space that provides opportunities to work and live! And you have the choice to not live there. The only thing that is lost is the opportunity to exclude. More people are walking, biking, and using transit; more economic activity with less pollution per person. Everyone, even the earth, wins!
14
It sounds to me like you are making similar appeals as someone that doesn't mind when areas become more developed, more expensive, and push long-term (and maybe even low-income) residents out. "That's economics for ya!" Is it that absurd to expect your neighborhood to remain reasonably similar over an extended period of time? And I say "reasonably" because building coffee shops or supermarkets will happen, but putting a glass high-rise next to a two-story house with a porch is pushing it.
I recall speaking to a family member years ago during the Baltimore riots of 2015. He said, "If people don't feel safe where they live, why don't they just move!" He seems to have missed the point entirely. Perhaps some residents don't have a choice. It begs the question, do we have a right to maintain our existing living conditions?
1
No one wins when high density living is shoehorned into an area with an infrastructure meant to support a much smaller population. Gridlock isn't good for the earth or its residents.
4
I've spent the past 8 years working as an Urban Planner in the Ann Arbor area, and have gotten so disgusted by NIMBY protectionism that I've decided to leave the profession. I've come to the belief that all zoning has become an exercise in exclusion, excluding multi-family homes from single family neighborhoods, excluding commercial development, basically preventing communities from becoming inclusive and thriving communities that we need for the future of this country.
Locally, I've watched former professors of mine who in class advocated urban development come out and oppose numerous projects adjacent to their neighborhood, under the guise that these aren't the "right" projects. They have worked to install design reviews, open space requirements, and many other hurdles, all of which delay development and pass on costs to future renters and owners.
The biggest change for me was reframing my evaluation of communities from an aesthetic one, to measures of upper mobility and educational opportunities. Through that lens, a lot of older northeastern cities look pretty terrible (low mobility, high inequality), while southern and western cities with lax zoning laws (ie difficult to stop new development) show themselves to the model for the future. Joel Kotkin's report on Houston is a good resource here. Yes, those communities have environmental problems, but those can be fixed without granting neighbors the opportunity to exclude.
12
Not in my backyard/not in my neighborhood is a way that residents can force the cost of their existence onto others. If you use cell service but don't allow any cell towers, you're force the cost of that infrastructure on to others.
We have laws preventing this kind of behavior when companies do it, say for example with pollution. We say they are not allowed to force the cost of their operation on to others. I think we should do the same thing to homeowners. If they use a service such as roads or sewerage or water, they can't force the cost of that infrastructure on to others.
4
One of the least obvious forms of discrimination is manipulation of real estate taxes. Townships raise taxes to discourage the less wealthy population from settling. Existing residents are happy to pay the higher taxes as the price of exclusivity.
4
Real estate taxes are related to school funding. People buy expensive homes in high tax areas to have access to better schools. It’s not about being exclusive - it’s how you set your priorities within the constraints of what you have. I have known many people who sacrificed a lot to have a tiny house in one of these districts so their kids can go to a better school.
4
You talk about wealth creation. I have no sympathy for those who invest in real estate in order to take advantage of rising real estate values if events occur that serve to reduce the value of their properties. But not everyone goes into the real estate market to speculate. What about those who have mortgages where a NIMBY event causes the value of the property to decline below the amount of the mortgage ? Just the luck of the draw ?
And let us also bear in mind that the zeal with which owners protect the value of their properties is also in part in response to the shenanigans of profit-driven real estate developers who push compliance with zoning requirements to the edge of the envelope and beyond, not infrequently in the context of an overly intimate relationship with those responsible for enforcement of zoning requirements. It's a zoo out there and if anyone spots an opportunity to make a buck or two at your expense, they're going to take it.
8
In addition to your comments, I believe the author meant individual wealth creation. Watching baby boomers fund their retirement or winter homes by selling the home they purchased for $25k in 1970 and sold for $500k in 2000 has created a cultural expectation that a home will appreciate significantly and if it doesn’t you community has failed the homeowner.
2
I don't see the word "environmentalism" anywhere in this article, even though NIMBYism exploded alongside the environmental movement from 1969 onward.
8
Has anyone ever heard of a case where a visionary civic leader asked for something not wanted in someone else's part of town to be placed down the block from their own home, or perhaps next door, instead? I'm all for building these alleged community improvements as close as possible to the mayor's, planning derector's or project developer's own home as possible. If they happen to live near me, well, that's fair.
15
“Communities always need to be changing,” she said,
Who says? There are towns and villages all over the world where things haven't changed a whole lot. And those are the places young people often return to, to raise their families, rather than heading out as soon as they can.
The idea that communities always need to be changing is made up. For the simple reason that it justifies demanding places change, and when people object, you can criticize them in a global /moralistic way.
31
Which communities are these that are fixed in time and totally homogenous? Surely you don't mean most cities--there have been massive changes in the size and population of all major cities of the world, and they are projected to grow exponentially in the next 50 years. This article is not about small towns where no one but the people who already live there want to be--it is about places that are dynamic and desirable to many.
3
I'm a little surprised that so many defend zoning without recognizing some of the downsides -- or how we might do it better. One example. In an area I lived in for many years that was morphing from rural to suburban, the zoning was township by township, with little to no regional cooperation allowed. So you had a major highway already highly commercially developed, but less than a mile away a long-standing family orchard had to be zoned commercial because it was the only area left for that use in a neighboring township. Needless to say, that orchard is no more. And I agree with the writer that some homeowners concerns are more than justified, but has anyone else had experience with local busybodies who seem to be outraged by just about anything?
