Economist Tyler Cowen suggests the YIMBY movement would be more successful if it championed aesthetic beauty alongside housing density. A key opposition point is the fear that new developments will be uglier than what they replace. Promising prettier neighborhoods could be the key to overcoming local resistance.
The most powerful voting bloc—homeowners—is financially incentivized to oppose new housing development that would lower prices. This political reality means politicians cannot address housing affordability without alienating their core voters, leading to policy stagnation and an intractable crisis.
While advocating for relaxed zoning, Mayor Lurie acknowledges it is not a silver bullet for housing affordability. He states that high interest rates, labor, and material costs are the primary blockers to new construction, meaning policy changes won't trigger immediate development or rent drops.
The difference in home price trends between US regions is not about weather or jobs, but housing supply. States in the South and West that permit widespread new construction are seeing prices fall, while "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) states in the Northeast and Midwest face shortages and rising prices.
The common belief that people oppose new housing to protect property values is likely wrong. A more rational explanation is that residents are protecting their existing quality of life from negative externalities like noise and traffic. Pro-housing arguments should therefore focus on improving neighborhoods, not shaming residents.
Local city governments are often captured by "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) homeowners who block essential development. A practical solution is to elevate planning and zoning authority to the state level. States, motivated by tax revenues and broader growth, are inherently more development-friendly.
Housing scarcity is a bottom-up cycle where homeowners' financial incentive is to protect their property value (NIMBYism). They then vote for politicians who enact restrictive building policies, turning personal financial interests into systemic regulatory bottlenecks.
A mix of old and new buildings is crucial for a vibrant neighborhood. Because new construction is expensive, it drives up rents, excluding smaller businesses and lower-income residents. Older buildings provide the affordable spaces necessary to foster a diverse economic and social ecosystem.
Politicians at all levels actively restrict housing supply through zoning and other policies. This is not incompetence, but a deliberate strategy to protect and inflate property values, which satisfies the large and reliable homeowner voting bloc, ensuring re-election at the expense of renters and future buyers.
Legally mandated parking spaces for every new building add tens of thousands of dollars to construction costs and raise rents. These laws also make it impossible to reuse older, historic buildings that can't accommodate parking, fundamentally forcing modern architecture to be designed around cars.
The most effective solution to the housing crisis is to radically increase supply by removing restrictive zoning and permitting laws. Government interventions like subsidies often create market-distorting bubbles, whereas a free market allows builders to meet demand and naturally stabilize prices.