Thank you for making this video. My family moved from west to east coast when I was little mainly because housing was insanely expensive. We left so many friends behind, and even though I barely remember it, I still miss the beauty of California.
So my initial reply got deleted, instead I'll put your own words up as a counter argument for "NIMBY-ism = Bad" not always being the case. Maybe that will resonate in a meaningful way. th-cam.com/video/_nSvy8jcNbU/w-d-xo.html Face it, you live in a world with other people, and they don't all agree with you. When you come into a place where people are, and have another idea of how to use their property - you either have to make a convincing case to get buy in from those affected, or risk that history will judge you as evil: th-cam.com/video/w0cCF2pG13U/w-d-xo.html Unlike the discourse in this country right now, someone not agreeing with does not make them a "terrorist" or "insurrectionist", it just means your idea or argument did not sway them and you have not done your job (or, or... hear me out: "your idea sucks, and you are too personally invested to be objective about it").
Have you ever considered a story on Portland, Oregon? I lived there 20 years ago and the cities approved of a building zone. Anything outside of it required you have 20 acres or basically a farm. They were trying to stop sprawl which worked very well. But it also inflated housing prices. I bought a house in 1994 for $85,000 and 2 years later we were able to refinance at the value of $120,000. (We had added some features such as energy efficient windows and furnace, a deck in the backyard and a fence around it.) One of the problems with Portland was that they built the highway across from downtown along the river and with this the riverside value became very valuable. But it's occupied by a freeway. I had heard that the value of riverside property was the same as the cost of moving the highway slightly inland (which was at risk of collapsing like the Kobe highway and was due for an upgrade). I wonder how the city is faring now? My son still lives there, but across the Columbia River in Vancouver, WA which has huge sprawl but more affordable housing.
@@magesalmanac6424 There was a group of smooth brains circulating flyers claiming that expanding the UCSF hospital would cause shadows, and they believe shadows cause cancer. Another depicted a non-existent playground with a smoke stack overshadowing it yammering on about "do you want to raise your kids in the dark ages?" Can't make this shit up.
This is a great summary, as usual! One of the big problems with places like SF is that strict zoning has been in place for so many decades that a few multiplexes or duplexes isn't going to solve the problem. So when developers finally do get a development plan in place, it's for a huge condo building or the large-end of a midrise. This provides an even bigger target for NIMBYs. If these neighbourhoods had been able to "gently" densify over the decades, by adding some duplexes, multiplexes, town homes, and small apartment buildings, the problem would be much less acute. Though I guess those early plans for "gentle" density were squashed by the NIMYBs of the past, so it's NIMBYs all the way down. Some people have told me that they've had _some_ success by appealing to the housing crisis that will affect the NIMBY's own children or grandchildren. If you can convince them that the problem may affect their own family, then you can sometimes make some progress. From a systemic angle though, housing fundamentally needs to stop being an investment vehicle. This at least dampens the financial incentive. There's some positive movement in that direction in the Netherlands where new housing in some cities _must_ be registered as the primary residence for the purchaser and cannot be rented or left vacant. It's got a purchase price cap and there are some unfortunate loopholes, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
I'd love for city beautiful (or you!) to discuss social/public housing more, like what exists in Vienna. That's a really good model for decommodifying housing and turning it from an investment into just a nice place to live 😊
Yeah the best solution for the city is to buy out single family homes that are on sale (which they are a ton), and replace them with a medium sized apartment complex or a triplex with 90-100% affordable/free housing. Also putting primary residence laws is not a bad idea.
Had a lovely exchange with a nimby out front of the Sac zoo trying to get people to sign a petition to repeal the bill that just passed removing single family home zoning. When I told her we need density to resolve the housing crisis she said “no we need affordability” and when I told her we get affordability with density she just said “no”. Just "no".
@@ericBorja520 it only equals lower prices if supply increases more than demand. Interest in cali is probably too high for that to happen. Any new supply probably get sucked up before it even gets on the market.
@@ooogyman The government can attempt to curb demand (population) by using several methods such as birthing restrictions (ex: max 2 children), requiring licenses to own children, government granted incentives for not having children (huge tax credits, discounts, etc.), increased sex education worldwide (especially from the places where most people immigrate from), widespread and easy access to abortions, free and convenient contraceptives, increasing restrictions on immigration (preferably using a method that maximizes randomness such as a lottery system as to avoid ethnic bias), and active large campaigns advocating for the stabilization and/or reduction of population worldwide.
My dad mentioned a district community meeting where some NIMBY's serious argument against new apartments were "They will throw hot dogs at us". I have no idea what life she lived to get that idea.
@@neocortex8198I feel like NIMBY’s should have to room and board two minimum ILLEGALS and be LEGALLY responsible for them for 10 years like 90 day fiancé 💯
As someone living in CA, this really shows what CA politics are: People vote for measures and laws that are good for the environment, housing, transit etc (example Measure M in LA County). But when reality sets in as to how to exactly implement them, they are opposed to it. Example: a new train line in LA. We desperately need more transit, but NIMBYS are slowing it down with bullshit arguments. NIMBYs also show how individualistic Americans can be. We must all realize that we live together in a society, and what we do can affect others. But alas, they don't. "Land of the free" I guess....👀
Weird how living next to a train track changes perceptions. I live in Skåne, South Sweden... I moved in my house 4 months ago and it is only 50-ish meters away from the train station and train tracks, and I barely notice when a train passes maybe ones or twice a day... Just having good windows and insolation minimizes the disturbances. And you get used to the occasional train passing at 160 km/h and don't pay any attention to it... But the benefits... Oh man I love it. I am 1h away by car or train to the office. Which is only 30 minutes more than the commute by bus I had from Malmö to Lund before... Now with WFH, it is about the same price to take the train, or for gas... But I can have an hour on the train relaxing, instead of driving. If I go back to office full time, buying a 30 day card is waaaaay cheaper and makes transit so much more convenient than driving. TL:DR One of the reasons I bought my house was that it was only 50 meters away from the train station!
The unfortunate thing is that it doesn't take a lot of NIMBYs to affect a lot. You only need a couple of them to go to the local zoning meetings. And they're fighting against people that don't exist or would have no reason to attend a local zoning meeting (future potential residents) so it's a pretty easy battle for NIMBYs to win.
6:05 The biggest NIMBY hypocrisy is that they don't protest high density office towers. The concerns of traffic and parking go out the window despite the fact that office towers tend to be even denser and funnels in tons of traffic from nearby areas because there isn't enough residential units nearby. It's absolutely about inducing demand for the few residential units. I do not think they see themselves as defenders. That's the public face they put on. They absolutely know what they're doing. The concerns for property values are the only truthful thing that leaks out form their mask.
Stop pretending that traffic and parking are a MAIN concern when poperty value is the elephant in the room. Now why shouldn't there be concern for property value if more low cost rentals get built on their block ?
@@mrshaw9201 Now you are either a full blown troll or a perfect embodiment of the American individualism. I made it here first, now screw everybody else, who didnt. :)
Imagine if local businesses always got together to try and block any new businesses from being able to open near them or in the same city. This is basically what nimbys are doing to everyone else who wants to build new housing in this same city as them
Local businesses do this all the time through a mix of zoning and other sneaky regulations. Most local town boards are run by local businesses and they are pretty much gatekeepers for which new businesses can move into town.
Thats an interesting argument and a good analogy, because it is really similar to an oligopoly or monopolistic competition, to use the technical economic terms, though ut might be better to call it an oligopsony, or a few controlling the buying of goods or services. Either way, nimbys are using anti-competition actions, and in business at least, more competition is better for prices and reflecting demand (with good labor protections of course😉)
Local businesses do that. When food trucks in LA became popular the local restaurant lobby group tried to get legislation through to minimize their impact like saying they can't park here or there for "safety" reasons i.e. not near my business.
This almost feels like a perfect part 3 of the NJB/Climate Town collab since Climate Town ended his video telling people they should try going to local zoning meetings but that you're likely to encounter NIMBYs there :D
I live in Manhattan near Penn Station. I went to a community board meeting & all I heard was complaints about new high rises being built, complaints about restaurants, bars, & clubs, & complaints about Target opening 2 new stores every year. I got up to speak about the lack of affordable grocery stores in area & how Target is the only affordable place to shop for groceries. We don't have the chains like Kroger, Safeway/Vons, Ralph's, Albertsons, or Publix.
The problem is that many of these meetings are at in opportune times for working people to adequately advocate for themselves. NIMBYs love to claim greedy corporations but what about greedy individuals?
I’m so pleased by the recent wave of videos from the urban planning TH-cam community discussing low density zoning and NIMBYism. City Beautiful, Not Just Bikes, and Climate Town all published stellar videos this week. We really need to have these discussions now. Washington state is currently trying to push through its own inclusive zoning bill and I really hope we succeed!
NIMBYs: We are NOT selfish! We just want to perpetuate a severe housing crisis that's driving an entire generation into poverty in order to raise our own property values!
@@TreeFilms1 that's the thing though, they're mostly older Boomers drawing the bridge of opportunity on the younger generation while at the same time having a stupid law which allows them to pay property tax at the original 50 to $60,000 price. If I was running in California on the state level, I'd literally form a party around this issue and then surprise the Boomer population by repealing that exemption law so their property tax goes up by like 30 x or 3,000% because why should they get special treatment when no one else does. That alone would be enough to drive most of them out similar to gentrification but now it will be affecting them
Doesn't matter because population will keep doubling every few decades so we may as well get use to living in a 5 by 5 cage now. We have a bit time because we can bulldoze all the nature rubbish first.
@@TreeFilms1We’re already there. The number of homes hitting the market is bottoming out. Most people, NIMBYs included, can’t afford to buy the homes they own today, let alone an upgrade.
The expectation that your house is your primary investment has a lot of downsides. It means that people view high housing prices as good instead of bad, since their retirement depends on it.
I love how people don't want certain housing in their neighborhood, because their real estate value will go down...I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S BUTT IF YOUR REAL ESTATE VALUE GOES DOWN!!!
@ghost mall It's great from an individual perspective in the current system, but it's terrible from a social perspective in the long term because it's just a fucking pyramid scheme in slow motion and suffers from the same problem: when you run out of people willing or able to buy into the bottom, the whole thing collapses because it wasn't actually creating any real wealth in the first place, just funneling it up the pyramid.
@ghost mall Sure, but people can't buy houses if the prices are outrageous. And as values go up, so do property taxes. It also leads to homelessness. The mindset of my property value over others being able to afford housing is pretty selfish and self detrimental.
@ghost mall if it’s so reliable, then it should have no problem holding its own against the forces of the free market. Regulatory capture is fear in action.
This is largely a generational conflict. Old long-time homeowners are happy to see the value of their property go up. They don't think the high cost of housing is a problem, especially in California where Proposition 13 prevents property taxes from rising more than 2% per year regardless of how much the property has gone up in value. They bought their houses decades ago when they were cheap, pay little in property taxes, and now oppose the construction of new housing which would provide young people with an affordable place to live. I have been involved in planning issues in San Mateo, where I live. I notice that the vast majority of people who participate in public city planning meetings are older white homeowners. Many are retired and have plenty of free time to attend these meetings. Younger people and renters are too busy with their jobs and families to participate. The biggest conflict in California is not between Republicans and Democrats. It is between NIMBYs and YIMBYs.
You nailed it. The NIMBY vs YIMBY conflict is the big split of our day, every other issue is minor in comparison as this one issue has such an impact on our lives.
Nothing is more dangerous than a white homeowner retiree that has too much time on their hands. We as people who actually need this need to attend more city council meetings.
@@mrshaw9201 single family is actually more of a burden on maintenance & road congestion than multifamily on cities cause multifamily density means you can build public transport & pool money together.
@@mrshaw9201 If NIMBY stop voting down public transit, traffic would be a non-issue. I live in Toronto and I am moving to the Bay Area in a few months. In my 4 years in Toronto, the only time I set foot in a car is to go to the airport. Because of high density and extensive public transit, traffic is meaningless since you don't need a car.
I think one of the key things you fail to mention in the NIMBY debate in California is that it is exacerbated by Prop 13. Current property owners are shielded from the primary downside to increasing property values: increasing property taxes. It means that they can block development, increase scarcity, and continue to increase their wealth through increased property values while paying an ever-decreasing share of taxes. The structure of the law subsidizes their outsized impact on the housing market.
Now that's some major BS right there. If you're going to have a multimillion dollar house you should pay property taxes to fit the house's value and pay for public services.
My cousin's grandmother is living alone and has given the property titles of two houses built in the 1970s that are now worth almost a million dollars each to my uncle (One is vacant without renters despite proximity to LAX). He doesn't have to pay taxes on it even though Prop 13's original intentions were to protect the retired, not be a feudal system that applies to children and corporations with minimal taxes.
@@AnotherOne-iu3lp Prop 13 should have never been passed in the first place. If someone's house becomes so valuable that they can't afford the property taxes on it then they should sell it for a lot of money and get a less costly place.
@@johnsamuel1999 Creating an aristocracy with generational land rights who don't have to pay taxes hurts everyone trying to get a place now who don't have mommy and daddy's help. Also, homes can be sold. Then people can move into new ones, at any age.
"High density housing can be defined as anything more than single family homes." In extreme cases, it even includes single family homes on slightly smaller lots.
I am shocked that SFHs usually have 1,800 sq.ft. minimum. That is way too large for a single family. Our house is only 600 sq ft, but it's enough for us.
When my sister and I were young she and my mother and I lived in a ~440ft² flat, around what Americans would call middle school my sister, mother, and I moved into a ~600ft² flat together with my stepfather. This definitely is enough for us (although everyone always wants more space, I suppose).
As a life long NorCalian who just moved back to the Bay from Sacramento I cannot express HOW MUCH NIMBYism boils my blood. I cannot afford to live alone as much as I want to anywhere in my home region. My parents are part of the problem. They moved across the country last year to get more "backyard" and they just straight up admitted to all the horrible things that they don't like. I have given up I'm moving to Europe next year. I love the restored victorian I live in but I want to live in a single person unit with my cat instead of dealing with annoying housemates nonstop. it's absolutely insane that working full time + overtime I cannot afford my own place. I had better income to payment ratio at 19 than I do now at 36. Ridiculous.
@@sygneg7348 It does have cheaper standards of living and better quality of life if you don't want to just live in New York or California. Get off the coasts and realize there is an entire country between the two oceans. Most major European cities, like Paris and London, are far more expensive to live in than most of the United States.
When actually, on top of the lowering property prices they're often (not always, but OFTEN) thinking 'if it's more affordable, I will have neighbors who aren't WASP. I'm not racist but...' You know the ones. You already know how they vote 🙃
@@Allyouknow5820 And that attitude is endemic in rich, white liberal circles. They believe in equality, fairness, and that their enlightened attitude alone should be enough to bring it about without any personal sacrifice whatsoever.
100%. Most people that advocate for moving subsidized housing into non-sub. neighborhoods have never experienced living near it and its limitless negatives. You gotta house people somewhere, but it's a terrible idea to mix them.
@@lifevest1 Wow that's some clasicism right there. 1) If you really mix people, you stop having "near", because it's even closer than near. 2) The "limitless negatives" are often quite limited and anyway, you see the bad parts, but not the good parts because you assume the good parts are not subsidized and you attribute bad "non-subsidized" as being subsidized. It's a bit like one of those "hidden millionaires" comedies where the fraudster is getting the VIP treatment and the millionaire is hired to clean the forgotten backyard.
@@steemlenn8797 found one. The only positive was I got a really nice 2bed,2bath for $1100 downtown and free utilities. I only lived there for 8 months though fortunately.
@@lifevest1 I don't understand a word of your comment. Mix what? Near what? What do you mean by "it"? Non-suburban neighbourhoods? What is "them"? Subsidized and private housing? Please clarify.
In San Antonio, NIMBYs are currently halting the progress of the city at large. As the nations 7th largest city, SA lacks the infrastructure and development seen in larger cities, and it has had an immense effect on our economy. Projects here either never get off the ground or are sluggish in nature. For example: the first office high rise to be built since the 1980s was completed in 2019, and the first residential high rise to ever be built in the city has faced delay after delay. Necessary projects like housing are just abandoned altogether due to backlash from communities. What we are trying to build here isn’t opulence, but rather the bare-minimum the city needs in order to survive and thrive.
I am puzzled that San Antonio still doesn't have ANY urban railway line, even though it has enough density to warrant at least three subway lines that can be done within ten years, to be honest. You have lots of money and right-of-way at your disposal.
I'm glad you came here to San Francisco. It looks like you had a lot of fun with your drone. I'm surprised there was no mention of BART, the local train system, and how limited it is due to certain parts of the Bay Area rejecting it because basically for not wanting the company of people who can't afford cars. Of course, I believe you've mentioned this in previous videos, but it definitely applies to this one as well.
Sounds like Atlanta and its MARTA system. Because it serves some lower-income areas (and not even very well tbh), people in wealthier areas don't want to see construction near them. They cite crime, noise, and "disturbing the character of the neighborhoods."
I.E. Bart down Geary. The merchants claim construction and loss of parking as to why they don't want Bart down Geary. Like Geary is huge!! The 38/38R are SF busiest bus route and one of tbe busiest on the west coast!! Now that I've moved from SF to Atlanta, I now see the same thing here with Marta. The trains hardly go anywhere because of the stigma of crime coming with the train. It's just a load of excuses and bullshit honestly.
It's just a more subtle version of the A-holes who, during the Civil Rights Movement, held up signs saying they demanded that their neighborhoods stay for whites only.
That is the problem why mass-transit will never be popular in USA, too much class difference, people with mental problems and smelly homeless people using transports does not help.
I think it would be good to consider the role our public education funding plays in this as well. I live in Cambodia, but have lived in Japan, Korea and spent a lot of time in various parts of Europe where funding mechanisms are entirely different (and more equitable). I was talking yesterday with a Filipino colleague about the issue of property tax-based education funding, and she mentioned that this was something she never understood when talking to family members in the US. The way the USA funds schools greatly distorts property values in positive and negative reinforcement loops. How many GenX’ers out there remember the parents talking about the quality of schools in an area when making home-buying decisions? Higher property values = more funding to schools = (usually) better and better resourced schools = higher demand for the area = higher property values = and so on. If we changed the way we funded public education to guarantee equal resources, this would help over time to moderate the huge disparities in both school quality and resources, as well as inflated property values. It's not going to fix everything, but I think it should be considered as part of the equation.