4
There are so many things wrong with this article, where to begin. Countries without mortgage deductions have similar rates of home ownership, so the very modest changes in the tax code seem unlikely to dramatically change levels of home ownership. The idea that odious racial covenants from decades ago significantly affect us today lack any objective evidence and makes sense only to academics who see everything in terms of race. Zoning came into being as people choose to live more densely. Manhattan need rules than rural counties in Texas. And people now understand risks associated with nearby factories, superfund sites exist for a reason. Most people's largest investment is their home, while we can argue whether that is a good thing it is the current model of wealth creation for many. So the idea that they defend it tooth and nail from perceived threats to it's value is nature. And the article doesn't give enough thought to historical natures of neighborhoods and towns. I live in historical parts of Key West, Fl and Newport , RI and significant change is not welcome in either. It isn't racist or anti-poor to defend a slice of our historical past for future generations. Another example of a threat is Air B&B, people who moved into a residential area have a reasonable expectation their neighbor isn't opening a Motel 6.
17
Todd, I agree with all of your points, save one. I live in a city in which the effect of racial covenants is still evident today, long after the Supreme Court decision of 1948 (which pertained to a property in the District) made them unenforceable. But of course the "discovery" of the city as a desirable place to live is propelling the erasure of the old boundaries, as all neighborhoods become grist for the redevelopment mill and gentrification.
2
The effects of racial convenants continues to affect neighborhoods on Long Island, where African-Americans were denied the right to buy homes in past decades and ended up clustered in communities that continue to experience poverty.
Zoning can be a good thing, but I no more feel I have the right, as a homeowner, to control building three blocks away. But many people I know feel differently and actively try to intervene in anything they don't like.
5
Don't disagree with you, but I would observe that while deductibility of mortgage interest may not have much effect in promoting home ownership, removal of that deductibility once it has been implemented can have a disastrous effect on those living on a tight budget and can, because of its effect on housing prices, put owners under water. There is enough uncertainty out there already. Legislators should think very carefully before screwing around with provisions that have become fundamental to the financial planning of individuals.
1
I wonder if this issue is being framed quite the right way. My first thought is -- of course people are looking beyond their property lines; that's what happens in a community, you try to shape a common good, we don't want people just retreating into some kind of solipsistic disengagement from their neighbors. Instead, the issue seems to be more about the kind of perspective people bring to these interventions.
Is there a way to reinforce concern for the community that isn't just about immediate self interest, or that doesn't just reinforce a huddling-together of similar people resisting change? There might be a more interesting discussion if we were talking about ways to frame or encourage "enlightened" concern about the community and its varied needs.
I grew up in a part of Nassau County where politcal units tend to be fragmented into compact collections of people of similar class. Maybe a Madisonian approach -- where people had to engage with a more diverse range of neighbors and communities in devising local rules -- could be achieved by re-drawing boundaries, or moving zoning issues up to the Town or County rather than Village level.
This is utopian, I realize -- certainly harder to do than, say, restoring the full mortgage interest deduction. But maybe it's worth thinking about.
6
Good article, though some of these comments are a little dispiriting, playing into the very trends the article describes. It seems that what is needed is a culture shift in how we perceive housing (as a home rather than an investment) and communities (as entities that change over time), but also how we empathize with those in need to housing but don't currently live in the neighborhood. "Out of sight, out of mind" seems to be the main sentiment accompanying the denial of housing to others.
Housing is a right, ownership is a privilege.
I was struck by this quote:
“We ask home equity to do so much more for us in terms of providing retirement, providing a bridge during drought years...”
Maybe we should create a *real* social safety net. One that's accessible to everyone, not just those who were able to get a foot in the door early enough.
18
"Housing is a right, ownership is a privilege."
This sounds like something straight out of the Communist Manifesto. Are you suggesting that if someone objects to having the town water treatment plant next door to their home the town has (or should have) the right to revoke the privilege of ownership ?
3
I could be wrong, but I read it more as , "not everyone has the money/is privileged enough to buy a house,"
not that those who already own them should have their homes seized.
1
Caring about the value of your property is not a new thing, nor is caring about your community. Certainly there are many extreme cases of abusing nuisance laws like moving to farm country and then trying to prevent farmers from working at night, but if people don't care about their community and fight to protect it, development can go in that significantly degrades the quality of life.
The problem is that we can't always agree on what this is. Some people are clearly selfish and want nothing that might mildly inconvenience them, no matter what the public good is. but we still need to fight the developer or municipality that has plans to sacrifice a neighborhood to build something marginally useful, damaging, or that would be better not near people's homes.
And yes, my house is an investment. Anything that costs this much is. Something that lowers my property's value is also likely to lower the quality of my enjoyment of that property. So, yes it's a place to live, but a place that can lose its quality depending on what happens near it.
40
"but we still need to fight the developer or municipality that has plans to sacrifice a neighborhood to build something marginally useful, damaging, or that would be better not near people's homes. "
Especially where those plans are driven by financial considerations.
9
Caring about property value is certainly valid, but NIMBYism extends much past true threats to property values and (at least in Lincoln Square, Chicago, where I live) focuses on convenience of current home owners.
Our neighborhood benefits from many city services (great access to commuter rail, the EL, several bus lines) and lifestyle (a well-known commercial district still mostly owner-operated, not multi-nationals). As the neighborhood has gotten more popular, buildings have been deconverted from multi-family small apartment buildings (2-3 units) to single family homes. This has significantly impacted the density of the neighborhood in the last 15 years.
Now, our alderman wants to build a mixed use commercial space with 1500 rental units near the train stations. My husband and I think this is a great idea. The local businesses that everyone loves for their neighborhood character DEPEND on foot traffic and neighborhood density to survive. But owners of $1.5m homes are only concerned with the impact additional residential units will have traffic and street parking. (And yes, my husband and I are property owners in the neighborhood.)
We can only hope that the NIMBYists lose this round.
12
"But Americans didn’t broadly begin to think of homeownership as a means to create wealth until around the 1970s, when housing started to appreciate faster than many other assets." What a coincidence! It happened at exactly the same time the U.S. went off the gold standard.
3
To say this behavior is all about money is simplistic. It is much more about having chosen a place to live in part because of the character of the area, then investing your energy working with your neighbors to maintain what you love be about it.
In my case I chose to live in a place with low housing density and rural green space. I have lived here for 30 years and I would like to spend the rest of my life here, not be forced to move by some greedy developer.
With reasonable restrictions (e.g. anti-discrimination laws), I believe the people who live in an area should have the ability to guide how it evolves. It encourages local character and gives people a say in the most fundamental issues affecting their future. While no one individual should have “veto power”, the members of a community as a whole should.
Sounds like democracy to me.
12
This is a nice summary about nuisance and zoning laws, the later of which I know quite a bit about. But living in a Manhattan apartment, one would be foolish to think that this is just a suburban or small town phenomenon. Here, every conceivable zoning and nuisance issue is contentiously fought out from the size and color of a sign or awning that a shopkeeper puts up to the noisy nightclub on the corner. I totally disagree that this is a negative thing at all. In fact, you will usually find that it is the violator of these laws that has the outsized sense of entitlement, and a flagrant disregard for the rights of others to live peaceful and secure lives.
12
If anything this behavior and the unreasoning fears that largely lie behind them are further proof and evidence of the splintering of American society and the tribulation and tribulation of its people once more and once again through the major perceived wellhead of success that so pervades the nations Psyche even as it threatens to destroy it.
I refer of course to that root of all American evils...MONEY.
And all it does begat.
2
So many comments here perfectly illustrate the sense of homeowner entitlement this article describes and the perverted logic it engenders. Somehow, allowing other landowners to use their own property to build housing equals "forcing" something on others.
6
What development forces on others is increasing traffic, noise, light polution, and all the other affects of increasing population density. For many these are not trivial things. They should have a say.
17
Great piece and framing that property owners now feel they “own the neighborhood.” Shows how local government regulation through zoning sabotages the free market and has created the affordability crisis. Rather than more regulation and public subsidies , we need to remove barriers to development that would better restore supply and demand.
2
So, you would have us believe that a developer/builder is more concerned about the "community" than those that live there and whose families, jobs, lifestyles are already interwoven in what exists there,? just for the sake of meeting demand? It seems we have it right with zoning as a democratic tool for a community to protect the value of their homes and the way of life they choose collectively. Property owners maintain rights and legal recourse. Community has to remain politically vigilant as private and in many cases, outside interests try to gain an advantage inside city hall.
21
“own the neighborhood” is of course a gross exaggeration more designed to elicit comment than to make a useful contribution to the discussion. Let's dial that back to "feel they have the right to a say in what changes are made to the neighborhood", which is the way it usually works out, with public hearings, letters to the newspapers and other forms of airing opinion in public, and suddenly the whole process becomes a whole lot more democratic and less intimidating. As to comments on the need for regulation, in the best of all possible worlds all parties act rationally and with full regard for the needs and aspirations of others. Unfortunately, in the real world this is rarely the case since most motivation is driven by greed and personal enrichment. Since the full satisfaction of greed and personal enrichment for all parties concerned can rarely be achieved, some kind of legislative framework has to be put in place that helps the parties to a modus vivendi. Hence the need for zoning requirements and proper development oversight.
1
States with Home Rule provide local municipalities with self-governance rights, which generally include zoning controls, so long as these don't violate Federal and State laws. It is easy to argue that "liberty for the lion is death for the lamb", but much debate depends on which side of the debate one lands. For example, combating blight as an externality that diminishes property values is well accepted in America, but the determination of what constitutes blight is a matter of interpretation.
It is all too easy to play the NIMBY card until a neighborhood is ruined. The RLUIPA law is a case in point. Legal protections for religious use are being used by some to litigate and transform neighborhoods in self-serving ways in which the law did not intend.
4
A large part of the problem is variable tax basis valuation. If my neighbors fix up or sell their property for more, my tax value and costs go up. This links us together in ways it shouldn’t, often fueling gentrification. By the same token, if my neighbors home is foreclosed on, and scrappers steal the guts, it’s value drops- and I lose value.
We need to stop flexing valuation to home owners. The price you pay when you buy your property should be the value for the length that you own your home.
If values go up or down- should be set by the sale, not by the taxing authority.
6
This phenomenon is less about an individual controlling a neighborhood against his neighbors than it is a like thinking community protecting their neighborhood from outside forces, such as the state or federal governments. America has a long tradition of local control, and I fully support that tradition in that the character of communities should be up to the voters in those communities.
5
In Texas, HOA's are so powerful you don't really own your house. You just rent it from the HOA. They can fine you for literally anything that disrupts the shopping mall aesthetic. I once got a fine because the gap in my fence gate was uneven. HELP PLEASE...I have an uneven gap! Ignore fines long enough, and they can foreclose on your house. Imagine losing your home because you left your garbage can out one day too long. It's ridiculous.