This is what I think about whenever someone says we need market based solutions instead of government over reach to solve housing and education crises. The market is what fuels this mess in the first place there is no incentive to fix it till it collapses.
To the question in the title, not automatically, but in modern times, overwhelmingly yes. Especially when it amounts to "only in the backyard of those without the political power or money to fight it."
If *nobody* wants something in their back yard, it just goes to show that the entire policy which got us in this situation is wrong-headed and is not working for the citizens.
@@AdmiralBonetoPick um, not really. Most of the projects attacked by NIMBYs are related to housing and mass transit. Either the policy is skewed in some aspect or people are just really way too selfish.
@@Daniela-kd6ln In my (progressive) city, the city is actually using this same kind of logic to counter NIMBY neighborhood associations. Basically saying that projects in the neighborhood must advance racial diversity, which most residents are on board with. Then comes the cognitive dissonance when the residents realize that that means more dense housing and public transportation lol.
Speaking of the Bay Area, the city of Woodside just declared itself a “Mountain Lion Habitat” so that it can oppose any new affordable housing development. Sad but true.
I do think that *historic preservation* is important, especially in the USA and Canada, where it seems very common to have destroyed any buildings older than about half a century. A lot of pre-1930s buildings and neighbourhoods are very walkable. Many have already been destroyed in North America. Here in the Netherlands, we still build in old neighbourhoods, but it is much more restrictive and usually only to replace things that were built after WW2. But even in more modern neighbourhoods, like the one I live from 1969, we only replace the worst buildings, and focus on high density, walkable living spaces.
I'm not disagreeing, but I did want to add some nuance to your perception. I was raised in a town about 118km in a straight line from the town where I currently reside, about the same distance as Groningen to Den Bosch. Both towns in Pennsylvania, USA are composed of buildings nearly entirely constructed prior to WW2. Few buildings are ever torn down, unless they are blighted beyond the point that preservation is reasonable. For example, over the past few years, my current town restored a historic (built in 1801) quarantine station and converted it into offices for our town administrative services. Just prior to that, they had converted a bottling plant into a police station. Yes, new buildings are added, but the old ones are rarely destroyed intentionally (fire, storms, etc may unintentionally remove buildings on rare occasions). This may not be the case in all cities in the US, but these towns are far from being exceptions. [Disclaimer: My life experience is mostly limited to the mid-atlantic states.]
The US has a terrible history of destroying historic and culturally significant buildings rather than restoring and repurposing them, historically in the name of "urban renewal." What bothers me so much is that nothing new ever comes remotely close to the beauty and value historic buildings had in their day. Rows of five-over-ones built by the lowest bidder do nothing but detract from the sense of community that historic brownstones or storefronts convey. A parking lot will never replace a row of houses where families lived for generations. A street of uninspired glass boxes is much less enjoyable or inviting than a historic main street. I agree with the nimbys here. If you want affordable housing, repurpose your pick out of the many abandoned existing mid-rise buildings around the city. Replace buildings that have no architectural significance. But the single family victorian home built in the 1800s? No, leave that alone. We're never gonna get that back once it's gone with today's architectural trends.
Many NIMBYs use the historical site card however to protest things that low cost housing and transit advocates want. History is something that should be preserved, yes, but this card is frequently played to help accomplish many of their selfish goals.
In the city I live in, transitional/affordable housing has been repeatedly shot down by NIMBYs, and in the last year, some of them are realizing they've shot themselves in the foot : The homeless population here has been rising steadily in the downtown core... which is a 10 minute walk away from one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the city. And now they're in a huff about their garbage bags being cut open, discarded needles on the sidewalks, panhandlers in the parking lot of their local shopping plaza, and public greenspaces being used for shooting up. There's two pedestrian routes connecting downtown and the rich neighbourhood, which the city won't let them block because they know that the homeless and plebs alike would just walk through the properties of the businesses instead to get into the neighbourhood. I've stopped sympathizing; the NIMBYs are the ones who've chosen their fate.
@Alex Cruz yes, actually, homelessness is partially caused by nimbys who oppose affordable housing for people who wouldn't be homeless if affordable housing existed
Even if the YIMBYs got their way, giving cheap homes to drug addicts isn't gonna stop them from using drugs and becoming homeless again. Affordable housing will only help those who are willing to help themselves, as in hold down a stable job, be smart with their money, and stay clean. If govts keep throwing money at affordable housing projects without addressing the root causes of homelessness/poverty, nothing is gonna change.
@@andrewl.9736 I'm sorry, I just have a completely different worldview than you: Addicts deserve a reliable and safe place to sleep and eat. Plenty of addicts already do, but happen to be richer or have a network that can support them so they never wind up on the street. Think of those regulars at the bar, the wine moms, and all them -- addicts with homes. The punishment of a drug addict is being a drug addict, it shouldn't be living in a cold tent in a park and peeing in alleyways.
@@reckonerwheel5336 So you would be willing to be taxed 50 percent more? To supply free housing to drug addicts. The place for drug addicts is prison. Or forcing them to go to rehab or other mental treatment places. Places where they are locked up and can not leave. To let people waste their lives doing illegal drugs is not a solution. If it is out on the street or free public housing.
@@plem7210 Why would it be 50% more? Wouldn't it make more sense to allocate public money better? I've never even paid income tax before, I'm a poor lol. To try to go along with the hypothetical -- if I were in a world where I was part of the wealthy class and the only way to help drug addicts was to up my taxes by 50%, yeah, I'd do it.
There are 2 big issues with NIMBYs I see in my neck of the woods. 1) There are so many levels of density between single family home and 15 story high rise, but NIMBYs tend to be universally opposed to ANY affordable development (where I live, there is opposition to single family detached townhome developments). Cities all across the world have granny flats, duplexes, 4 story midrise in mixed use developments, etc. If it could be built and people could see that it poses little issue, things would probably mellow out a bit. But since it is mostly illegal to build those in most of the US, and NIMBYs seem opposed to any density, getting them built as things currently stand is a tall hill to climb. It would take a pretty substantial reimagining of the entire residential landscape in metro areas throughout the US. 2) I dislike the NIMBY position overall, but something that I do have to agree with them on is transportation. NYC is pretty bad at investing in infrastructure in the outer boroughs. The city requires density to make infrastructure improvements, but then lag on actually implementing them when a development is built. If there is a pattern of that happening, I can't blame people for not wanting new development. I do blame them for being obsessed with providing parking for every single housing development no matter how small, how decently the neighborhood is connected to transit, and how many people in the neighborhood actually drive. From experience, some NIMBY's literally can't conceive of people not getting around by car, which makes any planned development need to include a bunch of parking, increasing the impact to the neighborhood and increasing costs.
Something that kinda annoys me about the second argument though is that NIMBYs also tend to oppose any public transit infrastructure as well and don’t want to approve funding for it. Which makes no sense because if there’s no approval and funding then ofc the transit will stagnate.
The most unbelievable part of Star Trek is that Starfleet Academy could be built in and around San Francisco. Humankind will discover warp technology and faster-than-light travel before the NIMBYs of San Francisco are defeated.
Don't forget Star Trek Enterprised where Earth was attacked. Perhaps the death ray hit SF? Now thinking about it, I'm pretty sure the deathray hit SF..
That's why they built it on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge even though that meant grading some very rugged terrain, so they would be just outside the city limits.
@@Q3hero The death ray beam across Florida and into Venezuela (the scar was 4000 km long. San Francisco got hit in Deep Space 9 (by the Breen) and in the JJ movies (the first by the drill, with no apparent actual effect on the city since it was in the ocean just outside the bay, and the second by KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN who knocked over a few buildings).
@@westrim The other side of the Golden Gate Bridge is NIMBY central. I can only imagine they managed to get it through by saying it would increase property values by being adjacent to it which is the only way to get anything built: by appealing to the NIMBYs greed.
Every NIMBY ever in Metro Vancouver: "I am not against affordable housing, I just don't want it in my neighbourhood". Also, thank you for stating that new housing construction almost never brings property values down. In Metro Vancouver, it can actually increase them. Once a street starts to densify, the value of every property goes up as its development potential increases.
I'll add my voice to the YIMBY crowd here. The mid-rise developments going in 2 blocks from me are bringing more services, stores, and are going to be bumping my property values up with them. If my block ends up on some developers list I have no problems with taking the money on that deal.
@@TomPVideo that's the thing NIMBYS don't seem to understand "mid-rise", insisting only mega towers can be built when discussions of adding density to a neighbourhood. Building more mid-rises can solve or alleviate the housing crisis.
The average person is more concerned about the property tax bill than the land value after a certain point. Property tax bills and condo fees make existing housing unaffordable as they rise. The NIMBY arguments aren't always about blocking affordable housing. Blocking development because there is going to be little to no net gains in affordable housing anyways is an alternative argument. Chances are old basement suites in a detached house are going to be more affordable than new townhouses and low rise apartments. If there is nothing in it for existing residents of an area, then there is no incentive to support developers.
Our neighborhood has two cul-de-sacs dedicated to duplexes and townhomes. The neighbors there are great, its great that we can have a bit of density, and downtown is walkable for more people (about 1 mile on the bike path). If Bondurant Iowa can do it anywhere can
The problem with NIMBY's is that their backyards aren't as big as the area they want to patrol. No one is putting a high rise on your property, but they want to whine the instant they can see anything they don't want on the horizon. Sorry Karen, but you can't choose to evict your neighbors because they have window plants that you think the colors clash. These people are too greedy to be calling them "not in *my* backyard." They're more, "Don't let me ever see anything that isn't my perfect little fantasy where I get all the benefits all to myself and no downsides" or DLMESATIMPLFWIGATBATMANDs, if you will. Hmm, still long winded, perhaps greedy and controling prick is a better term?
Good job and thank you. As a three-term planning commissioner in a Bay Area city I'm thankful that you are pulling the cover off of general NIMBYism. You accurately call it selfish. I've often considered it a case of the Haves against the Have Nots. With the Haves saying, "I've got mine now you go somewhere else and get yours." (Even if your job is here and your employer pays taxes here, for my benefit.) And I'm so tired of hearing people complain about "Traffic". I have, during a public meeting, asked these people, "When you're sitting in your car, complaining about the traffic, do you consider yourself part of the problem, or is it just everyone else around you?" The thing NIMBY's don't understand is, that development in your neighborhood can actually improve it. My neighborhood has been under constant construction for the 20 years I've lived here. We have nearly doubled the amount of housing. In my opinion, traffic is only marginally increased. But we have a larger, better park and a more vibrant, people (and dog) filled community. This neighborhood is much better than is was 20 years ago.
“And I’m so tired of people complaining about traffic.” So true. If they don’t like traffic, then they should build public transit, that’s how cities grow. It’s a city. What do they expect? Mfers act like SF is supposed to be a town of 30,000, and not a major city in the most powerful country in the world. If noise and traffic is something they don’t want, then they shouldn’t be living in a fucking city.
One thing I would note re: home values in the United States is that because of our lack of safety nets and services, for anyone who isn't extremely rich, an owned home is your safety net. Get cancer and need to pay huge amounts of money for treatment? You have your equity. Lose your job? Equity. That's one reason why the 2008 crash was such a disaster in this country. This isn't a reason to oppose building for many reasons, including that good development doesn't reduce properties values, but I think it is worth understanding one reason why in the US a potential loss of value it so terrifying. One other thing that I think could overcome nimbism is, weirdly, stronger design restrictions. For far too long, cities have let developers build ugly multi-family, when if the developers just spend a few more dollars you would have something that fits within the neighborhood character. For example, in Mid-town Sacramento and Oak Park, you really have two classes of multifamily. You have older multifamly built prior to WWII that, in many cases, looks just as good, if not better than many of the single family houses while holding significantly more people. Honestly, some of my favorite buildings in midtown are these kind of craftsman style apartment buildings that actually just kind of look like mansions but are MFH*. Then you have the post-WWII apartments that tended to be built cheap and ugly. This continues with 5 over 1s with weird material choices. There are clear exceptions to this -- there have been a fair number of decent looking buildings built as well -- but generally, you know the NIMBYs see the ugly buildings and expect that. I think you'd see less opposition to re-zoning if you put design constraints, even as you take minimize size limits like setbacks and height restrictions. *And these were not subdivided SFH homes. That's also super common and one of the best ways that our old victorian mansions got preserved. By dividing old mansions, they were able to make these buildings, which require pretty extreme maintenance, pencil out and prevented them from being torn down to build something more reasonable. I think midtown Sacramento would have far fewer of these buildings if the city in the 30-80s said "nah, that needs to stay SFH for the character of the neighborhood." You'd have seen more buildings torn down, and smaller, uglier houses built. So, in some ways, removing zoning restrictions could help preserve the character of neighborhoods.
Home ownership is vital for wealth building for most of the American middle class (it's effectively the primary way they build saving especially savings that can be accessed before retirement age). But at the same time, the most effective NIMBY actions tend to happen in the really wealthy areas where a house is only one part of broader investment portfolios. The good kind of NIMBYism that is about really preserving wealth built up over time was the kind that opposed highway building through cities. Which that opposition that really did preserve land value was mostly unsuccessful. Given the lack of evidence for lower value from higher density (after all, if I own a 1/5th acre lot that is currently for 1 family but it's about to fit 4 families instead, the rent potential goes up a lot), I do think other explanations are more realistic for most modern NIMBY actions. And the idea of wanting the convenience of having nearby jobs/services while effectively isolating yourself from the poorer folks who make all those jobs/services possible seems really realistic given how housing segregation has increased in the US over the past few decades (despite advances made by the Civil Rights movement). This segregation in many areas has racial lines but is also a class based divide. Which all comes down to NIMBYism is strong in North America in general and the US in particular because of the outsized political power of the upper and upper middle classes and corresponding weaker power of middle and lower classes. In some ways the power of anti-density NIMBYs might actually be a better way to measure differences in political power between economic classes in a country than more traditional methods like amount of government social spending. For instance, the Dutch have relatively few problems building denser cities, have somewhat below average government spending in Western Europe, and a lower GINI coefficient than even Sweden or Denmark. So in the end, I think we can see NIMBY-like actions that are about wealth preservation (like anti-highway actions or keeping out polluting industries from residential areas) but that in the US those tend to involve poorer areas that have a hard time resisting. NIMBYism of places like San Francisco has little to do with home values directly and as the video describes is more about wealthier Americans using their outsized political influence to ensure they have their cake and eat it too.
A HELOC is a poor a safety net. It's still basically a loan. It's not free money. The collateral might mean you can take that loan at a low interest, but I can do that without any collateral because my credit score is good and I'd rather not gamble on losing my home too. This is putting home value on a pedestal just like those banking on using it's value for retirement. All of this hinges on ignorance of investment. All your wealth on your home is lacking diversification. A properly managed investment portfolio would be better, but for a lot of retiring boomers shifting your wealth from your home to other securities is probably a bad idea at this point.
@Zaydan Naufal The idea that urban planning is somehow not political is mind blowing. How do we decide where to allocate funds and balance different needs without being political? That's a nonsense idea and we do best when we're honest that we're talking politics even if it doesn't align with typical left-right divides (an overly limited view of politics anyways). That said, change in cities isn't immediate and starting with zoning changes first is a good method. That's not going to crash housing prices immediately and as stated before generally won't do decrease, but can often increase land prices for current owners. Furthermore the people who need support are primarily renters who are generally poorer than home owners even on an income, not just a wealth, basis. Lower housing prices can only help renters. Greater construction will in the long term bring more people into denser areas and decrease price per unit of housing, but that isn't an overnight process and no one says it would be. The gradualness of change means we should start designing better cities now, and indeed the money freed up from greater efficiency of infrastructure and land use will open more funding options for safety nets. Good examples of this being done can be found with cities that set up community land trusts and rent-to-buy downpayment support.
"Ugliness" is heavily subjective and is a top excuse for greedy NIMBYs to block projects regardless of taste. At some point, before the neighborhood "character" was established some other neighborhood "character" before it had to be razed to the ground. Old trees needs to die to make way for new growth. These neighborhoods have zero historical significance other than they're old and someone is nostalgic for them.
@@sor3999 Is it an excuse? Sure. Is it effective? Yes. The reality is that if we continue to do what we're doing now, nothing will get built. Further, HELOC may be a bad safety net, but they're better than what we have now. I'm not endorsing this as permanent public policy, but the absolute shaky ground anyone that isn't rich in America is a huge factor behind being terrified about change.
My town is a twin borough in England called Blackburn with Darwen, traditionally house/rent prices have been similar across the borough but over the last few years there has been a shift. Darwen prices are now 150% more for rents and about 30% more for comparable housing. Reason is the council announced two different plans one in Blackburn and the Darwen East Project, the Blackburn project went off without a hitch and in the region of 4000 new homes have been created. Whereas in Darwen there have been numerous complaints, delays and additional assessments after 'green space' challenges, so only one site has been completed out of six with the site that was completed being by far the smallest at 80 new homes. The frustrating part is some of the same people sharing the petitions around on Facebook are the same one going on the town noticeboards complaining about house prices.
Ayyy I come from Bolton, I feel you on the Facebook morons. Complaing about the state of the area, then complaining that they are trying too improve the area, it's a no win situation except some sort of time machine too drop them in the 1970s when they were children and didn't see the total industrial decline, but somehow they don't have the wisdom to realise it was awful back then as well.
Before watching the video: I live in Houston, homelessness and lack of affordable housing coupled with awful wages is a problem. I'm on nextdoor and it's just a shame fest on homeless people and unhoused people. Yes, there will be drug use and violence, but thats a mental health and physical health crisis, they can't afford help. Yes, they stink and don't look good. They don't have access to cleaning supplies, food, and regular showers or a safe place to sleep and rest. Yes, its annoying to be asked for money. So I donate, I vote, and I work in social services. It's not a fix, but one person can't fix a systemic problem. But they're homeless, Karen, they CAN'T go somewhere else and be better, YOU just don't wanna look at them. I've been rude to them too, but mostly because they harass and bother young women who are traveling alone. I'm not gonna be nice, dude, when you run up to me at night at the bus stop. Imma be loud and rude because that's how I stay alive. I make 31 a year before taxes. My rent is 1025 a month for a split home with terrible wiring, broken stairs, and a rude landlord near downtown (not like I can afford to be downtown) and the single family homes near me have no yard, terrible parking, and yet cost in the upper 300s. I take the bus 45 minutes to work. I've been a squatter, I've been evicted, I've slept in winter coats. I get it. A lot of people don't and the NIMBYs are the main ones. And gentrifiers are the worst. They'll tear down and infest OTHER neighborhoods, but NEVER their own... it's classist, racist, and just awful for us millennials/gen zers who's family doesn't have generational wealth to buy and sell and renovate. After watching the video: My opinion stands. NIMBYs as an overwhelming white, middle class, and powerful group target minorities while claiming to be the victims of "big government". Gross and yawn. They demonize the poor, brown, and foreign while talking about whitewashed history.
Homeless people are not going to be in the market to buy houses(actually, it's a de facto lease from the government). They are ones in the tenant market who have either are unable to pay, a sympathetic reason, or have such poor character than they have ran of out landlords to trick, this latter batch of homeless earned their lot of the suffering.
@@AnotherOne-iu3lp No, there are actually public housing for Houstonians all over town, even in places you least expect. Is it hard for people to stay there because you have to make a specific income and people stay there quite often? Yes.
Nimbys have usually made a substantial investment in their properties, so they want to protect it. Furthermore, the tax system in the US subsidizes home ownership. I was once active in a well-know NJ environmental organization. Most of the volunteer activists were suburban Nimbys. They wanted our organization to fight development in their neighborhoods. God forbid that somebody wants to put up a convenience store in Cracker Barrel Corner. And no gas pipelines or power lines either! I lived in Jersey City, a dense area, for a few years. The gentrifiers complain about the limited street parking and the traffic for their SUVs. Tell them to use Jersey City's splendid new light rail and the answer is "Huh?"
I use my home to live in it. I don't mind if prices fall, I have a place to live. Speculators want to profit from their properties. It doesn't matter if they only have one home they live in, or a hundred they rent out, if they place property values over people having homes, they are just as selfish.
@@nikolatasev4948 I agree, but often gentrification happens in old, working class neighborhoods where the residents have rented for a long time, so when the property becomes more expensive the old owner sells it ( or their children sell it) and the new owners have taken on a mortgage to buy the property, they HAVE to raise the rent and kick out the renters who have lived there for decades.
😎Oh, the irony of people who move into suburban sprawl and then suddenly see the light and want to protect the environment. 🤩 🧐If they were serious about their commitment to the environment, they would live in the city instead of cutting new subdivisions out of the forests. 🥰
I think most of us are nimby's at least to some extent. No one likes it when your own comfort is threatened. The problem is when people can't see the greater good and don't budge on anything at all. THAT is selfish. I do think that governments, planners and developers could do better at empathising with residents though. What is needed is sensible development proposals, loosening of restrictions without removing ALL restrictions and respect for the character of the local area. If new developments aren't ridiculously tall and fit in nicely with the local architecture, they are much more likely to be accepted. And if you upgrade the transport infrastructure at the same time, it should help to get people on side.
I think that should straighten itself through time. All the city doesnt want new people? Ok, their choice, "oh but workers have to start living far away" if that's bad, then there will be less workers, and prices for workers would increase; if you're having to move to a new city away from that pole, it will eventually make sense to just ditch the pole altogether. Biggest problem i see being big national projects (prisons, power plants; since not every city can have one, then gov should intervene)
This is how I feel about the subject. I'm all for more affordable housing being built, and I don't trust the kinds of developers I have in my local area to build that.
@@ianhomerpura8937 I don't know. But what I do know is that I live in one of the most desirable cities in the US, and I wouldn't put it past any housing developer to take full advantage of that. I would love to be wrong, though.
@@somebonehead developers will develop, whatever it takes. If they can't build multi-family housing, they'll build single-family housing as far as the horizon. I think it's preferable to have them develop things we want and need...
My favorite NIMBY story is when my son was attending university. One of his professors who taught an environmental science track class, and was a vocal environmentalist, was fighting against the installation of wind turbines on the local ridge line. His reason? Well he had just built his dream home and ranch complex and the turbines were going to “RUIN” his view. Classic NIMBY.
A lot of the original opposition movement to wind turbines sprang out of old school conservation groups whose main goal was, understandably, the conservation of nature. But in the face of air pollution and climate change from fossil fuel air pollution, this is very much a "not seeing the forest for the trees" mindset.
Lots of good points. A compromise I would like to see possible is higher density but they are all owner occupied. When people have an investment in the neighborhood they treat it better. I lived in a mobile home park that was all owner occupied and it was a very nice place. Before that I lived in a part of Los Angeles where all the townhomes were rentals for several blocks. This area was a dump. Lack of parking because people rented out rooms, dog poop all over the small greenspaces because people didn't care, graffitti, and general disarray like poorly maintained buildings and broken sidewalks because the landlords didn't care and the renters didn't take the initiative or bother with the fight to get better sidewalks, or have the landlord fix things. I wish their was a way to force owner occupation. Sure it does take away one financial ladder of being able to rent it out as you move up, but because of space limitations most places in big cities are already rentals and have been for generations. Many children and grandchildren of previous owners who live in other states still hold on to rentals and don't have a care or an interest in pride of ownership.
I've been wanting to show up at local meetings to try an make a difference, but I personally don't have much of a stomach for conflict and am legitimately terrified that I would just end up loosing my composure over all of the fallacious and self-serving reasoning that NIMBY's employ. I really admire anyone who goes to these meetings and is able to politely and gracefully make the case for why we need to correct these strict zoning laws and hopefully I can find the courage myself to do the same.
When I’m a little older, what I want to do is maybe with a small group of people, start opening people in smaller communities to the idea first. Maybe if we can encourage more people to actually attend these meetings, those places will finally hear some dissenting opinions and become open to a change of law
Your councils and commissions will often accept written public comment at their meetings in addition to oral comment. Check your agendas and city website.
those are your words, @@klobiforpresident2254 ; some may be discouraged, but some will be motivated to bear the NIMBYs; by any chance could that be you? you seem to imply you are, if so, enjoy yourself in TH-cam!
No thank you. I’m in my 20’s I’ve worked since I was young to put myself through college and buy my home on a quarter acre of land. If anyone wants to put an apartment building next to me I would sue them. I am so saddened by how lazy and entitled my generation has become. They want their student loans paid, home paid, etc. Just waiting for a handout. The worst ones try to bring up disabled and elderly people. I have my mother who is actually disabled and would never accept any sort of government assistance.
The issue with the arguments to protect neighborhoods from gentrification is that nothing can protect a neighborhood from gentrification. All attempts at it are futile and restricting housing supply only speeds it up since wealthy residents come in and just buy the existing housing stock. Rent control also doesn't work against this because it just further restricts the market. Really what we need to do is abolish the regulations, only preserve individual historic buildings instead of entire districts, and make it so that if a new building follows the rules, they have the unconditional right to build without citizens being able to step in and oppose it. If you meet zoning regulations, you shouldn't have to still ask the city to approve your project.
We have that in New York with as of right development. Our city government is also pretty pro-development in most cases. There is still a ton of pushback and delays on a lot of projects.
Opposing gentrification is just another form of NIMBYism, but for some reason seem as a better form by a bunch of people. Sure wouldn't want some rich people building high-rise condo building in the neighborhood and increasing the tax-base. They would probably also bring all those annoying new businesses and restaurants with them. Bah, I would rather the neighborhood remain poor.
If you (rightly) find 20th century white flight and redlining problematic, you can't then turn around and rage against the reversal of that phenomenon. I mean, yes, ideally we would share the wealth, but first, good luck with that, and second, the next best thing is making sure that the wealthy have some skin in the game when it comes to urban affairs.
@@sluggyyarvin this trick is deployed pretty cynically sometimes, as with a group that opposed the south Phoenix light rail expansion (repeatedly approved by actual voters), ostensibly representing working class shop owners, but there was the distinct scent of mysterious funding/astroturfing.
every time i drive on the George washington bridge and sit in traffic for an hour, i curse the NIMBYs who prevented the Rooseelt Bridge from being built. so few people made traffic miserable for millions of people
I own a single family home in a larger city. I’m in a neighborhood full of homes 100+ years old, mine included. My first bachelors is in history and they’re attempting to implement our neighborhood as a protected historic district, clearly in an attempt to prevent development in parts of our neighborhood that are clearly no longer historic… We purchased our home not even a year ago and it’s already gone up $150,000 and these people who have undoubtedly seen a 500% rise in their home value since they purchased them wont shut up about preserving their home value. It’s so damn selfish. I like where I am but I remember where I used to be and how hard it was to get out of and I truly can’t stand tue selfishness of these people.
Great content. Translates to what I see with our situation here in Sydney Australia perfectly too. "Traffic" "overshadowing" "preserve local character" "power to the locals" "greedy developers"... guess NIMBYs are the same wherever you go. They blame developers as "selfish" every day, without realising they're the exact same themselves.
Thanks for making this video. As someone who interacts with NIMBYs almost daily, it’s refreshing to better understand the other side’s “why”, even if I disagree with it. Ps - would love to see a future video on SB-9 implementation in California (see: Woodside CA)
In the Bay Area, the Calmod project, bringing European quality regional rail to the Bay Area and preparing the San Francisco Peninsula for high speed rail, was almost block because of Tech NIMBYS
City Beautiful, you should really try to start a movement to encourage people to cycle, get out of cars, and reduce euclidien zoning! We will stand with you!
I’m a nimby in my area because they keep putting in expensive apartment buildings in my low income area and my property taxes have doubled since I moved in.
what you going through is called gentrification, its because mostly white homeowners have shot down any affordable apartment near them so they go where low income or people of color lives unfortunately
Agreed, though in many ways hearing the opposing perspective in a level-headed, non-disparaging way is just as, if not more, infuriating. Personally, I think it's the sentiment that there are just a few who REALLY are in charge, and that the most powerful don't need to raise their voices to be heard. And the people who really need to be heard have to raise their voices, only to be villainized as entitled intruders.
Recently listened into my city council’s hearing regarding a multi family project and, no joke, a guy in a new development across the street spoke out against the new project. Myopic and selfish. I’m glad you didn’t mince words.
Anti gentrification advocates also impede a lot of housing development, especially in the Bay Area, and voice support against high density housing developments that aren’t below market rate.
In one way, I understand it from the angle that ethnic/minority enclaves don't want to become San Fran's "pressure release valve" for housing, especially if that housing is the luxury type that would be unaffordable for any of that community's residents. Of course, there's affordable midrise development plans that get shot down by anti-gentrification activists too. I remember reading a story about a man who owned a laundromat in one of SF's minority neighborhoods, and he wanted to build a 7 story building on the land. However, activists came and made it a living hell for him to actually get the plans approved, even going as far as making BS cases about "shadows" and such just to kill it. Rich NIMBYs and Anti-Gentrification NIMBYs are two sides of the same coin. Because this sort of stuff gets into the laws and rules of SF and California-at-large, it makes it near impossible for any developments to actually get built, especially small ones where the builders don't have the connections and resources to traverse the legal sludge. It costs so much to deal with all the BS, regulations, and opposition. No wonder developers want to get the largest bang for their buck by building luxury units because that's what they need to make a profit in this disfunctional system.
which is dumb because high-density walkable neighborhoods are also the poster child of poor communities that are usually made by one or two ethnic minorities. You can, in fact, fight gentrification AND promote better affordable housing...... unfortunately for America, that would mean one level of government stopping the free market
Oh that's easy. There's lots of places, just not so much in the USA. I grew up in Spain, which was a poor country 50 years ago. But it built a lot of affordable housing, mostly high-density flats in inner cities. Even in small countryside towns of fewer than 25,000 inhabitants, most people live in flats near the center. As a result, they have more and better schools to choose from, their kids get more opportunities, earn more and can spend more on the next generation. Spain is not a poor country anymore. Density, health care, education and public transit are the four aces here.
It is actually working in Cleveland of all places. The “back to the city” movement here has led to almost all of the previously vacant, historic buildings, being turned into high density housing legitimately within the city center. The Terminal Tower, May Company, Euclid Grand, The 9, 75 Public Square, Statler Arms, 515 Euclid, 668 Euclid, The Erieview Tower, The Lumen, and not to mention the turning a previous brownfield that was an empty battery factory into hundreds of apartments, townhouses, single family homes, and businesses mixed in. It is probably easier for a city like Cleveland to do things like this (not to mention our city being a true pioneer in “urban farming”) because we were left for dead long ago. But along with things like the Euclid Corridor project, and the countless other land re-use cases to create new, high density housing, we are absolutely a model for other cities in the U.S.. Now, we still have a ton of problems to deal with, but the creation of better transit access and creative land re-use has really helped.
@@ixlnxs Thanks for contributing. Can you tell me more about this history? Which politicians participated in this push for more affordable housing? What were their motivations? Was it a struggle to convince other political factions to work with them?
@@jeffbenton6183 Well, the far right dictator Franco died in 1975, and democracy brought first a more moderate government under Adolfo Suárez and then socialists in 1982-1996. That led to a lot of leftist policies. Plus, decentralisation gave newly created regional governments an incentive to do better than the region next door. Joining the EU in 1986 also tore down a lot of walls. I was born in 1988 so a lot happened before I was there.
The irony is this is exactly why hiring ANYONE to work at any company there is so obscenely expensive. It's VERY hard to trick people to work for companies there for anything other than obscenely high salaries.
Exactly. It's kinda sad moving somewhere knowing you'll never be able to make it your home because the current residents put so much effort into stopping anyone new from coming to their neighborhood and getting a home. Pretty ironic given that people in SF consider themselves extremely open minded but simultaneously pass laws that hate newcomers with more vitriol than almost any other place in the US... California, the land of two faces.
You're so upbeat and optimistic! I commend you. I'd be really struggling to speak so positively about this topic; makes me so mad. In my city of Melbourne, Australia, we're planning a huge outer rail loop, connecting the spokes of our existing rail system. The stabling yard is proposed to be build on landfill, but the public opposition is immense.
I sort of see that rail loop as a political stunt carefully routed through mostly marginal electorates and doomed to fail, just like its predecessor, Melbourne's Outer Circle Railway of the 1880s. For half the money they could build the Rowville AND Doncaster lines which would make a much bigger difference.
@Dave Sisson I think the 1880s incarnation failed because it was almost immediately superseded by a more direct line. One of the biggest barriers to more widespread use of PT now is a single focus on getting to the CBD, not from suburb to suburb. Either way, you build a new line, someone is going to complain about it to the detriment of everyone else. If the yards were built in Doncaster or Rowville, someone there would be whingeing about it. Surely a better political stunt would be one realised in less than 30 years? Although you could be right: 30 years is long enough for disgruntled voters to forget/die.😔 Buses/bus infrastructure would be an even better investment, but there is far too much of a stigma attached to those. Current bus system is rubbish, it would take way too long for people to notice if they improved it.
Appreciate the thoughtful video and trying to empathize with a group whose ideas you don’t align with. High density housing can potentially make single family dwellings nearby even more valuable through scarcity not in the overall number of dwellings, but in the overall proportion of single family dwellings available per capita.
If you replace a SFH with a 6 unit apartment than you have reduced the demand of people looking for housing by 6. 6 groups of people who would have otherwise been adding to the demand for single family houses now live in an apartment. This reduces the price of all housing.
@@Lucasjamespetersen I think what Rick is saying is that some people will be specifically looking for SFHs, so densifying an area takes away from the stock of SFHs in an area and may then drive the price up. It’s still good to density though - that price raise will only happen if there is a strong market for single family homes specifically, and apartment/multiplex units will still be more affordabke
@@horizonhunter_7296 Oh understand what Rick is saying. I just disagree. Imagine there are 6 households looking to move into a neighborhood full of SFHs but there are only 2 properties for sale. These 6 households are going to massively bid up the price of these 2 houses. Say instead we redeveloped 1 of the 2 houses into a 6 unit apartment. Now that there is enough housing for everyone the price of the remaining SFH will not be bid up as high.
@@Lucasjamespetersen yes, but the people who were involved in the bidding war won’t move into a multiplex. So the price of the one remaining SFH will go up. So it is a win for those who want to live in a multiplex AND those who want the value of their SFH to go up
@@horizonhunter_7296 People may prefer to live in a detached house than a plex but people certainly prefer a plex to nothing. When people are priced out of detached houses they will move into plexes.
As someone who just spent a semester living in SF and seeing the situation there, it's so hard to feel any sympathy for people who live there year round and still want to protect single-family zoning. Many areas have minimal access to Muni without a 30 minute+ Walk, and alot of these streets with homes on both sides are so narrow when cars are parked on both curbs that I had to clench my teeth and my buttcheeks just to drop some friends off. The only major development that I know if is Stonestown around SF State which I think will provide a lot of nice housing and create solid community, but it'll be such a small development compared to the needs of the city right now that it too will be dragged into $3k+ a month rent which is very sad to see.
I bet these very people are complaining about the Uber drivers coming to THEIR city to work and hogging up the streets. Yet when they want to go out for entertainment and feeding, they expect the Uber to show up at their door step within 5 minutes smfh
theres a economical answer against all nimby fears: when density increases, the worth of your backyard takes the skyrocket. so if u cant have it in your backyard, you can take a better and bigger one somewhere else. those wo stand against progression will die out.
@City Beautiful Thank you for the video on this topic. I am a finance economist turn designer. I tend to critique solutions by how well it addresses the root cause using economic principles vs heavy-handed tactics. NIMBY Syndrome is quite an emotionally charged topic. I agree with you that NIMBY's have it good and they want to protect that. While on the other hand there is a significant cost to that behavior on society at large. This brings me to question the effectiveness of government and governance. What is the cost differential of providing police, fire, and other city/county/municipal services to the single-family homes vs if it was a high-density housing area? What is the financial/economic cost on public servants who serve the city/county/municipal area? As an economist, my response is get the forensic experts in there and compile the data and then start charging those (non-protected, ie. karens) communities the actual cost of their actions. For the communities using the mantra of local control, give it to them by cutting off all state funding. Again as an economist, I believe in using economic tools to nudge people towards the desired outcome...aka nudge theory. So in the end I would call this a failure of imagination on the part of elected officials to govern. This is just me musing aloud.