Meanwhile, the cookie cutter neighborhoods have about as much character and charm as a fast food cheeseburger.
30
That is a good reason to avoid homeowner's associations at all costs. Even if yours seems normal and rational, you might find that it gets taken over by zealots, and suddenly those shrubs you planted are two inches to short and you are digging them out at your own expense to avoid fines.
8
The idea that an HOA can put a lien on your home for even the most minor of infractions was the reason why, when shopping for a house in 2004, I told the real-estate agent that I had one non-negotiable item: the property could not be in an HOA neighborhood.
11
My sympathies, indeed. Still, why then did you buy there? You are presented with papers, at closing, which detail the rules and regulations of the HOA. You bought the home, so I am going to assume that you signed them.
2
Shallow people live everywhere. NIMBYs never think of the other people, just themselves.
3
Your home is a place to live. If you want an investment, try the stock market.
6
I used to live in Temple City, CA. I had to move, and around that time an influx of nw homeowners came in due to the excellent school. Now, 10 years later, housing is no longer affordable. A few miles from Temple City, in l.a. County territory, a veterans organization was going to buy a hotel and convert it to housing for disabled vets. A bunch of the newer Temple City homwowners, came storming into their City Council meeting to demand the handicapped housing not be built. When the council explained they could not do anything, they threatened to recall the city council. They picketted and threatened the vets. In the end, the housing will not be built,due to the greed and bigitry of these homeowners. There need to be laws against bullies like this.
10
This homogeneity discourages creative types of people living in an area and subsequent groupthink. I would rather have occasional dingy and blight everyone thinking the same as me. That would make life quite boring. But boring is what some strive toward. I feel sorry for such people.
7
Towns have begun taxing intangibles such as "views". Does this give the taxed a greater say with respect to their views?
4
" we can’t have a process that gives every individual sort of a veto over change.” - Oh yes we can, it's called 'voting', and if a majority of people in a community do not want something, the bar has to be very high before you force it on them.
17
I'm 45 years a San Franciscan after nearly 25 a WashDC native. My wife and I bought a median value home with a 20 degree view of sunsets over the Pacific. I value that 20 (even though it is obstructed by power lines), and would fight a developer trying to build high and obstructing it. Likewise, I would not try to build a 3rd story without asking the homeowners on the hill behind us how they feel about our blocking the view they purchased. I emphatically reject the implication of Badger (or is it Been or Connolly?) that any one or group of homeowners is "halt(ing) every housing project the region needs". Just because half of humanity wants to live in or near San Francisco does not obligate me or us to agree that any particular housing project is "needed". Perhaps our right to the enjoyment of our property is just as dear as the right of NYC, Detroit or D.C. owners to theirs.
19
It is a very privileged minority moving to S.F. for "20 degree views of sunsets over the Pacific" and spending their time reflecting on how the building of a third story on their house might obstruct a neighbor's view.Many people *need* the jobs that cities provide. It is expensive and time-consuming to commute long distances to work (and greatly increases child care costs and time away from family). Imagine San Francisco emptied of all those workers who cannot afford to live in the city; how far out would you have them live so that you maintain the right to enjoy your property (whatever that means).
4
San Francisco fought really hard in the 1970s and 1980s against razing old neighborhoods and building taller buildings. That is what gives this city its charm, and now everyone wants in and destroy its beauty and character with ever tall and ugly buildings. Why shouldn't those who have lived here for decades have right to veto out greedy developers who are only interested in making a bundle? Isn't there a point when you say it is too much? The last time I checked, America had plenty of land -- we don't need to squeeze the whole country into ten desirable cities.
22
Owned a home for a couple of decades in an area with no HOA. Have owned another home for almost a couple of decades in an HOA community. I will take the latter anytime.
Reasons are both aesthetic and financial.
I will always feel better in an area that does not have any "features" that I would find gross.
The neighborhood has a tremendous effect on the price of a home.
A neighborhood where anything goes will look cluttered, unkempt, even run down. Not a place where a potential buyer would place the biggest purchase of her/his life.
Areas under HOA look well kept, and desirable.
12
Ms Badger --- Living in the same neighborhood as when I started life over 70 years ago, this article helps me understand the how's and why's of the rise of local zoning interest. I had only vague interest through my middle adult years and it seemed absent among my neighbors until recently. Now the last few years I've attended meetings where shouts were only the starting point. Depending on the meeting's subject, I've been on both sides of the shouts - pro and con. Now I understand what's pulling at my value judgments. Thank you.
5
And arguably, many of those uses named in the article are not vital for every community. In this country, communities have the right to regulate their are and exclude things that are unwanted.
5
Counties should have more authority to allocate the less “desirable” stuff however. Better the County than Albany, Sacramento, or D C.
2
“Who speaks for the community as a whole?”
Ideally, community planners and government officials.
2
No, not "ideally", as these rascals are more often than not, in the pockets of developers.
21
By "ideally" I meant if they are following established ethical codes for their professions and positions.
@Kathryn Frank What could THOSE possibly be?
Surely you jest.
"Community planners" are more often than not developers themselves, getting on planning boards to make sure their own interests are covered. Here in Seattle, they only make a thinly disguised dog-and-pony show of caring what city residents think or want.
The employees in a city zoning dept take orders from the city council and these planning committees, and I'm not aware than either planners or politicians are particularly adept at following any ethical code.
These "rights" tend to be exercised by the same folks who tend to vote...senior citizens. They simply have more time. As a result, we remain mired in the past because those most active in homeowner associations and the like have a special fondness for the past because they lived in it.
7
Zoning for years been used for allowing blight to flourish in certain parts of town and not others, allowing industrial use in an area once zoned residential, and similar acts. As a result, people who have less power or say over the zoning rules have homes that have limited equity growth, while those of us in neighborhoods where zoning protected the "look and feel" of the historic homes have seen our property values soar. It is no surprise that the zoning laws were made to help some and hurt others, and when I point that out in some conversations, people seem truly astounded, as though it never occurred to them. It is a sad part of our past, but I hope recognition of the problem will keep it from being part of our community's future.
23
TulsaTeresa, you are describing the true "NIMBY" problem - someone opposing something in their own neighbourhood but not giving a hoot if it blights someone else's neighbourhood. This is not what this article is about - the people it maligns do not say go ahead and raze some other neighbourhood and uglify it, just leave mine alone. Some "NIMBYs" belong to historical societies that seek to protect a city's built heritage wherever you are lucky enough to still have any. Without the NY Landmarks movement would look and feel like any of the bland, generic cities across the globe.
This anti-"nimby" article is an attempt to reframe a debate so that opposition to redevelopment is perceived as anti-social, and racist to boot. It happens here, too, and in England, in both cities and historic rural towns, where racial divides are irrelevant or close to it.
Ugly and excessive is ugly and excessive, and it doesn't "need" to be built anywhere. Not in anyone's backyard. Not every proposal fits that bill, but if they do, people should be free to call it out without being labelled selfish racists, to shut them up and get them out of the way.
1
Long live communism! Or at least this is what came to my mind, when we bought a house in an upscale town in New Jersey, and promptly the neighbors told us which exact lawn chairs to buy (so we all had matching chairs, matching lawns, etc.) We gladly went along, but I could not stop thinking of how homogeneity was communism's visual presentation, and, here in the middle of a capitalist town, we were also "enforcing" it.
17
Authoritarianism and communism are not necessarily synonymous and should not be confused or conflated. Proof positive is the application of the corporate form to homeownership (usually through a non-profit benefit corporation). Hail the legal authoritarianism of capitalism. Some Tibetan monks somewhere are happily sharing all their possessions while you are taking your lawn chairs back to Target per your oppression by non-profit authoritarian corporations.
2
Every municipality has to figure this stuff out on their own. In my experience, people will fight almost anything new. That includes small neighborhood parks, greenway paths for biking/walking, and public pools. They fight and fight for it not to be close to them, and then once it's done they brag about how great it is and it increases their property value, so of course they use it as a selling point when they're ready to sell.
10
A lot of the contention I see in my city involves the requests for large corporations to override the wants and desires of citizens or neighborhoods.
Is it right for a large corporation to wield more power in shaping zoning and public policy than tenured city residents?
We have seen our little city grow and grow until it is barely livable, with unnavigable traffic and unaffordable property taxes.
Why shouldn't those who have lived here first and longest be able to protect some of their way of life? I know we can get to a prisoners dilemma, where if everyone goes after their self interest then everyone is damaged. It just seems that growth and profit has been put ahead of well-being and happiness. Maybe it is all a sign to move.
30
As you say, there needs to be balance, and you have to think of the public good at some point. But if you sacrifice your city to the corporate gods, then what have you got?
At a certain point, I guess there is the law of diminishing returns and people then start to move. Then the city gets less revenue from property taxes.
4
Where is the "public good" in wrecking the quality of a place? Says who, and why?
1
Home ownership is incredibly expensive and people make significant financial sacrifices to own and maintain one, especially single family houses. I'd guess the need to protect this as a financial investment has a lot to do with preserving neighborhoods, etc.
I think a lot of neighborhood areas, especially in older and more established places, are probably under constant development assault by profit-seeking developers who only care about turning a profit, not the long-term look and feel of the neighborhood.
24
In CA, houses are being bought but never lived in as a way to move money out of their countries.
10
This article misses the chance to go deeper. What is going on? Neighbors are physically closer and their choices affect others more than in the past. At the same time neighbors don't know each other and this alienation tends to produce a "me against the world (or what a neighbor is doing that I don't like). Add in a tendency for people to believe they can make others do what they want (my home is my castle, therefore I am the king/queen) and you have NIMN behavior.
Sorry I do't have answers.
Rodney King asked the right question: "Can't we all just get along?"
9
I live in a 1920-30's residential neighborhood in North Baltimore. We have two businesses in the same building with a zoning exemption (grandfathered). One is a liquor store which wants to open a restaurant in that location, on a cramped lot, with limited parking, and outside tables.
We live in a city, and I've favored development in this neighborhood in the past, but I can't help thinking this would have a negative effect. Only blocks away, there a dozens of restaurants.
Many people will be affected by this zoning change if it comes to pass. Of course the neighbors should be concerned.
10
Those NIMN folks are no more discerning or moral than anyone else. What we're really talking about here is the myriad ways to keep black people out of neighborhoods without mentioning race.
2
That's how the neo-liberal Seattle gov't wants to portray it, and as someone who's absolutely opposed to the way our city gov't has gone about their planning decisions, I can say it's absolutely not true.