To go way more sweeping: When you have a large financial stake in an area you are way more conservative. Your house is your biggest financial asset and liability and any change in it's value can be ruinous. I don't think they're being selfish like people who buy low income housing an turn it in to Air B&B's are, they are just trying to prevent their largest asset from losing value while they are still paying it off. And that's reasonable and can be dealt with. HOWEVER: The problem arises in what NIMBYs think will reduce their property values and why it is happening. They think EVERYTHING will destroy their values, from apartments on streets miles away or once a year outdoor music festivals. They think it's happening because developers or the city are just being greedy, when in reality it's happening because the land has become so valuable that larger developments are more profitable, while governments have realized that we just cant afford any more low density car and free way oriented housing (without dramatic tax increases). Honestly I think we could see some sort of "reversal" where a city or state passes some kind of pretty generous higher density and transit plans and the NIMBYs flee in droves, thinking that the new projects will destroy their values and they need to get out while the getting is good. This happened a fair amount when black families started moving in to white areas, people assumed their property values would fall so they acted like it and just sold off, often for a large loss. Anyway, yes I know this is a Wendy's drive through, I'll have the bacon double and fries
Always love your approach to difficult issues. They're leavened with nuance and optimism and leave me encouraged, not discouraged. Keep up the great work!
The urban areas of cities should de-annex the suburban parts and let the residents find ways to provide their own services/infrastructure maintenance. Let them keep their backyards, but force them to actually pay for it.
Thank you so much for making this. I have wrestled with my own understanding and opinions on NIMBY’s. I will soon work in municipal policy around housing and this is so helpful to know.
I'm (almost) a lifelong suburbanite, and I love the peace and quiet of a detached, medium density community. But I am all for densifying my area if it helps houseless people get homes, in Canada, no one should be houseless in Winter. I also love seeing an ugly, dead strip mall get torn down and turned into a much nicer community.
not just the state of California. It needs to be everywhere in the world. There is a reason why there are different levels of government. And local levels are just very bad to determine zoning for at least two reasons: 1) corruption When zoning is regulated locally, it increases corruption because it will be cheaper to bribe local officials compared to higher officials. The local officials might also have a personal stake about the projects they need to approve/deny and will not be as independent. 2) required services Some services like power plants, prisons, garbage disposal etc are needed. But nobody wants them close. If zoning is regulated locally it will become much more difficult to get anything like these build. And if they get build, they will be less likely put in the best position.
@@ericBorja520 SB 9 already seems to be putting a dent on NIMBY power since a bay area suburb tried to skirt the new law by claiming to be a mountain lion sanctuary but faced backlash and actually had to peddle back. But we need more laws that will strip power away from Nimbys
@@Robbedem A lot of times your local city council will be made up of landlords who stand to personally profit with rising home prices and rising rents.
I'm yet to see a couple blocks of density failing to raise the property value of single homes within short walking distance of it within a decade. Density brings services, and services bring further value. Except in cases where active segregation plays a part, of course, but those can go to hell, which should be warm and cozy year round.
There's a thought experiment I like to think of: which would be worth more, a mansion on a few acres of land in Malibu, or the exact same property in the middle of down town Los Angeles?
I mean let's be honest, "property value" is just a dogwhistle for keeping the poors and coloreds out. Otherwise they'd be taking measures that actively promote their community as a nucleus around which other communities begin forming, because otherwise you're not actually taking advantage of demand to keep the value up naturally, you're using artificial scarcity to keep values up because the people you don't feel comfortable living next to can't afford it, creating the illusion of supply shortage and a seller's market. It's neighborhood covenants by another name.
I was thinking of writing an article about this before I watched your video, Dave. You bring up a lot of good points and make some very good arguments on why NIMBYs are selfish and why people with money and power fight so hard to maintain the status quo. This was a discussion I had had with my partner over a couple of years ago, especially pertaining to the San Francisco example. I lived in Sacramento for many years, but every time I went to San Francisco, I noticed how very little high-density residential development there was and it always baffled me. Thanks for this video.
I think my nana would be a nimby. She complained that a fast food truck at the corner of her street would decrease her houses property value. A fast food truck!
i can’t see why that would decrease property values. it’s not a permanent fixture, it’s a truck. and if anything it would bring more business to the area?
I'm sure this isn't actually unique, but Toronto's NIMBY's seem to be a special breed. They effectively stopped all highway development in the 70s (with the help of Jane Jacobs!), they seem to support the region's greenbelt (restricting sprawl), there's a group of them protesting a new transit line, and yet they still fight density as well, with zero appreciation that they have to compromise on *something*.
I was doing a bit of research for my planning degree on opposition too wind turbines and an interesting idea posited by one of the academic journal article by Maarten Wolsink is that the term NIMBY is actually an incorrect word and that NIMBY's don't truly exist, they are a myth. This was because when interviewing and surveying people identified as fitting Nimby criteria they found that it wasn't not in my back yard, for a vast majority it was not in any one's yard they were actually just anti wind turbines (for example) in this case just anti high density housing. I also then researched urban redevelopment which is the area I'm most interested in and again NIMBY's didn't exist, you could say the NIAMBY did the "Not In Anyone's Back Yard".
I can see the flip side of that, though. They start with a NIMBY position of not wanting wind turbines near them. And they use motivated reasoning to justify it with a broad anti-wind turbine stance. So rather than an anti-wind stance causing their NIMBY position, their NIMBY position may cause their anti-wind stance.
@@cadekachelmeier7251 well one of the question in particular was would you like wind turbines built elsewhere and they said "No", rather than the only question being are you against wind turbines in general. So I would say it's the other way round their anti-wind turbine stance, informed what would be considered in the eyes of many NIMBY qualities.
I think most people imagine highrises when they think of high-density housing, and no one wants an ugly brick building full of strangers where there was previously space that people could enjoy. I bet redefining density to include moderate density (duplexes/ multi-building lots, basically anything that is smaller than apartments) would be more acceptable. As well why does San Fransisco's homeless or any other cities homeless have to have homes in their city? Couldn't a housing program in the dying small towns across the U.S alleviate homelessness in the cities as well as providing an economic boost/ future to these small places that have infrastructure in place already to support a greater population than they have. I'm of the opinion that cities are pretty ugly and overcrowded, and that small town life is ultimately better for human mental and maybe physical health, so maybe I'm wrong.
@@Alex-cw3rz I can see that with regards to wind turbines because of the perception that it’s an inconsistent energy source, so even if it’s placed in other locations, they might believe that it would still affect their energy grid and cause blackouts. However, for high density housing, I would argue there is definitely a strong NIMBY cohort. Most people would agree there is a housing supply shortage, which is most evident in the amount of homeless people living in urban centers. Most people would also agree that high density affordable housing would be a key part of the solution. However, finding a suitable location to zone for such type of housing has been extremely difficult because almost no one wants it built in their “backyard”
Up-zoning to midrise will increase YOUR land value. If you insist on low density, use the increase in equity to move "inland" and you will have plenty of profit.
It’s entirely selfish. People should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property as long as it doesn’t have a significant impact on the physical function of a neighbors property. There should be no zoning boards or input on property. It either meets the simple rules and gets automat approval for not impacting neighboring land, or it doesn’t. Japan does this well.
I really care about preservation of old buildings, but I think that communities shouldn't be allowed to regulate based on units per land area. I don't mind communities imposing height restrictions or maximum parking restrictions, to prevent towering apartment blocks and tons of parked cars, or enforcing some amount of style restrictions, if a neighborhood has a consistent architectural style, but there are so many great 2, 4, or even more unit houses that just look like a normal large house. Also, let people build mixed use, every community should have a corner shop, and every corner shop should have an apartment on top.
Great job fairly characterizing nimbys. Many channels don’t offer the same nuance but i think its much more effective to understand the opposition than the alternative.
I'm in the Austin area. Homelessness sharply on the rise. Actual miles of empty land. People still sounding the war drums anytime any kind of high density or affordable housing unit is proposed. They would never even see these people.
I remember that video by Vice News about the NIMBYs there. It's really bad that they are trying to stop those housing projects just because they don't want Section 8 housing near them. 🙃
How about passing a bill that requires developers to construct their buildings in the character of the neighbourhood? That'll solve at least 50% of the NIMBY arguments and one that I actually agree with.
They will find some other excuse if you address their complaints because at their core it's all about inducing artificial scarcity to increase the value of their property. Notice they don't complain about traffic and parking if a 3000+ person office tower is built. They will welcome it as the workers to-be will go into bidding wars for nearby residential units.
One more thing you forgot to mention about NIMBY’s in response to the housing crisis. They believe that lack of housing affordability is due to poor financial decisions on part of prospective buyers. (as opposed to many systematic barriers that make housing expensive).
As someone who is moving to San Francisco to rent, it's easy to see why NIMBYs are so up in arms. There was a graph in the video where home prices have skyrocketed in the area to $2 million. You can't tell me you wouldn't be mad if someone tried to take half a million dollars from you by building affordable housing nearby. And often what does get built is super expensive apartments anyway because affordable housing isn't profitable. San Francisco really emptied out during the pandemic, lots of people moved away from the city and rent prices changed very marginally, so it's not really about supply. There needs to be a way to insure that housing / real estate is not being used as an investment. It shouldn't lose value over time, but it's not currently sustainable as many people from Gen Z and millenials just accept the fact they'll never own a home just to pay rent that's more than the mortgage living off barely anything leftover. It's fucked up and something institutional needs to change so we don't have NIMBYs anymore because almost no American wants to sacrifice for the greater good of society for nothing in return.
There is no way to stop real estate investing from being a thing. It is a direct consequence of a specific area having an consistently increasing quality of life. If a place is becoming better, it by definition is going to be worth more as time passes. That means it can be used as a form of investment.
In Cities Skylines, I’ve sometimes allowed residences to be adjacent to industries, and it works out as long as you have a hospital nearby. The hospital business becomes booming.
The "high property values" argument always strikes me as absolutely fucking insane. The only reasons you would want your house (in reality: your land, since buildings generally depreciate over time) to increase in value are if you wanted to sell it or put it down as collateral on a loan. What on earth do people accomplish by "keeping property values up" and then continuing to live there? Oh, right. They want *other* properties nearby to be expensive to prevent poor people from living there.
Yep hell I have my own place but I don't want my value too go up too much cause that means B.S. property tax going up because of inflated fake value that I know my house isn't worth
IMO people who work service jobs in NIMBY areas should make them live with their decisions and transfer to another store, leaving the jobs unable to be staffed. If you don't want any affordable housing in your neighborhood for service workers than you don't need any services that they provide.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I don't think I'd ever want to own land here. NIMBYs here aren't just against single-family housing; they seem to be against any sort of development, and I can't understand the point in owning property if you're not allowed to do something with it.
The housing market in SF is fascinating. Rental prices are down 20% from pre-pandemic levels, and home values are up 20-30%. Mind you, the home value to rent price ratio was already in favor of renting here in SF before the pandemic. It's really nutty.
As a resident of a European country, it baffles me how some homeowner associations can have a decisive call on what city zoning should look like. Isn't this a municipal council decision?
I think like everything else there's a balance. On the one hand, you should do what you can to respect people's quality of life. On the other hand, things have to go somewhere! Balancing the utility of the needed thing with the dignity of the people who will face consequences by being near it is what it's all about.
I think Façade laws are good, like where I live here in Melbourne, Australia, if San Francisco is concerned with how the city's feel would change, forcing developers to keep the old facades of older buildings that are replaced with larger blocks might help.
Last week, the local newspaper ran a story about a group of "environmentalists" that were opposing a plan to built a housing development. All of these environmentalists we're at the retirement age. They don't give a hoot about the land, they just want to keep their property value high. This is sad, because this town's current home cost and rental costs are through the roof. No young family can afford to live here. We need more multi family homes, but the wealthy want to keep their wealth. Sadly, the journalist that write the piece didn't push back regarding their real intentions. The school I teach at is old (1920s). We are trying to update the building. However, the neighborhood was deemed a historical area. Therefore, we can't do anything. A local retired resident wrote an oped in the paper about how a school remodel will hurt the neighborhood. However, the entire piece was filled with errors and downright lies. But, again, the wealthy older demographic won and the school building will stay shotty.
Something that I would add to historic preservation overreach is that historic can have many definitions including "Has historical significance", "Has history" and "Has importance to me". The last one in particular fuels a lot of NIMBYism. Most suburbs are pretty much interchangeable and there is vastly more suburban area than urban area in the US, but it's also the case that these suburbs feel like an important part of history to the people who live in them. Our built environment is one of our most active ties to our own history, and seeing that change can feel like a loss. A random Wendy's being rebuilt into townhomes might never attract anyone looking for a historic site, but it might be where me and my friends from highschool who I no longer get to see used to hang out. The problem of course being that we can't encase every neighbourhood in unchanging amber. Historic preservation is supposed to be about preserving public goods, not about keeping your neighbourhood the way it was like when you were a kid, teen, or young adult.
Nice video. There is an imbalance that is not addressed in this video. There is a reason so many people want to move to places like San Francisco and the housing market is so tight. Housing supply is only one side of the equation. If job growth outpaces residential growth no matter how many housing units are added, there will be a shortage.
Yeah, so to avoid that, increase residential growth. There is finite demand for housing, but the potential for infinite supply. NYC houses more people than the Bay Area/Silicon valley despite being a quarter the size of Santa Clara county. There are also cities that are much denser than NYC
@@joshuacerniglia2501 You are not wrong more housing supply will help, but only if it decreases demand for housing. Your NYC example precisely makes my point. Lots more density in NYC and still not an affordable place to live with a housing shortage that has no end in sight.
@@carsten5197 More supply can decrease price even if it increase demand. Supply just needs to grow faster than demand. The Bay Area proper (so not including Silicon Valley) could house more people than live in the US if it had the population density of Manhattan. Again demand is finite, supply is infinite.
In Vancouver I think everyone (not even by choice) is becoming NIMBY, because the amount of unreasonable high density buildings being built. It's frustrating because none of it is affordable, It is all 15 stories plus and being built by private investors while single family homes are about 500K above the national average, nobody I know from high school can afford more than an old single or shared apartment or they just left the city. I guess you could say I'm NIMBY but I really want high density houses, just units that are 5 stories but it's just getting worse. All around the city apartments from the 70s that are 4 or 5 stories are being torn down and replaced with 10+ if not 20 or 30 story ivory towers. lately it seems like a lot of us Vancouverites are really angry at the greed of the city not being considerate of people working service jobs who could never afford these stupid glass boxes with rooftop gardens and such. Unfortunately there are people who can afford them moving in often from outside the country leaving residents who are 3rd or 4th generation to need to move out.
Start building your ideal daily routine! The first 100 people who click on the link will get 25% OFF Fabulous Premium: thefab.co/citybeautiful
They are scammers. Check their trustpilot bad reviews. There's like 20 reports of overcharging and refusing to give it back each month.
Thank you for making this video. My family moved from west to east coast when I was little mainly because housing was insanely expensive. We left so many friends behind, and even though I barely remember it, I still miss the beauty of California.
So my initial reply got deleted, instead I'll put your own words up as a counter argument for "NIMBY-ism = Bad" not always being the case. Maybe that will resonate in a meaningful way.
th-cam.com/video/_nSvy8jcNbU/w-d-xo.html
Face it, you live in a world with other people, and they don't all agree with you. When you come into a place where people are, and have another idea of how to use their property - you either have to make a convincing case to get buy in from those affected, or risk that history will judge you as evil: th-cam.com/video/w0cCF2pG13U/w-d-xo.html
Unlike the discourse in this country right now, someone not agreeing with does not make them a "terrorist" or "insurrectionist", it just means your idea or argument did not sway them and you have not done your job (or, or... hear me out: "your idea sucks, and you are too personally invested to be objective about it").
There are also Yimby-Yes in my backyard.
Have you ever considered a story on Portland, Oregon? I lived there 20 years ago and the cities approved of a building zone. Anything outside of it required you have 20 acres or basically a farm. They were trying to stop sprawl which worked very well. But it also inflated housing prices. I bought a house in 1994 for $85,000 and 2 years later we were able to refinance at the value of $120,000. (We had added some features such as energy efficient windows and furnace, a deck in the backyard and a fence around it.)
One of the problems with Portland was that they built the highway across from downtown along the river and with this the riverside value became very valuable. But it's occupied by a freeway. I had heard that the value of riverside property was the same as the cost of moving the highway slightly inland (which was at risk of collapsing like the Kobe highway and was due for an upgrade).
I wonder how the city is faring now? My son still lives there, but across the Columbia River in Vancouver, WA which has huge sprawl but more affordable housing.
living right across the bay in Oakland, it’s absolutely disgusting how opposed people are to fixing a problem they won’t shut up about.
but PLEASE think of the PARKING and SHADOWS!!!!
Shadows? Lol what’s the story there, they don’t want any tall buildings?
@@magesalmanac6424 There was a group of smooth brains circulating flyers claiming that expanding the UCSF hospital would cause shadows, and they believe shadows cause cancer. Another depicted a non-existent playground with a smoke stack overshadowing it yammering on about "do you want to raise your kids in the dark ages?" Can't make this shit up.
Toyota's are reliable but now I know that they have reliably correct opinions.
🤮I love Oakland, and the Bay Area, but the first thing people bitched about when apartments started going up in San Mateo was TRAFFIC. OH NO!
This is a great summary, as usual!
One of the big problems with places like SF is that strict zoning has been in place for so many decades that a few multiplexes or duplexes isn't going to solve the problem. So when developers finally do get a development plan in place, it's for a huge condo building or the large-end of a midrise. This provides an even bigger target for NIMBYs.
If these neighbourhoods had been able to "gently" densify over the decades, by adding some duplexes, multiplexes, town homes, and small apartment buildings, the problem would be much less acute.
Though I guess those early plans for "gentle" density were squashed by the NIMYBs of the past, so it's NIMBYs all the way down.
Some people have told me that they've had _some_ success by appealing to the housing crisis that will affect the NIMBY's own children or grandchildren. If you can convince them that the problem may affect their own family, then you can sometimes make some progress.
From a systemic angle though, housing fundamentally needs to stop being an investment vehicle. This at least dampens the financial incentive. There's some positive movement in that direction in the Netherlands where new housing in some cities _must_ be registered as the primary residence for the purchaser and cannot be rented or left vacant. It's got a purchase price cap and there are some unfortunate loopholes, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
I'd love for city beautiful (or you!) to discuss social/public housing more, like what exists in Vienna. That's a really good model for decommodifying housing and turning it from an investment into just a nice place to live 😊
Hey keep up the good work, love both of your guy's channels!
@@adriansz343 I know, this comment really has me wishing for some CB/NJB collabs. Both these channels are so thoughtful and informative!!
@@evanoc That sounds very interesting. Maybe the video could also touch on Finland's Housing First program.
Yeah the best solution for the city is to buy out single family homes that are on sale (which they are a ton), and replace them with a medium sized apartment complex or a triplex with 90-100% affordable/free housing. Also putting primary residence laws is not a bad idea.
Had a lovely exchange with a nimby out front of the Sac zoo trying to get people to sign a petition to repeal the bill that just passed removing single family home zoning. When I told her we need density to resolve the housing crisis she said “no we need affordability” and when I told her we get affordability with density she just said “no”. Just "no".
More supply equals lower prices, its simple economics.
Good on you for challenging her narricism & delusion.
@@ericBorja520 it only equals lower prices if supply increases more than demand. Interest in cali is probably too high for that to happen. Any new supply probably get sucked up before it even gets on the market.
@@BobbyJ529 So how would you lower demand without increasing supply? Non-resident tax? Tank the California economy?
@@ooogyman The government can attempt to curb demand (population) by using several methods such as birthing restrictions (ex: max 2 children), requiring licenses to own children, government granted incentives for not having children (huge tax credits, discounts, etc.), increased sex education worldwide (especially from the places where most people immigrate from), widespread and easy access to abortions, free and convenient contraceptives, increasing restrictions on immigration (preferably using a method that maximizes randomness such as a lottery system as to avoid ethnic bias), and active large campaigns advocating for the stabilization and/or reduction of population worldwide.
My dad mentioned a district community meeting where some NIMBY's serious argument against new apartments were "They will throw hot dogs at us". I have no idea what life she lived to get that idea.
I mean, I kinda WANT to know now 😂
nimbys should probably be forced to work a decade (60 hour work weeks) in construction
@@neocortex8198I feel like NIMBY’s should have to room and board two minimum ILLEGALS and be LEGALLY responsible for them for 10 years like 90 day fiancé 💯
As someone living in CA, this really shows what CA politics are: People vote for measures and laws that are good for the environment, housing, transit etc (example Measure M in LA County). But when reality sets in as to how to exactly implement them, they are opposed to it. Example: a new train line in LA. We desperately need more transit, but NIMBYS are slowing it down with bullshit arguments. NIMBYs also show how individualistic Americans can be. We must all realize that we live together in a society, and what we do can affect others. But alas, they don't. "Land of the free" I guess....👀
Weird how living next to a train track changes perceptions. I live in Skåne, South Sweden... I moved in my house 4 months ago and it is only 50-ish meters away from the train station and train tracks, and I barely notice when a train passes maybe ones or twice a day... Just having good windows and insolation minimizes the disturbances. And you get used to the occasional train passing at 160 km/h and don't pay any attention to it... But the benefits... Oh man I love it. I am 1h away by car or train to the office. Which is only 30 minutes more than the commute by bus I had from Malmö to Lund before... Now with WFH, it is about the same price to take the train, or for gas... But I can have an hour on the train relaxing, instead of driving. If I go back to office full time, buying a 30 day card is waaaaay cheaper and makes transit so much more convenient than driving.
TL:DR One of the reasons I bought my house was that it was only 50 meters away from the train station!
Land of the free? More like "Land of the ME!"
@@mfaizsyahmi Exactly
The unfortunate thing is that it doesn't take a lot of NIMBYs to affect a lot. You only need a couple of them to go to the local zoning meetings. And they're fighting against people that don't exist or would have no reason to attend a local zoning meeting (future potential residents) so it's a pretty easy battle for NIMBYs to win.
Agreed. When I lived in oakland, I didn't notice Bart unless my door was open and even still it's like whatever.
6:05 The biggest NIMBY hypocrisy is that they don't protest high density office towers. The concerns of traffic and parking go out the window despite the fact that office towers tend to be even denser and funnels in tons of traffic from nearby areas because there isn't enough residential units nearby. It's absolutely about inducing demand for the few residential units. I do not think they see themselves as defenders. That's the public face they put on. They absolutely know what they're doing. The concerns for property values are the only truthful thing that leaks out form their mask.
Stop pretending that traffic and parking are a MAIN concern when poperty value is the elephant in the room.
Now why shouldn't there be concern for property value if more low cost rentals get built on their block ?
@@drwalka10 b/c ppl needing a place to live is more important than you wanting to sell ur house at the highest value?
@@mrshaw9201 and if you werent so greedy you'll realize homelessness isnt good for anyone.
@@mrshaw9201 having more density doesnt stop anyone from having a home ... kinda of the opposite effect.
@@mrshaw9201 Now you are either a full blown troll or a perfect embodiment of the American individualism. I made it here first, now screw everybody else, who didnt. :)
Imagine if local businesses always got together to try and block any new businesses from being able to open near them or in the same city. This is basically what nimbys are doing to everyone else who wants to build new housing in this same city as them
Local businesses do this all the time through a mix of zoning and other sneaky regulations. Most local town boards are run by local businesses and they are pretty much gatekeepers for which new businesses can move into town.
That's just called a guild, and they worked pretty well during the middle ages.
Thats an interesting argument and a good analogy, because it is really similar to an oligopoly or monopolistic competition, to use the technical economic terms, though ut might be better to call it an oligopsony, or a few controlling the buying of goods or services. Either way, nimbys are using anti-competition actions, and in business at least, more competition is better for prices and reflecting demand (with good labor protections of course😉)
Local businesses do that. When food trucks in LA became popular the local restaurant lobby group tried to get legislation through to minimize their impact like saying they can't park here or there for "safety" reasons i.e. not near my business.
That happens in San Francisco too, opening small businesses is hard, expensive and takes years
This almost feels like a perfect part 3 of the NJB/Climate Town collab since Climate Town ended his video telling people they should try going to local zoning meetings but that you're likely to encounter NIMBYs there :D
I live in Manhattan near Penn Station. I went to a community board meeting & all I heard was complaints about new high rises being built, complaints about restaurants, bars, & clubs, & complaints about Target opening 2 new stores every year. I got up to speak about the lack of affordable grocery stores in area & how Target is the only affordable place to shop for groceries. We don't have the chains like Kroger, Safeway/Vons, Ralph's, Albertsons, or Publix.
RMTransit also has a new video on NIMBYs, but focuses on its effect on ongoing transit projects.
@@ianhomerpura8937 I'll go check it out
@@wilaustu
Thanks for pointing this out, I found and watched those other vids. Now I've seen the whole trilogy!
EDIT: typo
The problem is that many of these meetings are at in opportune times for working people to adequately advocate for themselves. NIMBYs love to claim greedy corporations but what about greedy individuals?
I’m so pleased by the recent wave of videos from the urban planning TH-cam community discussing low density zoning and NIMBYism. City Beautiful, Not Just Bikes, and Climate Town all published stellar videos this week. We really need to have these discussions now. Washington state is currently trying to push through its own inclusive zoning bill and I really hope we succeed!
woah, do you have any more info on that bill?
@@nope8083 check out the Seattle times
@@cheef825 The Seattle Times hates it though
NIMBYs: We are NOT selfish! We just want to perpetuate a severe housing crisis that's driving an entire generation into poverty in order to raise our own property values!
👏 couldn’t have said it better
Just wait till those values get too high, then they won't be able to afford it either.
@@TreeFilms1 that's the thing though, they're mostly older Boomers drawing the bridge of opportunity on the younger generation while at the same time having a stupid law which allows them to pay property tax at the original 50 to $60,000 price. If I was running in California on the state level, I'd literally form a party around this issue and then surprise the Boomer population by repealing that exemption law so their property tax goes up by like 30 x or 3,000% because why should they get special treatment when no one else does. That alone would be enough to drive most of them out similar to gentrification but now it will be affecting them
Doesn't matter because population will keep doubling every few decades so we may as well get use to living in a 5 by 5 cage now. We have a bit time because we can bulldoze all the nature rubbish first.
@@TreeFilms1We’re already there. The number of homes hitting the market is bottoming out. Most people, NIMBYs included, can’t afford to buy the homes they own today, let alone an upgrade.
The expectation that your house is your primary investment has a lot of downsides. It means that people view high housing prices as good instead of bad, since their retirement depends on it.
I love how people don't want certain housing in their neighborhood, because their real estate value will go down...I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S BUTT IF YOUR REAL ESTATE VALUE GOES DOWN!!!
@ghost mall It's great from an individual perspective in the current system, but it's terrible from a social perspective in the long term because it's just a fucking pyramid scheme in slow motion and suffers from the same problem: when you run out of people willing or able to buy into the bottom, the whole thing collapses because it wasn't actually creating any real wealth in the first place, just funneling it up the pyramid.
@ghost mall Sure, but people can't buy houses if the prices are outrageous. And as values go up, so do property taxes. It also leads to homelessness. The mindset of my property value over others being able to afford housing is pretty selfish and self detrimental.
@ghost mall tell me you're rich and privileged without telling me you're rich and privileged 🙄
@ghost mall if it’s so reliable, then it should have no problem holding its own against the forces of the free market. Regulatory capture is fear in action.
This is largely a generational conflict. Old long-time homeowners are happy to see the value of their property go up. They don't think the high cost of housing is a problem, especially in California where Proposition 13 prevents property taxes from rising more than 2% per year regardless of how much the property has gone up in value. They bought their houses decades ago when they were cheap, pay little in property taxes, and now oppose the construction of new housing which would provide young people with an affordable place to live.
I have been involved in planning issues in San Mateo, where I live. I notice that the vast majority of people who participate in public city planning meetings are older white homeowners. Many are retired and have plenty of free time to attend these meetings. Younger people and renters are too busy with their jobs and families to participate. The biggest conflict in California is not between Republicans and Democrats. It is between NIMBYs and YIMBYs.
You nailed it. The NIMBY vs YIMBY conflict is the big split of our day, every other issue is minor in comparison as this one issue has such an impact on our lives.
Nothing is more dangerous than a white homeowner retiree that has too much time on their hands. We as people who actually need this need to attend more city council meetings.
@@mrshaw9201 single family is actually more of a burden on maintenance & road congestion than multifamily on cities cause multifamily density means you can build public transport & pool money together.
@@mrshaw9201 If NIMBY stop voting down public transit, traffic would be a non-issue. I live in Toronto and I am moving to the Bay Area in a few months. In my 4 years in Toronto, the only time I set foot in a car is to go to the airport. Because of high density and extensive public transit, traffic is meaningless since you don't need a car.
@@mrshaw9201 ligma
I think one of the key things you fail to mention in the NIMBY debate in California is that it is exacerbated by Prop 13. Current property owners are shielded from the primary downside to increasing property values: increasing property taxes. It means that they can block development, increase scarcity, and continue to increase their wealth through increased property values while paying an ever-decreasing share of taxes. The structure of the law subsidizes their outsized impact on the housing market.
Now that's some major BS right there. If you're going to have a multimillion dollar house you should pay property taxes to fit the house's value and pay for public services.
My cousin's grandmother is living alone and has given the property titles of two houses built in the 1970s that are now worth almost a million dollars each to my uncle (One is vacant without renters despite proximity to LAX). He doesn't have to pay taxes on it even though Prop 13's original intentions were to protect the retired, not be a feudal system that applies to children and corporations with minimal taxes.
@@AnotherOne-iu3lp Prop 13 should have never been passed in the first place. If someone's house becomes so valuable that they can't afford the property taxes on it then they should sell it for a lot of money and get a less costly place.
@@eitkoml that hurts young inheritors and old retiers .
Also you cant just sell you "home" and move to a new one
@@johnsamuel1999 Creating an aristocracy with generational land rights who don't have to pay taxes hurts everyone trying to get a place now who don't have mommy and daddy's help.
Also, homes can be sold. Then people can move into new ones, at any age.
"High density housing can be defined as anything more than single family homes."
In extreme cases, it even includes single family homes on slightly smaller lots.
I am shocked that SFHs usually have 1,800 sq.ft. minimum. That is way too large for a single family.
Our house is only 600 sq ft, but it's enough for us.
In mexico we have 500 sq feet single family plots, and 4 persons families live there
When my sister and I were young she and my mother and I lived in a ~440ft² flat, around what Americans would call middle school my sister, mother, and I moved into a ~600ft² flat together with my stepfather. This definitely is enough for us (although everyone always wants more space, I suppose).
As a life long NorCalian who just moved back to the Bay from Sacramento I cannot express HOW MUCH NIMBYism boils my blood. I cannot afford to live alone as much as I want to anywhere in my home region. My parents are part of the problem. They moved across the country last year to get more "backyard" and they just straight up admitted to all the horrible things that they don't like.
I have given up I'm moving to Europe next year. I love the restored victorian I live in but I want to live in a single person unit with my cat instead of dealing with annoying housemates nonstop. it's absolutely insane that working full time + overtime I cannot afford my own place. I had better income to payment ratio at 19 than I do now at 36. Ridiculous.
@Alex Cruz finishes comment with cringy emjoi
@Alex Cruz You really think that the US has cheap standards of living and better quality of life than in Europe? 💀
@@sygneg7348 It does have cheaper standards of living and better quality of life if you don't want to just live in New York or California. Get off the coasts and realize there is an entire country between the two oceans. Most major European cities, like Paris and London, are far more expensive to live in than most of the United States.
“I don’t believe you” is a strong statement. Do not weaken it with emojis, @@alexcruz8457
Whine, whine, whine, cry, cry cry... Gtfo then...
Are NIMBYs selfish?
Literally everyone: "Yes. "
but mah shadows
@@ericBorja520 mUh sHaDoWs on mah community garden! Will someone please think of the organic food!! 😂
When actually, on top of the lowering property prices they're often (not always, but OFTEN) thinking 'if it's more affordable, I will have neighbors who aren't WASP. I'm not racist but...'
You know the ones. You already know how they vote 🙃
@@Allyouknow5820 And that attitude is endemic in rich, white liberal circles. They believe in equality, fairness, and that their enlightened attitude alone should be enough to bring it about without any personal sacrifice whatsoever.
@@ooogyman Agree with you there. NIMBY attitude are shared across the political spectrum, one of the things that actually crosses party lines.
You can't protest for affordable housing and be against high density housing in your backyard. I see this all the time
100%. Most people that advocate for moving subsidized housing into non-sub. neighborhoods have never experienced living near it and its limitless negatives. You gotta house people somewhere, but it's a terrible idea to mix them.
Sadly, many do. But they only ever for high density housing when it comes to multi-family housing.
@@lifevest1 Wow that's some clasicism right there.
1) If you really mix people, you stop having "near", because it's even closer than near.
2) The "limitless negatives" are often quite limited and anyway, you see the bad parts, but not the good parts because you assume the good parts are not subsidized and you attribute bad "non-subsidized" as being subsidized.
It's a bit like one of those "hidden millionaires" comedies where the fraudster is getting the VIP treatment and the millionaire is hired to clean the forgotten backyard.
@@steemlenn8797 found one. The only positive was I got a really nice 2bed,2bath for $1100 downtown and free utilities. I only lived there for 8 months though fortunately.
@@lifevest1 I don't understand a word of your comment. Mix what? Near what? What do you mean by "it"? Non-suburban neighbourhoods? What is "them"? Subsidized and private housing? Please clarify.
In San Antonio, NIMBYs are currently halting the progress of the city at large. As the nations 7th largest city, SA lacks the infrastructure and development seen in larger cities, and it has had an immense effect on our economy.
Projects here either never get off the ground or are sluggish in nature. For example: the first office high rise to be built since the 1980s was completed in 2019, and the first residential high rise to ever be built in the city has faced delay after delay. Necessary projects like housing are just abandoned altogether due to backlash from communities.
What we are trying to build here isn’t opulence, but rather the bare-minimum the city needs in order to survive and thrive.
I knew I’d find something from my city!
I am puzzled that San Antonio still doesn't have ANY urban railway line, even though it has enough density to warrant at least three subway lines that can be done within ten years, to be honest. You have lots of money and right-of-way at your disposal.
@@ianhomerpura8937 that would be amazing
wow, are there any organizations in san antonio trying to make these changes?
@@ianhomerpura8937No you need a 20 mile stretch of upper deck express lanes on i35 instead and you will love it.
I'm glad you came here to San Francisco. It looks like you had a lot of fun with your drone. I'm surprised there was no mention of BART, the local train system, and how limited it is due to certain parts of the Bay Area rejecting it because basically for not wanting the company of people who can't afford cars. Of course, I believe you've mentioned this in previous videos, but it definitely applies to this one as well.
Sounds like Atlanta and its MARTA system. Because it serves some lower-income areas (and not even very well tbh), people in wealthier areas don't want to see construction near them. They cite crime, noise, and "disturbing the character of the neighborhoods."
Yeah that really sucks
I.E. Bart down Geary. The merchants claim construction and loss of parking as to why they don't want Bart down Geary. Like Geary is huge!! The 38/38R are SF busiest bus route and one of tbe busiest on the west coast!! Now that I've moved from SF to Atlanta, I now see the same thing here with Marta. The trains hardly go anywhere because of the stigma of crime coming with the train. It's just a load of excuses and bullshit honestly.
It's just a more subtle version of the A-holes who, during the Civil Rights Movement, held up signs saying they demanded that their neighborhoods stay for whites only.
That is the problem why mass-transit will never be popular in USA, too much class difference, people with mental problems and smelly homeless people using transports does not help.
I think it would be good to consider the role our public education funding plays in this as well. I live in Cambodia, but have lived in Japan, Korea and spent a lot of time in various parts of Europe where funding mechanisms are entirely different (and more equitable).
I was talking yesterday with a Filipino colleague about the issue of property tax-based education funding, and she mentioned that this was something she never understood when talking to family members in the US. The way the USA funds schools greatly distorts property values in positive and negative reinforcement loops. How many GenX’ers out there remember the parents talking about the quality of schools in an area when making home-buying decisions?
Higher property values = more funding to schools = (usually) better and better resourced schools = higher demand for the area = higher property values = and so on. If we changed the way we funded public education to guarantee equal resources, this would help over time to moderate the huge disparities in both school quality and resources, as well as inflated property values.
It's not going to fix everything, but I think it should be considered as part of the equation.
This is what I think about whenever someone says we need market based solutions instead of government over reach to solve housing and education crises. The market is what fuels this mess in the first place there is no incentive to fix it till it collapses.
To the question in the title, not automatically, but in modern times, overwhelmingly yes. Especially when it amounts to "only in the backyard of those without the political power or money to fight it."
Also we cannot forget that NIMY’s was originally used for racial segregation. So YES. Selfish. Classist. And kinda racist.
@@Daniela-kd6ln i suddenly remembered that classic George Carlin video on homelessness.