8
Why does this newspaper try so hard to make everything about race? This is about individual rights — whether real or conceptual. In my many decades of home ownership, the all of the NIMBY fights I have witnessed (or been part of) were aimed at those who wanted to fundamentally change the physical character of a neighborhood. That means increasing density of construction, raising allowable heights of buildings, or allowing commercial use in a residential zone. The smaller arguments I know of (those that are neighbor against neighbor) have been about quality of life — new construction shading yards, unlicensed daycare causing noise, and even a potter who used manure in his kiln (stinks!). People (all people, of all races and socio-economic status) often act selfishly, with no concern for how their actions affect those around them. Homeowners need to defend themselves with whatever means they have available.
In my rural area we have a mixture of zoning (Rural Residential, Rural Agricultural, and well as areas zoned for logging and even mining). Property owners frequently ignore zoning restrictions. There are people here running businesses on residential properties, erecting nonpermitted buildings, growing pot, and worse. The county is not going to protect our property rights, so we NIMBY nitpickers conduct the war ourselves. Your rights end where they start to infringe upon mine.
33
The ones who accuse others of "nimbyism" the loudest are either hopelessly naive or willfully disinterested in quality of life issues.
19
" Your rights end where they start to infringe upon mine." and vice-versa.
3
The author is spot on correct regarding the irrational fear that so many folks feel regarding changes near their neighborhood (I especially liked the funeral home example). I live in Boulder, CO, a bastion of liberalism as well as, at least in my neighborhood, of liberal hypocrites. A serious issue we face in the town is the lack of affordable housing. Boulder has a population of ca. 110,000, and each work day around 60,000 folks commute in for jobs while around 13,000 commute out of Boulder. Consequently, home prices are really high. The city has proposed developing a small community of a couple hundred units of affordable cost housing units across a major street from where I live (in a HOA). All of a sudden, many of the card-carrying liberals in the neighborhood are against affordable housing even though the effects would likely be slightly increased traffic at certain times of day. It is truly amazing how perceived fears can turn a card carrying liberal into a NIMBY capitalist. (At other times, of course, it can turn a card carrying conservative capitalist into a NIMBY liberal.)
All I can say is sad.
30
You are missing some important facts. The area is currently zoned for 2-6 units per acre. The city and county proposal would allow up to 18 units per acre. The county rejected a compromise that came about in a series of facilitated discussions.
6
This article takes a potentially interesting subject, talks a bit about its history, but then unfortunately takes it nowhere. What are the conclusions?
8
The subject is as old as civilization. Perhaps because the subject is so complex there are no "conclusions," not easy ones anyway; and the best we can do is continue to share our opinions about this unresolvable situation and try our best to live with it...peacefully.
2
I see absolutely nothing wrong in residents of a community taking an interest in what happens in their community. The idea that we should all keep to ourselves and shut up does not build strong communities. But, apparently, the narrative of the day is that NIMBYism is the root of all evil.
42
The NY Times has had several articles with this narrative recently. The paper seems to have forgotten the lessons of Love Canal and other environmental justice matters.
14
Parents also believe that their children's friends have more influence over them than the parents. So they are concerned about neighbors who have unruly, lazy, or sexually provocative children.
2
As you point out, this has been the case for 100+ years, since zoning codes were created. This is not a new phenomenon. As long as our home is both where we live and much of our wealth we will be concerned about the neighborhood around it. And we should be.
22
The population of the U.S. (and the world) has nearly DOUBLED since the 1960s. There are too many people, period. That stresses the environment, of which housing is a component but a big one. Wherever there's a good neighborhood of decent humans and diligent homeowners, the business community, churches and government will attach to - and not in a beneficial symbiotic way. Homeowners fund everything via property taxes. It matters who is on a zoning and land use county/city board. It matters who is elected mayor and to a city council. Vested interests - i.e. greed and power - are ALWAYS working against homeowners in nice neighborhoods. Everyone wants a piece of that pie. Our tiny tucked away neighborhood right now is dealing with yet another in a string of "just one more time" expansion projects of what once was a small neighborhood church and private school. That now large commercial enterprise has played the power municipal game for 15 years to its own financial benefit, destroying the neighborhood while our property taxes skyrocket (it pays nothing). That Catholic commercial business has morphed from sleepy small grade school into a giant religious campus, w/ daily traffic clogged streets of buses and trucks, walls of noise and even now a cemetery! The handful of homeowners have seen property values plummet, held hostage to church-state shenanigans of graft and corruption in exchange for breakage of every zoning law on the books. I'd take an HOA any day!
45
It is truly astonishing how much planners and environmental groups completely ignore population growth, over and over and over again, as the core factor in driving every other issue. World population 4 billion in 1974; to world population 5 billion in 1987; to well over 7.5 billion today, with no sign of stopping. Environmental groups wring their hands over global warming with nary a mention of population growth, as if all will be fine if we simply cover every mountain top with wind towers and every open space meadow with solar panels while the world hurtles on to population 8 billion, 9 billion, 10 billion and so on.
Where is the United Nations or the E.U. in calling for a one-child policy across the world? Oh, that's right, Centrist French Prime Minister Macron suggested this past summer that some countries may want to examine the impact of high birth rates on economic, environmental and political stability and corresponding contribution to migration pressures and was immediately accused by the media and others as being "racist." Such is the level of dialogue and leadership in the world today.
48
I've been complaining about this phenomenon for years. Thanks for injecting it into this discussion, right where it belongs.
1
Don't worry. Population growth is going to stall and start declining very soon. The economic advantage of having a big population is decreasing with automation and globalization. Once we reach the point where one extra person has no way of contributing to the national economy governments are going to start disincentivizing population growth.