If *nobody* wants something in their back yard, it just goes to show that the entire policy which got us in this situation is wrong-headed and is not working for the citizens.
@@AdmiralBonetoPick um, not really. Most of the projects attacked by NIMBYs are related to housing and mass transit. Either the policy is skewed in some aspect or people are just really way too selfish.
@@Daniela-kd6ln In my (progressive) city, the city is actually using this same kind of logic to counter NIMBY neighborhood associations. Basically saying that projects in the neighborhood must advance racial diversity, which most residents are on board with. Then comes the cognitive dissonance when the residents realize that that means more dense housing and public transportation lol.
Speaking of the Bay Area, the city of Woodside just declared itself a “Mountain Lion Habitat” so that it can oppose any new affordable housing development. Sad but true.
Not surprised, that area is full of wealth snobs
Oh yeah I heard that in the news.
They should be required to demonstrate that residents are being eaten by the lions to maintain this status.
They've backed down on that and withdrew the declaration this week after the amount of backlash they quite rightly faced over it
Alright, time to release actual mountain lions on the streets! It's dinner time for the lions!
I do think that *historic preservation* is important, especially in the USA and Canada, where it seems very common to have destroyed any buildings older than about half a century.
A lot of pre-1930s buildings and neighbourhoods are very walkable. Many have already been destroyed in North America.
Here in the Netherlands, we still build in old neighbourhoods, but it is much more restrictive and usually only to replace things that were built after WW2.
But even in more modern neighbourhoods, like the one I live from 1969, we only replace the worst buildings, and focus on high density, walkable living spaces.
I'm not disagreeing, but I did want to add some nuance to your perception. I was raised in a town about 118km in a straight line from the town where I currently reside, about the same distance as Groningen to Den Bosch. Both towns in Pennsylvania, USA are composed of buildings nearly entirely constructed prior to WW2. Few buildings are ever torn down, unless they are blighted beyond the point that preservation is reasonable. For example, over the past few years, my current town restored a historic (built in 1801) quarantine station and converted it into offices for our town administrative services. Just prior to that, they had converted a bottling plant into a police station. Yes, new buildings are added, but the old ones are rarely destroyed intentionally (fire, storms, etc may unintentionally remove buildings on rare occasions). This may not be the case in all cities in the US, but these towns are far from being exceptions. [Disclaimer: My life experience is mostly limited to the mid-atlantic states.]
The Americans love remodelling their towns so much they even gave my city a blank canvas to start on c. 1944.
The US has a terrible history of destroying historic and culturally significant buildings rather than restoring and repurposing them, historically in the name of "urban renewal." What bothers me so much is that nothing new ever comes remotely close to the beauty and value historic buildings had in their day. Rows of five-over-ones built by the lowest bidder do nothing but detract from the sense of community that historic brownstones or storefronts convey. A parking lot will never replace a row of houses where families lived for generations. A street of uninspired glass boxes is much less enjoyable or inviting than a historic main street. I agree with the nimbys here. If you want affordable housing, repurpose your pick out of the many abandoned existing mid-rise buildings around the city. Replace buildings that have no architectural significance. But the single family victorian home built in the 1800s? No, leave that alone. We're never gonna get that back once it's gone with today's architectural trends.
Many NIMBYs use the historical site card however to protest things that low cost housing and transit advocates want. History is something that should be preserved, yes, but this card is frequently played to help accomplish many of their selfish goals.
In the city I live in, transitional/affordable housing has been repeatedly shot down by NIMBYs, and in the last year, some of them are realizing they've shot themselves in the foot : The homeless population here has been rising steadily in the downtown core... which is a 10 minute walk away from one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the city. And now they're in a huff about their garbage bags being cut open, discarded needles on the sidewalks, panhandlers in the parking lot of their local shopping plaza, and public greenspaces being used for shooting up.
There's two pedestrian routes connecting downtown and the rich neighbourhood, which the city won't let them block because they know that the homeless and plebs alike would just walk through the properties of the businesses instead to get into the neighbourhood.
I've stopped sympathizing; the NIMBYs are the ones who've chosen their fate.
@Alex Cruz yes, actually, homelessness is partially caused by nimbys who oppose affordable housing for people who wouldn't be homeless if affordable housing existed
Even if the YIMBYs got their way, giving cheap homes to drug addicts isn't gonna stop them from using drugs and becoming homeless again. Affordable housing will only help those who are willing to help themselves, as in hold down a stable job, be smart with their money, and stay clean. If govts keep throwing money at affordable housing projects without addressing the root causes of homelessness/poverty, nothing is gonna change.
@@andrewl.9736 I'm sorry, I just have a completely different worldview than you: Addicts deserve a reliable and safe place to sleep and eat. Plenty of addicts already do, but happen to be richer or have a network that can support them so they never wind up on the street. Think of those regulars at the bar, the wine moms, and all them -- addicts with homes. The punishment of a drug addict is being a drug addict, it shouldn't be living in a cold tent in a park and peeing in alleyways.
@@reckonerwheel5336 So you would be willing to be taxed 50 percent more? To supply free housing to drug addicts. The place for drug addicts is prison. Or forcing them to go to rehab or other mental treatment places. Places where they are locked up and can not leave. To let people waste their lives doing illegal drugs is not a solution. If it is out on the street or free public housing.
@@plem7210 Why would it be 50% more? Wouldn't it make more sense to allocate public money better? I've never even paid income tax before, I'm a poor lol.
To try to go along with the hypothetical -- if I were in a world where I was part of the wealthy class and the only way to help drug addicts was to up my taxes by 50%, yeah, I'd do it.
There are 2 big issues with NIMBYs I see in my neck of the woods.
1) There are so many levels of density between single family home and 15 story high rise, but NIMBYs tend to be universally opposed to ANY affordable development (where I live, there is opposition to single family detached townhome developments). Cities all across the world have granny flats, duplexes, 4 story midrise in mixed use developments, etc. If it could be built and people could see that it poses little issue, things would probably mellow out a bit. But since it is mostly illegal to build those in most of the US, and NIMBYs seem opposed to any density, getting them built as things currently stand is a tall hill to climb. It would take a pretty substantial reimagining of the entire residential landscape in metro areas throughout the US.
2) I dislike the NIMBY position overall, but something that I do have to agree with them on is transportation. NYC is pretty bad at investing in infrastructure in the outer boroughs. The city requires density to make infrastructure improvements, but then lag on actually implementing them when a development is built. If there is a pattern of that happening, I can't blame people for not wanting new development. I do blame them for being obsessed with providing parking for every single housing development no matter how small, how decently the neighborhood is connected to transit, and how many people in the neighborhood actually drive. From experience, some NIMBY's literally can't conceive of people not getting around by car, which makes any planned development need to include a bunch of parking, increasing the impact to the neighborhood and increasing costs.
Something that kinda annoys me about the second argument though is that NIMBYs also tend to oppose any public transit infrastructure as well and don’t want to approve funding for it. Which makes no sense because if there’s no approval and funding then ofc the transit will stagnate.
The most unbelievable part of Star Trek is that Starfleet Academy could be built in and around San Francisco. Humankind will discover warp technology and faster-than-light travel before the NIMBYs of San Francisco are defeated.
Don't forget Star Trek Enterprised where Earth was attacked. Perhaps the death ray hit SF? Now thinking about it, I'm pretty sure the deathray hit SF..
That's why they built it on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge even though that meant grading some very rugged terrain, so they would be just outside the city limits.
@@Q3hero The death ray beam across Florida and into Venezuela (the scar was 4000 km long.
San Francisco got hit in Deep Space 9 (by the Breen) and in the JJ movies (the first by the drill, with no apparent actual effect on the city since it was in the ocean just outside the bay, and the second by KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN who knocked over a few buildings).
@@westrim The other side of the Golden Gate Bridge is NIMBY central. I can only imagine they managed to get it through by saying it would increase property values by being adjacent to it which is the only way to get anything built: by appealing to the NIMBYs greed.
Every NIMBY ever in Metro Vancouver: "I am not against affordable housing, I just don't want it in my neighbourhood". Also, thank you for stating that new housing construction almost never brings property values down. In Metro Vancouver, it can actually increase them. Once a street starts to densify, the value of every property goes up as its development potential increases.
Translation: "I don't want poor people near me."
I'll add my voice to the YIMBY crowd here. The mid-rise developments going in 2 blocks from me are bringing more services, stores, and are going to be bumping my property values up with them.
If my block ends up on some developers list I have no problems with taking the money on that deal.
@@TomPVideo that's the thing NIMBYS don't seem to understand "mid-rise", insisting only mega towers can be built when discussions of adding density to a neighbourhood. Building more mid-rises can solve or alleviate the housing crisis.
The average person is more concerned about the property tax bill than the land value after a certain point. Property tax bills and condo fees make existing housing unaffordable as they rise. The NIMBY arguments aren't always about blocking affordable housing. Blocking development because there is going to be little to no net gains in affordable housing anyways is an alternative argument. Chances are old basement suites in a detached house are going to be more affordable than new townhouses and low rise apartments. If there is nothing in it for existing residents of an area, then there is no incentive to support developers.
Our neighborhood has two cul-de-sacs dedicated to duplexes and townhomes. The neighbors there are great, its great that we can have a bit of density, and downtown is walkable for more people (about 1 mile on the bike path).
If Bondurant Iowa can do it anywhere can
get real, that's a small town, 2 cul-de-sacs and now you've solved the world's problems? .. dumb
Imagine getting dunked on by Iowa
@@coraltown1 and yet way better than most cities in North America.
The problem with NIMBY's is that their backyards aren't as big as the area they want to patrol. No one is putting a high rise on your property, but they want to whine the instant they can see anything they don't want on the horizon. Sorry Karen, but you can't choose to evict your neighbors because they have window plants that you think the colors clash.
These people are too greedy to be calling them "not in *my* backyard." They're more, "Don't let me ever see anything that isn't my perfect little fantasy where I get all the benefits all to myself and no downsides" or DLMESATIMPLFWIGATBATMANDs, if you will. Hmm, still long winded, perhaps greedy and controling prick is a better term?
I just call them greedy assholes
Good job and thank you. As a three-term planning commissioner in a Bay Area city I'm thankful that you are pulling the cover off of general NIMBYism. You accurately call it selfish. I've often considered it a case of the Haves against the Have Nots. With the Haves saying, "I've got mine now you go somewhere else and get yours." (Even if your job is here and your employer pays taxes here, for my benefit.) And I'm so tired of hearing people complain about "Traffic". I have, during a public meeting, asked these people, "When you're sitting in your car, complaining about the traffic, do you consider yourself part of the problem, or is it just everyone else around you?" The thing NIMBY's don't understand is, that development in your neighborhood can actually improve it. My neighborhood has been under constant construction for the 20 years I've lived here. We have nearly doubled the amount of housing. In my opinion, traffic is only marginally increased. But we have a larger, better park and a more vibrant, people (and dog) filled community. This neighborhood is much better than is was 20 years ago.
“And I’m so tired of people complaining about traffic.”
So true. If they don’t like traffic, then they should build public transit, that’s how cities grow. It’s a city. What do they expect? Mfers act like SF is supposed to be a town of 30,000, and not a major city in the most powerful country in the world. If noise and traffic is something they don’t want, then they shouldn’t be living in a fucking city.
@@chairmanofrussia problem is these NIMBYs are also blocking mass transit projects, not only in the US, but also globally.
One thing I would note re: home values in the United States is that because of our lack of safety nets and services, for anyone who isn't extremely rich, an owned home is your safety net. Get cancer and need to pay huge amounts of money for treatment? You have your equity. Lose your job? Equity. That's one reason why the 2008 crash was such a disaster in this country.
This isn't a reason to oppose building for many reasons, including that good development doesn't reduce properties values, but I think it is worth understanding one reason why in the US a potential loss of value it so terrifying.
One other thing that I think could overcome nimbism is, weirdly, stronger design restrictions. For far too long, cities have let developers build ugly multi-family, when if the developers just spend a few more dollars you would have something that fits within the neighborhood character. For example, in Mid-town Sacramento and Oak Park, you really have two classes of multifamily. You have older multifamly built prior to WWII that, in many cases, looks just as good, if not better than many of the single family houses while holding significantly more people. Honestly, some of my favorite buildings in midtown are these kind of craftsman style apartment buildings that actually just kind of look like mansions but are MFH*. Then you have the post-WWII apartments that tended to be built cheap and ugly. This continues with 5 over 1s with weird material choices. There are clear exceptions to this -- there have been a fair number of decent looking buildings built as well -- but generally, you know the NIMBYs see the ugly buildings and expect that. I think you'd see less opposition to re-zoning if you put design constraints, even as you take minimize size limits like setbacks and height restrictions.
*And these were not subdivided SFH homes. That's also super common and one of the best ways that our old victorian mansions got preserved. By dividing old mansions, they were able to make these buildings, which require pretty extreme maintenance, pencil out and prevented them from being torn down to build something more reasonable. I think midtown Sacramento would have far fewer of these buildings if the city in the 30-80s said "nah, that needs to stay SFH for the character of the neighborhood." You'd have seen more buildings torn down, and smaller, uglier houses built. So, in some ways, removing zoning restrictions could help preserve the character of neighborhoods.
Home ownership is vital for wealth building for most of the American middle class (it's effectively the primary way they build saving especially savings that can be accessed before retirement age). But at the same time, the most effective NIMBY actions tend to happen in the really wealthy areas where a house is only one part of broader investment portfolios. The good kind of NIMBYism that is about really preserving wealth built up over time was the kind that opposed highway building through cities. Which that opposition that really did preserve land value was mostly unsuccessful.
Given the lack of evidence for lower value from higher density (after all, if I own a 1/5th acre lot that is currently for 1 family but it's about to fit 4 families instead, the rent potential goes up a lot), I do think other explanations are more realistic for most modern NIMBY actions. And the idea of wanting the convenience of having nearby jobs/services while effectively isolating yourself from the poorer folks who make all those jobs/services possible seems really realistic given how housing segregation has increased in the US over the past few decades (despite advances made by the Civil Rights movement). This segregation in many areas has racial lines but is also a class based divide. Which all comes down to NIMBYism is strong in North America in general and the US in particular because of the outsized political power of the upper and upper middle classes and corresponding weaker power of middle and lower classes. In some ways the power of anti-density NIMBYs might actually be a better way to measure differences in political power between economic classes in a country than more traditional methods like amount of government social spending. For instance, the Dutch have relatively few problems building denser cities, have somewhat below average government spending in Western Europe, and a lower GINI coefficient than even Sweden or Denmark.
So in the end, I think we can see NIMBY-like actions that are about wealth preservation (like anti-highway actions or keeping out polluting industries from residential areas) but that in the US those tend to involve poorer areas that have a hard time resisting. NIMBYism of places like San Francisco has little to do with home values directly and as the video describes is more about wealthier Americans using their outsized political influence to ensure they have their cake and eat it too.
A HELOC is a poor a safety net. It's still basically a loan. It's not free money. The collateral might mean you can take that loan at a low interest, but I can do that without any collateral because my credit score is good and I'd rather not gamble on losing my home too. This is putting home value on a pedestal just like those banking on using it's value for retirement. All of this hinges on ignorance of investment. All your wealth on your home is lacking diversification. A properly managed investment portfolio would be better, but for a lot of retiring boomers shifting your wealth from your home to other securities is probably a bad idea at this point.
@Zaydan Naufal The idea that urban planning is somehow not political is mind blowing. How do we decide where to allocate funds and balance different needs without being political? That's a nonsense idea and we do best when we're honest that we're talking politics even if it doesn't align with typical left-right divides (an overly limited view of politics anyways).
That said, change in cities isn't immediate and starting with zoning changes first is a good method. That's not going to crash housing prices immediately and as stated before generally won't do decrease, but can often increase land prices for current owners. Furthermore the people who need support are primarily renters who are generally poorer than home owners even on an income, not just a wealth, basis. Lower housing prices can only help renters.
Greater construction will in the long term bring more people into denser areas and decrease price per unit of housing, but that isn't an overnight process and no one says it would be. The gradualness of change means we should start designing better cities now, and indeed the money freed up from greater efficiency of infrastructure and land use will open more funding options for safety nets. Good examples of this being done can be found with cities that set up community land trusts and rent-to-buy downpayment support.
"Ugliness" is heavily subjective and is a top excuse for greedy NIMBYs to block projects regardless of taste. At some point, before the neighborhood "character" was established some other neighborhood "character" before it had to be razed to the ground. Old trees needs to die to make way for new growth. These neighborhoods have zero historical significance other than they're old and someone is nostalgic for them.
@@sor3999 Is it an excuse? Sure. Is it effective? Yes. The reality is that if we continue to do what we're doing now, nothing will get built.
Further, HELOC may be a bad safety net, but they're better than what we have now. I'm not endorsing this as permanent public policy, but the absolute shaky ground anyone that isn't rich in America is a huge factor behind being terrified about change.
My town is a twin borough in England called Blackburn with Darwen, traditionally house/rent prices have been similar across the borough but over the last few years there has been a shift. Darwen prices are now 150% more for rents and about 30% more for comparable housing.
Reason is the council announced two different plans one in Blackburn and the Darwen East Project, the Blackburn project went off without a hitch and in the region of 4000 new homes have been created. Whereas in Darwen there have been numerous complaints, delays and additional assessments after 'green space' challenges, so only one site has been completed out of six with the site that was completed being by far the smallest at 80 new homes.
The frustrating part is some of the same people sharing the petitions around on Facebook are the same one going on the town noticeboards complaining about house prices.
Ayyy I come from Bolton, I feel you on the Facebook morons. Complaing about the state of the area, then complaining that they are trying too improve the area, it's a no win situation except some sort of time machine too drop them in the 1970s when they were children and didn't see the total industrial decline, but somehow they don't have the wisdom to realise it was awful back then as well.
Wow, that sounds like a really interesting place for a case study! Sucks for residents of Darwen though. :|
Before watching the video: I live in Houston, homelessness and lack of affordable housing coupled with awful wages is a problem. I'm on nextdoor and it's just a shame fest on homeless people and unhoused people. Yes, there will be drug use and violence, but thats a mental health and physical health crisis, they can't afford help. Yes, they stink and don't look good. They don't have access to cleaning supplies, food, and regular showers or a safe place to sleep and rest. Yes, its annoying to be asked for money. So I donate, I vote, and I work in social services. It's not a fix, but one person can't fix a systemic problem.