As a homeowner, I see both sides. If a developer is trying to get my town to allow an apartment complex that is only going to add to the traffic congestion we already have, then I am going to be against it. If the town wants to place a group home, we already have two in my neighborhood, then the answer is yes.
6
""The new tax law has raised the possibility that homeownership may be losing some of its privileged status in American society, as the benefits of the mortgage interest and property tax deductions shrink. Those changes could dampen how attractive housing looks as an asset.
What the mortgage interest deduction really supports is a Middle Class. Cutting the deduction is yet another factor which will increase income disparity.
12
The upside of homeowners to society is vast and undefinable, and serves as fabric that knits community together.
Zoning isn't perfect, but it's priceless.
24
Instead of trying to convince people to stop turning their land into wastefully sprawling made-for-TV towns with prefab lookalike homes, I'll just leave a friendly reminder that some HOA rules that restrict antennas are not only annoying and friendly to data-miser ISPs, but may be illegal.
Check with your lawyer!
https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule
7
As an idealistic undergraduate I saw gated communities as both an insult to democracy and a kind of admission of social failure. But now at middle age I only see the need for more zoning and enforcement, not less, and those gates look awfully appealing. People have an apparent limitless capacity for trashy and transgressive behavior, a trait that's emboldened by obnoxious entitlement. It just might be that today's "nimbyism" is a rational outcome of hard and long experience and has nothing to do with unfair exclusion.
63
Nonsense. People are driven by their options and access, and when we artificially make it next to impossible for people to buy homes, because we restrict supply, it makes them less attached to a particular place, and thus less likely to care for it.
Gated communities are fine, but they should not be indirectly subsidized by other Americans to pay for them, which is in fact what things like the mortgage interest deduction and a slew of other tax benefits that disproportionately favors wealthy white Middle-class Americans does.
It's easy to the see the benefits of zoning if you are within the zone in question, but the cost of zoning far outweigh the benefits to the larger society. It makes land more expensive and less accessible. Why is that a good thing?
15
The words "house" and "home" aren't infinitely elastic. The gist of the current dialogue usually pits single-family-house-with-a-yard against the bottomless chasm of need for "affordable housing," i.e. tenements, which we are told must be built next to, around, and if eminent domain ever comes into play, on top of the houses that some of us spent years working for. Pulling the rug from under house owners who did nothing but work and play by the rules is no virtue, even if the ends are.
1
What you posted doesn't make any sense. Restricting the supply makes something more valuable which would make people more attached to a place not less.
"In denser living, a trash dump or a park next door affects the value of your parcel. So does the access to jobs, the ease of transportation and the amenities nearby."
I think we could have a more productive national discussion of this subject if we recognized that very similar if not identical issues are faced in rural living.
4
One of the top 3 issues for New Jersey voters according to a governor's race poll by WNYC in October was forced overdevelopment by wealthy developers, exploitation of Mount Laurel doctrine, and the attendant suburban sprawl.
Of course homeowners should be able to band together to create or preserve the neighborhood they want.
It kind of feels like the author is utterly unaware of the fierce debate about this issue, at least in New Jersey, where laws are essentially bought and paid for by a small group of billionaire property developers.
33
The consequence of unrelenting opposition to new development is that the supply of housing fails to keep up with population growth. As a result, housing costs rise, and everyone who doesn't already own (homeowners and landlords) loses.
"Forced overdevelopment" is a silly way of saying "housing construction that happens as a result of other people existing," and while blaming "wealthy developers" for new construction to house people who already exist might feel like good progressivism, it's just a front for old fashioned anti-other conservatism.
It's a noxious argument, but it's largely responsible for causing America's most vibrant cities to be effectively closed off to the Americans who'd benefit the most from the higher wages that they offer. The housing scarcity problem is so bad that even native-born New Yorkers, Angelenos, etc., can barely afford to stay.
Please reconsider your opposition to new housing construction. Housing is good.
Best,
Nick Burns
PS No, I'm not a developer.
9
Anonymous nails it. Overdevelopment is theft of value from the existing owners. Improvements that add value are supported, not opposed. To imagine that density advocates are interested in community life is shockingly naive.
4
@Global Charm you own your house and land. You don’t own it’s value.
"In the 1980s and 1990s, homeowners turned to gated communities to control what nuisance laws couldn’t: a community’s aesthetic, a neighbor’s pets, another property’s landscaping."
The control described is that of a homeowners association, with or without gates. A gated community attempts to control other things.
13
Two critical elements are missing from this article: 1) What is the role of citizenship, as opposed to home ownership? and 2) What is the role and power of developers?
No mention of either as a serious issue.
Just home ownership as the pet shop alligator released into the sewers that grew into a monster.
One can acknowledge that home ownership has various sorts of consequences, good and bad, intended and unintended.
But developers have a lot of power to bull doze and build for profit (both in the built environment and in special interest lobbying to support tax breaks for borrowers to buy in Levitt's Levittowns).
And citizenship should carry with it some say in local governance
36
Homeowners often make the best citizens. They have a huge stake in the community and neighbourhood, in the education system and recreation. Renters are often so transient they become part of the problem. Developers move in, make money, and leave a mess.
7
"Renters are often so transient they become part of the problem."
And now you've just impugned the large number of people who cannot afford to buy a house. Many of them would love to do so, but if they live in a high-cost area and work a low-paying job, then the idea that they can save for a down payment while they pay high rent is ludicrous.
2
Wait—when did renters suddenly become a problem?
Just because we may not own real estate doesn't mean we're not invested where we live. We pay taxes, too.