But they're homeless, Karen, they CAN'T go somewhere else and be better, YOU just don't wanna look at them. I've been rude to them too, but mostly because they harass and bother young women who are traveling alone. I'm not gonna be nice, dude, when you run up to me at night at the bus stop. Imma be loud and rude because that's how I stay alive. I make 31 a year before taxes. My rent is 1025 a month for a split home with terrible wiring, broken stairs, and a rude landlord near downtown (not like I can afford to be downtown) and the single family homes near me have no yard, terrible parking, and yet cost in the upper 300s. I take the bus 45 minutes to work. I've been a squatter, I've been evicted, I've slept in winter coats. I get it. A lot of people don't and the NIMBYs are the main ones. And gentrifiers are the worst.
They'll tear down and infest OTHER neighborhoods, but NEVER their own... it's classist, racist, and just awful for us millennials/gen zers who's family doesn't have generational wealth to buy and sell and renovate.
After watching the video: My opinion stands. NIMBYs as an overwhelming white, middle class, and powerful group target minorities while claiming to be the victims of "big government". Gross and yawn. They demonize the poor, brown, and foreign while talking about whitewashed history.
rip
Isn't most of the public housing in the Houston Area is in Greenspoint? It used to upcoming like Woodlands.
Homeless people are not going to be in the market to buy houses(actually, it's a de facto lease from the government). They are ones in the tenant market who have either are unable to pay, a sympathetic reason, or have such poor character than they have ran of out landlords to trick, this latter batch of homeless earned their lot of the suffering.
@@AnotherOne-iu3lp No, there are actually public housing for Houstonians all over town, even in places you least expect. Is it hard for people to stay there because you have to make a specific income and people stay there quite often? Yes.
Nimbys have usually made a substantial investment in their properties, so they want to protect it. Furthermore, the tax system in the US subsidizes home ownership.
I was once active in a well-know NJ environmental organization. Most of the volunteer activists were suburban Nimbys. They wanted our organization to fight development in their neighborhoods. God forbid that somebody wants to put up a convenience store in Cracker Barrel Corner. And no gas pipelines or power lines either!
I lived in Jersey City, a dense area, for a few years. The gentrifiers complain about the limited street parking and the traffic for their SUVs. Tell them to use Jersey City's splendid new light rail and the answer is "Huh?"
I use my home to live in it. I don't mind if prices fall, I have a place to live.
Speculators want to profit from their properties. It doesn't matter if they only have one home they live in, or a hundred they rent out, if they place property values over people having homes, they are just as selfish.
@@nikolatasev4948 I agree, but often gentrification happens in old, working class neighborhoods where the residents have rented for a long time, so when the property becomes more expensive the old owner sells it ( or their children sell it) and the new owners have taken on a mortgage to buy the property, they HAVE to raise the rent and kick out the renters who have lived there for decades.
😎Oh, the irony of people who move into suburban sprawl and then suddenly see the light and want to protect the environment. 🤩
🧐If they were serious about their commitment to the environment, they would live in the city instead of cutting new subdivisions out of the forests. 🥰
I think most of us are nimby's at least to some extent. No one likes it when your own comfort is threatened. The problem is when people can't see the greater good and don't budge on anything at all. THAT is selfish. I do think that governments, planners and developers could do better at empathising with residents though. What is needed is sensible development proposals, loosening of restrictions without removing ALL restrictions and respect for the character of the local area. If new developments aren't ridiculously tall and fit in nicely with the local architecture, they are much more likely to be accepted. And if you upgrade the transport infrastructure at the same time, it should help to get people on side.
I think that should straighten itself through time. All the city doesnt want new people? Ok, their choice, "oh but workers have to start living far away" if that's bad, then there will be less workers, and prices for workers would increase; if you're having to move to a new city away from that pole, it will eventually make sense to just ditch the pole altogether.
Biggest problem i see being big national projects (prisons, power plants; since not every city can have one, then gov should intervene)
This is how I feel about the subject. I'm all for more affordable housing being built, and I don't trust the kinds of developers I have in my local area to build that.
@@somebonehead how shady are those developers, if I may ask?
@@ianhomerpura8937 I don't know. But what I do know is that I live in one of the most desirable cities in the US, and I wouldn't put it past any housing developer to take full advantage of that. I would love to be wrong, though.
@@somebonehead developers will develop, whatever it takes. If they can't build multi-family housing, they'll build single-family housing as far as the horizon. I think it's preferable to have them develop things we want and need...
I'm suprised that the "YIMBY" movement wasn't talked about. YIMBY = Yes In My Back Yard.
Or PHIMBY, public housing in etc ..
It never occurred to me to think of NIMBYs as anything other than sociopaths.
that's how I view Texas in general
@@coraltown1 ok, troll.
My favorite NIMBY story is when my son was attending university. One of his professors who taught an environmental science track class, and was a vocal environmentalist, was fighting against the installation of wind turbines on the local ridge line. His reason? Well he had just built his dream home and ranch complex and the turbines were going to “RUIN” his view.
Classic NIMBY.
So to the foot of any wind turbine and you'll see why they aren't environmentally friendly.
A lot of the original opposition movement to wind turbines sprang out of old school conservation groups whose main goal was, understandably, the conservation of nature. But in the face of air pollution and climate change from fossil fuel air pollution, this is very much a "not seeing the forest for the trees" mindset.
They'd ruin the lives of birds too. You think solar panels don't kill birds? They set on fire from those things!
@@adamlytle2615 "climate change"
Fucking LOL
@@captainhook155 Solar *thermal* installations do that. Ordinary PV panels do not.
Lots of good points. A compromise I would like to see possible is higher density but they are all owner occupied. When people have an investment in the neighborhood they treat it better. I lived in a mobile home park that was all owner occupied and it was a very nice place. Before that I lived in a part of Los Angeles where all the townhomes were rentals for several blocks. This area was a dump. Lack of parking because people rented out rooms, dog poop all over the small greenspaces because people didn't care, graffitti, and general disarray like poorly maintained buildings and broken sidewalks because the landlords didn't care and the renters didn't take the initiative or bother with the fight to get better sidewalks, or have the landlord fix things. I wish their was a way to force owner occupation. Sure it does take away one financial ladder of being able to rent it out as you move up, but because of space limitations most places in big cities are already rentals and have been for generations. Many children and grandchildren of previous owners who live in other states still hold on to rentals and don't have a care or an interest in pride of ownership.
I've been wanting to show up at local meetings to try an make a difference, but I personally don't have much of a stomach for conflict and am legitimately terrified that I would just end up loosing my composure over all of the fallacious and self-serving reasoning that NIMBY's employ. I really admire anyone who goes to these meetings and is able to politely and gracefully make the case for why we need to correct these strict zoning laws and hopefully I can find the courage myself to do the same.
You can sit there and listen for a few times just to know what it's like to lose your composure about all the fallacious arguments NIMBYs use. :-P
When I’m a little older, what I want to do is maybe with a small group of people, start opening people in smaller communities to the idea first. Maybe if we can encourage more people to actually attend these meetings, those places will finally hear some dissenting opinions and become open to a change of law
Your councils and commissions will often accept written public comment at their meetings in addition to oral comment. Check your agendas and city website.
those are your words, @@klobiforpresident2254 ; some may be discouraged, but some will be motivated to bear the NIMBYs; by any chance could that be you? you seem to imply you are, if so, enjoy yourself in TH-cam!
No thank you. I’m in my 20’s I’ve worked since I was young to put myself through college and buy my home on a quarter acre of land. If anyone wants to put an apartment building next to me I would sue them.
I am so saddened by how lazy and entitled my generation has become. They want their student loans paid, home paid, etc. Just waiting for a handout. The worst ones try to bring up disabled and elderly people. I have my mother who is actually disabled and would never accept any sort of government assistance.
Before I watch: yes
After I watch: yes
Before I watch: NO!
Before I watch: TF is a NIMBY and why are they twats?
@@southtext3400 nimby alert!
Especially transplants
The issue with the arguments to protect neighborhoods from gentrification is that nothing can protect a neighborhood from gentrification. All attempts at it are futile and restricting housing supply only speeds it up since wealthy residents come in and just buy the existing housing stock. Rent control also doesn't work against this because it just further restricts the market. Really what we need to do is abolish the regulations, only preserve individual historic buildings instead of entire districts, and make it so that if a new building follows the rules, they have the unconditional right to build without citizens being able to step in and oppose it. If you meet zoning regulations, you shouldn't have to still ask the city to approve your project.
We have that in New York with as of right development. Our city government is also pretty pro-development in most cases. There is still a ton of pushback and delays on a lot of projects.
"Gentrification" was a great marketing move to convince the poor that limiting housing supply was good for them.
Opposing gentrification is just another form of NIMBYism, but for some reason seem as a better form by a bunch of people. Sure wouldn't want some rich people building high-rise condo building in the neighborhood and increasing the tax-base. They would probably also bring all those annoying new businesses and restaurants with them. Bah, I would rather the neighborhood remain poor.
If you (rightly) find 20th century white flight and redlining problematic, you can't then turn around and rage against the reversal of that phenomenon. I mean, yes, ideally we would share the wealth, but first, good luck with that, and second, the next best thing is making sure that the wealthy have some skin in the game when it comes to urban affairs.
@@sluggyyarvin this trick is deployed pretty cynically sometimes, as with a group that opposed the south Phoenix light rail expansion (repeatedly approved by actual voters), ostensibly representing working class shop owners, but there was the distinct scent of mysterious funding/astroturfing.
every time i drive on the George washington bridge and sit in traffic for an hour, i curse the NIMBYs who prevented the Rooseelt Bridge from being built. so few people made traffic miserable for millions of people
I own a single family home in a larger city. I’m in a neighborhood full of homes 100+ years old, mine included. My first bachelors is in history and they’re attempting to implement our neighborhood as a protected historic district, clearly in an attempt to prevent development in parts of our neighborhood that are clearly no longer historic…
We purchased our home not even a year ago and it’s already gone up $150,000 and these people who have undoubtedly seen a 500% rise in their home value since they purchased them wont shut up about preserving their home value.
It’s so damn selfish. I like where I am but I remember where I used to be and how hard it was to get out of and I truly can’t stand tue selfishness of these people.
Great content. Translates to what I see with our situation here in Sydney Australia perfectly too. "Traffic" "overshadowing" "preserve local character" "power to the locals" "greedy developers"... guess NIMBYs are the same wherever you go.
They blame developers as "selfish" every day, without realising they're the exact same themselves.
Thanks for making this video. As someone who interacts with NIMBYs almost daily, it’s refreshing to better understand the other side’s “why”, even if I disagree with it.
Ps - would love to see a future video on SB-9 implementation in California (see: Woodside CA)
please think of the mountain lions!!!!!
@@ericBorja520 I hope the mountain lions enjoy their meal. NIMBY with a side of grass
In the Bay Area, the Calmod project, bringing European quality regional rail to the Bay Area and preparing the San Francisco Peninsula for high speed rail, was almost block because of Tech NIMBYS
City Beautiful, you should really try to start a movement to encourage people to cycle, get out of cars, and reduce euclidien zoning! We will stand with you!
That would be Not Just Bikes. They have similar goals, but different topics of their videos.
@@nikolatasev4948 Not Just Bikes is a fantastic channel, love the rate at which his channel’s growing too!
They should cooperate on this movement.
I've never heard the phrase "Euclidian zoning" could you explain it to me? Is it another way of saying single-use zoning?
@@jeffbenton6183 yea it’s basically an area entirely dedicated to single family homes. Terrible to navigate and get around in on foot.
Ok but why is it so hard to just build building that are architecturally similar to other buildings instead of a concrete high rise
I’m a nimby in my area because they keep putting in expensive apartment buildings in my low income area and my property taxes have doubled since I moved in.
what you going through is called gentrification, its because mostly white homeowners have shot down any affordable apartment near them so they go where low income or people of color lives unfortunately
Outstanding video. Does well to explain all perspectives without being super fiery like a lot of new urbanism channels are lol
Agreed, though in many ways hearing the opposing perspective in a level-headed, non-disparaging way is just as, if not more, infuriating.
Personally, I think it's the sentiment that there are just a few who REALLY are in charge, and that the most powerful don't need to raise their voices to be heard. And the people who really need to be heard have to raise their voices, only to be villainized as entitled intruders.
Recently listened into my city council’s hearing regarding a multi family project and, no joke, a guy in a new development across the street spoke out against the new project. Myopic and selfish. I’m glad you didn’t mince words.
Anti gentrification advocates also impede a lot of housing development, especially in the Bay Area, and voice support against high density housing developments that aren’t below market rate.
In one way, I understand it from the angle that ethnic/minority enclaves don't want to become San Fran's "pressure release valve" for housing, especially if that housing is the luxury type that would be unaffordable for any of that community's residents. Of course, there's affordable midrise development plans that get shot down by anti-gentrification activists too.
I remember reading a story about a man who owned a laundromat in one of SF's minority neighborhoods, and he wanted to build a 7 story building on the land. However, activists came and made it a living hell for him to actually get the plans approved, even going as far as making BS cases about "shadows" and such just to kill it. Rich NIMBYs and Anti-Gentrification NIMBYs are two sides of the same coin.
Because this sort of stuff gets into the laws and rules of SF and California-at-large, it makes it near impossible for any developments to actually get built, especially small ones where the builders don't have the connections and resources to traverse the legal sludge. It costs so much to deal with all the BS, regulations, and opposition. No wonder developers want to get the largest bang for their buck by building luxury units because that's what they need to make a profit in this disfunctional system.
which is dumb because high-density walkable neighborhoods are also the poster child of poor communities that are usually made by one or two ethnic minorities. You can, in fact, fight gentrification AND promote better affordable housing...... unfortunately for America, that would mean one level of government stopping the free market
Great insight into this issue. Would be great to hear places where change is working (and where it’s not).
Oh that's easy. There's lots of places, just not so much in the USA.
I grew up in Spain, which was a poor country 50 years ago. But it built a lot of affordable housing, mostly high-density flats in inner cities. Even in small countryside towns of fewer than 25,000 inhabitants, most people live in flats near the center. As a result, they have more and better schools to choose from, their kids get more opportunities, earn more and can spend more on the next generation. Spain is not a poor country anymore. Density, health care, education and public transit are the four aces here.
It is actually working in Cleveland of all places. The “back to the city” movement here has led to almost all of the previously vacant, historic buildings, being turned into high density housing legitimately within the city center. The Terminal Tower, May Company, Euclid Grand, The 9, 75 Public Square, Statler Arms, 515 Euclid, 668 Euclid, The Erieview Tower, The Lumen, and not to mention the turning a previous brownfield that was an empty battery factory into hundreds of apartments, townhouses, single family homes, and businesses mixed in. It is probably easier for a city like Cleveland to do things like this (not to mention our city being a true pioneer in “urban farming”) because we were left for dead long ago. But along with things like the Euclid Corridor project, and the countless other land re-use cases to create new, high density housing, we are absolutely a model for other cities in the U.S.. Now, we still have a ton of problems to deal with, but the creation of better transit access and creative land re-use has really helped.
@@ixlnxs Thanks for contributing. Can you tell me more about this history? Which politicians participated in this push for more affordable housing? What were their motivations? Was it a struggle to convince other political factions to work with them?
@@jeffbenton6183 Well, the far right dictator Franco died in 1975, and democracy brought first a more moderate government under Adolfo Suárez and then socialists in 1982-1996. That led to a lot of leftist policies. Plus, decentralisation gave newly created regional governments an incentive to do better than the region next door. Joining the EU in 1986 also tore down a lot of walls.
I was born in 1988 so a lot happened before I was there.
The irony is this is exactly why hiring ANYONE to work at any company there is so obscenely expensive. It's VERY hard to trick people to work for companies there for anything other than obscenely high salaries.
Exactly. It's kinda sad moving somewhere knowing you'll never be able to make it your home because the current residents put so much effort into stopping anyone new from coming to their neighborhood and getting a home. Pretty ironic given that people in SF consider themselves extremely open minded but simultaneously pass laws that hate newcomers with more vitriol than almost any other place in the US... California, the land of two faces.
You're so upbeat and optimistic! I commend you. I'd be really struggling to speak so positively about this topic; makes me so mad.
In my city of Melbourne, Australia, we're planning a huge outer rail loop, connecting the spokes of our existing rail system. The stabling yard is proposed to be build on landfill, but the public opposition is immense.
If I was angry all the time I'd burn out on this profession!
I sort of see that rail loop as a political stunt carefully routed through mostly marginal electorates and doomed to fail, just like its predecessor, Melbourne's Outer Circle Railway of the 1880s. For half the money they could build the Rowville AND Doncaster lines which would make a much bigger difference.
@Dave Sisson I think the 1880s incarnation failed because it was almost immediately superseded by a more direct line. One of the biggest barriers to more widespread use of PT now is a single focus on getting to the CBD, not from suburb to suburb.
Either way, you build a new line, someone is going to complain about it to the detriment of everyone else. If the yards were built in Doncaster or Rowville, someone there would be whingeing about it.
Surely a better political stunt would be one realised in less than 30 years? Although you could be right: 30 years is long enough for disgruntled voters to forget/die.😔
Buses/bus infrastructure would be an even better investment, but there is far too much of a stigma attached to those. Current bus system is rubbish, it would take way too long for people to notice if they improved it.
@@CityBeautiful I don't even work in your profession but I already feel like I've burned out just thinking about this stuff.
This video is fantastic. Thanks for everything you do.
Appreciate the thoughtful video and trying to empathize with a group whose ideas you don’t align with.
High density housing can potentially make single family dwellings nearby even more valuable through scarcity not in the overall number of dwellings, but in the overall proportion of single family dwellings available per capita.
If you replace a SFH with a 6 unit apartment than you have reduced the demand of people looking for housing by 6. 6 groups of people who would have otherwise been adding to the demand for single family houses now live in an apartment. This reduces the price of all housing.
@@Lucasjamespetersen I think what Rick is saying is that some people will be specifically looking for SFHs, so densifying an area takes away from the stock of SFHs in an area and may then drive the price up. It’s still good to density though - that price raise will only happen if there is a strong market for single family homes specifically, and apartment/multiplex units will still be more affordabke
@@horizonhunter_7296 Oh understand what Rick is saying. I just disagree.
Imagine there are 6 households looking to move into a neighborhood full of SFHs but there are only 2 properties for sale. These 6 households are going to massively bid up the price of these 2 houses. Say instead we redeveloped 1 of the 2 houses into a 6 unit apartment. Now that there is enough housing for everyone the price of the remaining SFH will not be bid up as high.