2
Zoning is a major part of what city governments do. I happen to think it is how they help maintain a quality of life for the city’s residents. If imbalances occur, e.g. excessive prices or slum conditions, then zoning changes are one tool for cities to correct it. If an article wanted to show that zoning degrades a city then perhaps it would be better to compare cities without zoning, I understand Houston is one, with those who use it strictly. This article doesn’t do that and appears less than effective because it points out the obvious, zones benefit certain uses at the expense of other uses. That’s what zoning does. City planning and the democratic process are the means of rearranging those uses.
25
City planning and elections however are not the best means of getting to the most appropriate evaluation of those needs. City planners can selectively favor certain populations, not in the interest of the city's long term prospects but rather the lobbying from special interest. I would argue far from correcting problems, city planning creates and perpetuates them, for the benefit of a select few at the expense of the many.
A much better system is more akin to what Houston has, where it isn't planned government bureaucracies deciding what goes where, but rather the natural rate and change in values of the population as they live there.
Just because zoning is what a lot of city governments now find themselves doing, doesn't mean it is what they ought to be doing.
I've never understood the argument that people acting on their own accord will inherently be an inferior alternative than handing over the decision making authority to city planners.
3
Yet, the big problems with Hurricane Irma occurred because of a lack of zoning and planning in Houston and its county! Wetlands, streams paved over; no place for water to go, and the result was manmade flooding due to the lack of planned development and zoning!
We’ve tried Ayn Rand society and capitalism and it didn’t work. Let it die and vote Paul Ryan and the Republicans out of office!
You obviously never lived in a quiet community that suddenly had a homeowner open a dog-breeding business, keeping the dogs outdoors. The constant barking day and night was unbearable, and he ignored our complaints. We took the owner to court. He fought against us for years until the state supreme court ended our nightmare. Zoning is essential for a peaceful life.
2
Our se pdx neighborhoods have become increasingly attractive over the last 25 years with a commensurate rise in home prices. Now we are experiencing the most pernicious form of "nimbyism ", the historical district that allows a minority of property owners to override the will of their neighbors and impose an array of arbitrary of development restrictions on entire neighborhoods of a square mile or more. To stop these districts a majority of property owners must make a formal objection. Proponents need not vote. Local elected officials have little or no say.
3
Please elaborate on how "a minority of property owners override the will of their neighbors...." How does this occur legally?
4
The article implies a certain amount of selfish NIMBYism in established neighborhoods. One purpose of zoning is to allow people to have information about potential future uses of a nearby parcel. If I buy a house in an industrial zone, I cannot complain when an industry moves in next door. When I buy in a residential zone, I pay more for the exclusion of industry. That is the free market at work.
The other reason for homeowner concerns about the neighborhood is that, with many of us living in 400 square foot apartments, the neighborhood is our communal living room. We need to get out to encounter bigger spaces and socialization. Neighborhoods with effective local associations include all socioeconomic strata. They represent the interests of those who live in and have invested in that neighborhood, and the best ones are democratic and foster cohesiveness rather than exclusion.
15
You'd be surprised how many people don't pay attention to what's in their new neighborhood. Here in Seattle, we get lovely examples constantly. The most long-term example is people who move to the Fauntleroy area of West Seattle and then complain about the noise and traffic from the ferries, which have been there since the 1950's.
Another is people who move to the "vibrant arts & nightlife" neighborhood, and then want said nightlife to stop so they can sleep.
Nearly all of the city wants to keep working class people, or anyone who's ever been down on their luck out of their precious neighborhoods, and the formerly-poor neighborhoods are the ones that get razed to put in six-packs of townhomes and apartments in place of the lovely old Craftsman homes. I'm sure they'd be all highrises if zoning allowed it, and I have to wonder what's going to happen when the Cascadia fault slips.
14
It might not be a bad thing, but it’s not the “free market at work”.
We were visiting with neighbors next door when they received a phone call. It was a new resident, and she was upset that our neighbor had a late model car (in excellent condition) with a for-sale sign on it parked, with permission, just outside the entrance to the subdivision. She told him its presence made the whole neighborhood look like a junk yard, and she was expecting guests and wanted to give the best impression. If he would not move the car, she said, she would call the police. He invited her to do so. No police subsequently showed up. The new neighbor joins another who counts how many yard sales are held at each address during the course of a year, in order to file complaints against those who host more than three. Thank heaven we don't have a homeowners association.
84
Having lived in a well-kept condominium complex of townhouse for a decade (and generally enjoyed it), I completely understand the nature of busy-bodies and "appearance" nazis in the community. When it was time to move to a single-family home, an HOA was an immediate turn-off.
6
My home is more than my house or my tiny lot. My home encompasses my broader neighborhood. Of course I want it to support the well-being of me and all of my neighbors. Does that affect our home values? Sure. But peace and well-being are equally, if not more, important. When the lot a house sits on is less than a quarter of an acre, that means that neighbors sit very close to one another and invariably affect one another in positive and negative ways. Regardless of income, race, or any other factor, it makes sense for neighbors in such close proximity to come to some sort of agreement about how they want their neighborhood to be. Informal agreements are great, so long as all the neighbors are on board. HOAs provide a stricter control and can be effective if they are well-managed (I know there are horror stories). I live in a community with a great and reasonable HOA and fantastic neighbors. We alI chose to live here and to be bound by the HOA, and my sense of well-being and contentment is well worth the $150 a month it costs me.
20
I see no one solution to the situation, but part of the solution must be comity and understanding. Both, however, seem to be in short supply lately.
7