@@Lucasjamespetersen yes, but the people who were involved in the bidding war won’t move into a multiplex. So the price of the one remaining SFH will go up. So it is a win for those who want to live in a multiplex AND those who want the value of their SFH to go up
@@horizonhunter_7296 People may prefer to live in a detached house than a plex but people certainly prefer a plex to nothing. When people are priced out of detached houses they will move into plexes.
When you're rich, equality is a threat. That's why NIMBYs are opposed to policies reducing inequality.
As someone who just spent a semester living in SF and seeing the situation there, it's so hard to feel any sympathy for people who live there year round and still want to protect single-family zoning. Many areas have minimal access to Muni without a 30 minute+ Walk, and alot of these streets with homes on both sides are so narrow when cars are parked on both curbs that I had to clench my teeth and my buttcheeks just to drop some friends off. The only major development that I know if is Stonestown around SF State which I think will provide a lot of nice housing and create solid community, but it'll be such a small development compared to the needs of the city right now that it too will be dragged into $3k+ a month rent which is very sad to see.
I bet these very people are complaining about the Uber drivers coming to THEIR city to work and hogging up the streets. Yet when they want to go out for entertainment and feeding, they expect the Uber to show up at their door step within 5 minutes smfh
theres a economical answer against all nimby fears:
when density increases, the worth of your backyard takes the skyrocket. so if u cant have it in your backyard, you can take a better and bigger one somewhere else. those wo stand against progression will die out.
@City Beautiful Thank you for the video on this topic. I am a finance economist turn designer. I tend to critique solutions by how well it addresses the root cause using economic principles vs heavy-handed tactics. NIMBY Syndrome is quite an emotionally charged topic. I agree with you that NIMBY's have it good and they want to protect that. While on the other hand there is a significant cost to that behavior on society at large. This brings me to question the effectiveness of government and governance. What is the cost differential of providing police, fire, and other city/county/municipal services to the single-family homes vs if it was a high-density housing area? What is the financial/economic cost on public servants who serve the city/county/municipal area? As an economist, my response is get the forensic experts in there and compile the data and then start charging those (non-protected, ie. karens) communities the actual cost of their actions. For the communities using the mantra of local control, give it to them by cutting off all state funding. Again as an economist, I believe in using economic tools to nudge people towards the desired outcome...aka nudge theory. So in the end I would call this a failure of imagination on the part of elected officials to govern. This is just me musing aloud.
To go way more sweeping: When you have a large financial stake in an area you are way more conservative. Your house is your biggest financial asset and liability and any change in it's value can be ruinous. I don't think they're being selfish like people who buy low income housing an turn it in to Air B&B's are, they are just trying to prevent their largest asset from losing value while they are still paying it off. And that's reasonable and can be dealt with. HOWEVER: The problem arises in what NIMBYs think will reduce their property values and why it is happening. They think EVERYTHING will destroy their values, from apartments on streets miles away or once a year outdoor music festivals. They think it's happening because developers or the city are just being greedy, when in reality it's happening because the land has become so valuable that larger developments are more profitable, while governments have realized that we just cant afford any more low density car and free way oriented housing (without dramatic tax increases). Honestly I think we could see some sort of "reversal" where a city or state passes some kind of pretty generous higher density and transit plans and the NIMBYs flee in droves, thinking that the new projects will destroy their values and they need to get out while the getting is good. This happened a fair amount when black families started moving in to white areas, people assumed their property values would fall so they acted like it and just sold off, often for a large loss. Anyway, yes I know this is a Wendy's drive through, I'll have the bacon double and fries
Here you go, Sir. 🤜🛍️🍔🍟🛍️🤛
Always love your approach to difficult issues. They're leavened with nuance and optimism and leave me encouraged, not discouraged. Keep up the great work!
The urban areas of cities should de-annex the suburban parts and let the residents find ways to provide their own services/infrastructure maintenance. Let them keep their backyards, but force them to actually pay for it.
Thank you so much for making this. I have wrestled with my own understanding and opinions on NIMBY’s. I will soon work in municipal policy around housing and this is so helpful to know.
NIMBY means not in my backyard. But no one is building anything in your backyard, they are building on land you do not own.
The 2009 film Up has done a lot to reinforce the NIMBY mindset.
why don't historical districts just allow higher density but require historical architecture?
I'm (almost) a lifelong suburbanite, and I love the peace and quiet of a detached, medium density community. But I am all for densifying my area if it helps houseless people get homes, in Canada, no one should be houseless in Winter. I also love seeing an ugly, dead strip mall get torn down and turned into a much nicer community.
I think the state of California needs to take away local control when it comes to housing and zoning.
We need SB9 on steroids.
not just the state of California. It needs to be everywhere in the world.
There is a reason why there are different levels of government.
And local levels are just very bad to determine zoning for at least two reasons:
1) corruption
When zoning is regulated locally, it increases corruption because it will be cheaper to bribe local officials compared to higher officials. The local officials might also have a personal stake about the projects they need to approve/deny and will not be as independent.
2) required services
Some services like power plants, prisons, garbage disposal etc are needed. But nobody wants them close. If zoning is regulated locally it will become much more difficult to get anything like these build. And if they get build, they will be less likely put in the best position.
@@ericBorja520 SB 9 already seems to be putting a dent on NIMBY power since a bay area suburb tried to skirt the new law by claiming to be a mountain lion sanctuary but faced backlash and actually had to peddle back. But we need more laws that will strip power away from Nimbys
@@Robbedem A lot of times your local city council will be made up of landlords who stand to personally profit with rising home prices and rising rents.
Pretty much, or at least threaten to do so if localities try and pull nonsense like declaring their city a mountain lion habitat.
I'm yet to see a couple blocks of density failing to raise the property value of single homes within short walking distance of it within a decade. Density brings services, and services bring further value. Except in cases where active segregation plays a part, of course, but those can go to hell, which should be warm and cozy year round.
There's a thought experiment I like to think of: which would be worth more, a mansion on a few acres of land in Malibu, or the exact same property in the middle of down town Los Angeles?
I mean let's be honest, "property value" is just a dogwhistle for keeping the poors and coloreds out. Otherwise they'd be taking measures that actively promote their community as a nucleus around which other communities begin forming, because otherwise you're not actually taking advantage of demand to keep the value up naturally, you're using artificial scarcity to keep values up because the people you don't feel comfortable living next to can't afford it, creating the illusion of supply shortage and a seller's market. It's neighborhood covenants by another name.
It’s not from services it’s from other developers smelling blood in the water and making ridiculous offers to buy houses.
@@henrymccoy2306 they're only able to do that because supply is so artificially restricted
I was thinking of writing an article about this before I watched your video, Dave. You bring up a lot of good points and make some very good arguments on why NIMBYs are selfish and why people with money and power fight so hard to maintain the status quo. This was a discussion I had had with my partner over a couple of years ago, especially pertaining to the San Francisco example. I lived in Sacramento for many years, but every time I went to San Francisco, I noticed how very little high-density residential development there was and it always baffled me. Thanks for this video.
I think my nana would be a nimby. She complained that a fast food truck at the corner of her street would decrease her houses property value. A fast food truck!
i can’t see why that would decrease property values. it’s not a permanent fixture, it’s a truck. and if anything it would bring more business to the area?
I'm sure this isn't actually unique, but Toronto's NIMBY's seem to be a special breed. They effectively stopped all highway development in the 70s (with the help of Jane Jacobs!), they seem to support the region's greenbelt (restricting sprawl), there's a group of them protesting a new transit line, and yet they still fight density as well, with zero appreciation that they have to compromise on *something*.
I was doing a bit of research for my planning degree on opposition too wind turbines and an interesting idea posited by one of the academic journal article by Maarten Wolsink is that the term NIMBY is actually an incorrect word and that NIMBY's don't truly exist, they are a myth. This was because when interviewing and surveying people identified as fitting Nimby criteria they found that it wasn't not in my back yard, for a vast majority it was not in any one's yard they were actually just anti wind turbines (for example) in this case just anti high density housing. I also then researched urban redevelopment which is the area I'm most interested in and again NIMBY's didn't exist, you could say the NIAMBY did the "Not In Anyone's Back Yard".
I can see the flip side of that, though. They start with a NIMBY position of not wanting wind turbines near them. And they use motivated reasoning to justify it with a broad anti-wind turbine stance.
So rather than an anti-wind stance causing their NIMBY position, their NIMBY position may cause their anti-wind stance.
@@cadekachelmeier7251 yaaa g
@@cadekachelmeier7251 well one of the question in particular was would you like wind turbines built elsewhere and they said "No", rather than the only question being are you against wind turbines in general. So I would say it's the other way round their anti-wind turbine stance, informed what would be considered in the eyes of many NIMBY qualities.
I think most people imagine highrises when they think of high-density housing, and no one wants an ugly brick building full of strangers where there was previously space that people could enjoy. I bet redefining density to include moderate density (duplexes/ multi-building lots, basically anything that is smaller than apartments) would be more acceptable. As well why does San Fransisco's homeless or any other cities homeless have to have homes in their city? Couldn't a housing program in the dying small towns across the U.S alleviate homelessness in the cities as well as providing an economic boost/ future to these small places that have infrastructure in place already to support a greater population than they have.
I'm of the opinion that cities are pretty ugly and overcrowded, and that small town life is ultimately better for human mental and maybe physical health, so maybe I'm wrong.
@@Alex-cw3rz I can see that with regards to wind turbines because of the perception that it’s an inconsistent energy source, so even if it’s placed in other locations, they might believe that it would still affect their energy grid and cause blackouts.
However, for high density housing, I would argue there is definitely a strong NIMBY cohort. Most people would agree there is a housing supply shortage, which is most evident in the amount of homeless people living in urban centers. Most people would also agree that high density affordable housing would be a key part of the solution. However, finding a suitable location to zone for such type of housing has been extremely difficult because almost no one wants it built in their “backyard”
Up-zoning to midrise will increase YOUR land value. If you insist on low density, use the increase in equity to move "inland" and you will have plenty of profit.
It’s entirely selfish. People should be allowed to do whatever they want with their property as long as it doesn’t have a significant impact on the physical function of a neighbors property. There should be no zoning boards or input on property. It either meets the simple rules and gets automat approval for not impacting neighboring land, or it doesn’t. Japan does this well.
I really care about preservation of old buildings, but I think that communities shouldn't be allowed to regulate based on units per land area. I don't mind communities imposing height restrictions or maximum parking restrictions, to prevent towering apartment blocks and tons of parked cars, or enforcing some amount of style restrictions, if a neighborhood has a consistent architectural style, but there are so many great 2, 4, or even more unit houses that just look like a normal large house. Also, let people build mixed use, every community should have a corner shop, and every corner shop should have an apartment on top.
Great job fairly characterizing nimbys. Many channels don’t offer the same nuance but i think its much more effective to understand the opposition than the alternative.
I'm in the Austin area. Homelessness sharply on the rise. Actual miles of empty land. People still sounding the war drums anytime any kind of high density or affordable housing unit is proposed. They would never even see these people.
I remember that video by Vice News about the NIMBYs there. It's really bad that they are trying to stop those housing projects just because they don't want Section 8 housing near them. 🙃
I live in San Francisco, and I also hate nimby. But cause I don’t own land, my opinion means nothing.
52% of houses are occupied by renters in SF. You're in the majority.
@@ericBorja520 Minorities can and do oppress majorities.
@@LucidFL i'm saying to recognize your power and don't let the property owners try to drown out your voice
How about passing a bill that requires developers to construct their buildings in the character of the neighbourhood? That'll solve at least 50% of the NIMBY arguments and one that I actually agree with.
They will find some other excuse if you address their complaints because at their core it's all about inducing artificial scarcity to increase the value of their property. Notice they don't complain about traffic and parking if a 3000+ person office tower is built. They will welcome it as the workers to-be will go into bidding wars for nearby residential units.
One more thing you forgot to mention about NIMBY’s in response to the housing crisis. They believe that lack of housing affordability is due to poor financial decisions on part of prospective buyers. (as opposed to many systematic barriers that make housing expensive).
As someone who is moving to San Francisco to rent, it's easy to see why NIMBYs are so up in arms. There was a graph in the video where home prices have skyrocketed in the area to $2 million. You can't tell me you wouldn't be mad if someone tried to take half a million dollars from you by building affordable housing nearby. And often what does get built is super expensive apartments anyway because affordable housing isn't profitable. San Francisco really emptied out during the pandemic, lots of people moved away from the city and rent prices changed very marginally, so it's not really about supply.
There needs to be a way to insure that housing / real estate is not being used as an investment. It shouldn't lose value over time, but it's not currently sustainable as many people from Gen Z and millenials just accept the fact they'll never own a home just to pay rent that's more than the mortgage living off barely anything leftover. It's fucked up and something institutional needs to change so we don't have NIMBYs anymore because almost no American wants to sacrifice for the greater good of society for nothing in return.
There is no way to stop real estate investing from being a thing. It is a direct consequence of a specific area having an consistently increasing quality of life. If a place is becoming better, it by definition is going to be worth more as time passes. That means it can be used as a form of investment.
In Cities Skylines, I’ve sometimes allowed residences to be adjacent to industries, and it works out as long as you have a hospital nearby. The hospital business becomes booming.
The "high property values" argument always strikes me as absolutely fucking insane. The only reasons you would want your house (in reality: your land, since buildings generally depreciate over time) to increase in value are if you wanted to sell it or put it down as collateral on a loan. What on earth do people accomplish by "keeping property values up" and then continuing to live there? Oh, right. They want *other* properties nearby to be expensive to prevent poor people from living there.
Yep hell I have my own place but I don't want my value too go up too much cause that means B.S. property tax going up because of inflated fake value that I know my house isn't worth
IMO people who work service jobs in NIMBY areas should make them live with their decisions and transfer to another store, leaving the jobs unable to be staffed. If you don't want any affordable housing in your neighborhood for service workers than you don't need any services that they provide.
I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, and I don't think I'd ever want to own land here. NIMBYs here aren't just against single-family housing; they seem to be against any sort of development, and I can't understand the point in owning property if you're not allowed to do something with it.
The housing market in SF is fascinating. Rental prices are down 20% from pre-pandemic levels, and home values are up 20-30%. Mind you, the home value to rent price ratio was already in favor of renting here in SF before the pandemic. It's really nutty.
As a resident of a European country, it baffles me how some homeowner associations can have a decisive call on what city zoning should look like. Isn't this a municipal council decision?
yup it seems completely idiotic
It is. But in the US cities can be overruled by a lawsuit.
I think like everything else there's a balance. On the one hand, you should do what you can to respect people's quality of life. On the other hand, things have to go somewhere! Balancing the utility of the needed thing with the dignity of the people who will face consequences by being near it is what it's all about.
I think Façade laws are good, like where I live here in Melbourne, Australia, if San Francisco is concerned with how the city's feel would change, forcing developers to keep the old facades of older buildings that are replaced with larger blocks might help.
Last week, the local newspaper ran a story about a group of "environmentalists" that were opposing a plan to built a housing development.
All of these environmentalists we're at the retirement age. They don't give a hoot about the land, they just want to keep their property value high.
This is sad, because this town's current home cost and rental costs are through the roof. No young family can afford to live here. We need more multi family homes, but the wealthy want to keep their wealth. Sadly, the journalist that write the piece didn't push back regarding their real intentions.
The school I teach at is old (1920s). We are trying to update the building. However, the neighborhood was deemed a historical area. Therefore, we can't do anything. A local retired resident wrote an oped in the paper about how a school remodel will hurt the neighborhood. However, the entire piece was filled with errors and downright lies. But, again, the wealthy older demographic won and the school building will stay shotty.
Something that I would add to historic preservation overreach is that historic can have many definitions including "Has historical significance", "Has history" and "Has importance to me". The last one in particular fuels a lot of NIMBYism.
Most suburbs are pretty much interchangeable and there is vastly more suburban area than urban area in the US, but it's also the case that these suburbs feel like an important part of history to the people who live in them. Our built environment is one of our most active ties to our own history, and seeing that change can feel like a loss. A random Wendy's being rebuilt into townhomes might never attract anyone looking for a historic site, but it might be where me and my friends from highschool who I no longer get to see used to hang out.
The problem of course being that we can't encase every neighbourhood in unchanging amber. Historic preservation is supposed to be about preserving public goods, not about keeping your neighbourhood the way it was like when you were a kid, teen, or young adult.
Nice video. There is an imbalance that is not addressed in this video. There is a reason so many people want to move to places like San Francisco and the housing market is so tight. Housing supply is only one side of the equation. If job growth outpaces residential growth no matter how many housing units are added, there will be a shortage.
Yeah, so to avoid that, increase residential growth. There is finite demand for housing, but the potential for infinite supply. NYC houses more people than the Bay Area/Silicon valley despite being a quarter the size of Santa Clara county. There are also cities that are much denser than NYC
@@joshuacerniglia2501 You are not wrong more housing supply will help, but only if it decreases demand for housing. Your NYC example precisely makes my point. Lots more density in NYC and still not an affordable place to live with a housing shortage that has no end in sight.
@@carsten5197 More supply can decrease price even if it increase demand. Supply just needs to grow faster than demand. The Bay Area proper (so not including Silicon Valley) could house more people than live in the US if it had the population density of Manhattan. Again demand is finite, supply is infinite.
In Vancouver I think everyone (not even by choice) is becoming NIMBY, because the amount of unreasonable high density buildings being built. It's frustrating because none of it is affordable, It is all 15 stories plus and being built by private investors while single family homes are about 500K above the national average, nobody I know from high school can afford more than an old single or shared apartment or they just left the city. I guess you could say I'm NIMBY but I really want high density houses, just units that are 5 stories but it's just getting worse. All around the city apartments from the 70s that are 4 or 5 stories are being torn down and replaced with 10+ if not 20 or 30 story ivory towers. lately it seems like a lot of us Vancouverites are really angry at the greed of the city not being considerate of people working service jobs who could never afford these stupid glass boxes with rooftop gardens and such. Unfortunately there are people who can afford them moving in often from outside the country leaving residents who are 3rd or 4th generation to need to move out.
Maybe basic necessities like housing shouldn't be left up to the free market 🤔
Nothing should be left to the free market 😂
Zoning prevents housing from existing in a free market. Don't judge free markets by an unfree playing field.
@@memcore1312 especially essentials to life
It’s amazing how quickly a person’s politics shift the minute they become a homeowner