YIMBYism Goes Big With The Abundance Movement

America doesn't need more stuff. It needs a North Star that helps us reach our goals.

Source: simonandschuster.com

Can the movement we’ve come to know as the YIMBY (Yes-In-My-Back-Yard) movement level up to address our nation’s inability to get things done? There are a growing number of people who believe so. But just as I have reservations about YIMBYism, I’m concerned about how implementing its principles on a national scale could work.

I haven’t yet read the new book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. I realize I owe it to the authors, and to my readers, honestly, to read the book in full and offer my thoughts. But I just don’t have the time to do that now, and I want to make a point even as the book seems to be spinning itself into a movement.

Here’s what I know – or believe to know – about the book. Klein and Thompson argue that for the last 50 years or so, America’s most liberal and progressive places have made it nearly impossible to think big and take on the daunting challenges before us. Whether it’s affordable housing, or infrastructure, or addressing climate change, the regulatory structure we’ve established since the 1970’s has so many checks and balances that the structure opens projects up to detailed scrutiny, substantially increases project costs, and ultimately disincentivizes builders to build. America hasn’t been able to get what it needs today because the regulatory environment from an earlier era expressly prevents it.

Again, I haven’t read the book, but I have viewed Klein’s video on its theme, posted in the New York Times. You can see that here:

As an example, Klein and Thompson explore the failed implementation of California’s proposed high-speed rail project, first supported by Governor Jerry Brown in 1982. The high-speed rail line would connect the cities on the California coast, from San Diego to San Francisco, and still northward to Sacramento, and do so in the same time as a flight. As Klein explains in the video, high-speed rail is nothing new; it’s been in much of Europe and in Japan for at least 60 years.

Forty-three years later, a much smaller version of high-speed rail is being constructed, in an area that serves none of the people originally targeted to benefit from it (the San Diego, LA and San Francisco metros), at a super-inflated cost. Why? In a word, process. The releasing of bids for construction. Contract negotiations. Environmental reviews. Lengthy public review and comment periods. Union considerations. Property acquisition for rail right-of-way.

All of this takes time, adds to the cost, and ultimately diminishes the scale of the project. According to Klein, the $33 billion cost estimate set for the San Diego-to-Sacramento high-speed rail line in 2008 is already at $110 billion now, at least. Because of process delays, the line has been reduced to a segment between Bakersfield and Merced, and the earliest that project could be completed would be somewhere between 2030-2033.

Without question, that is more than enough to make people lose faith in government at every level.

What Klein and Thompson propose is an intriguing alternative to the barrier-filled process. He proposes changes to government that pave the way for delivering the things that people want. That’s going to look different in every instance that government is involved – backing out of the way in some things, like pulling back on stringent local zoning standards that limit the amount of housing being built, or taking the lead in other things, like investment in emerging technologies.

A good Politico article published late last month discusses the roots of the movement – the decade-long YIMBY movement that started in California and has since spread nationally. Meant to take on local governments that were constraining development with restrictive regulations at the local level, YIMBYs took to state politics to compel local governments to allow more, and thus build more, housing locally. YIMBYs have had successes – perhaps most famously, in 2018 Minneapolis became the first major U.S. city to eliminate single-family dwelling zoning, thereby expanding the number of housing units that could be built. Other actions, like allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as-of-right (think granny flats, pool houses, and more) are being found increasingly in cities nationwide. It’s having an impact.

I don’t disagree with Klein and Thompson at all; it has become incredibly difficult to get things done in America. I’m concerned, however, where such a pendulum shift would take us.

My concern about this emerging movement is twofold. If you’ve read this newsletter before, you probably know I’ve had my reservations with the YIMBY movement. The simplest way to describe my reservations might be that YIMBYism is a “good for thee, but not for me” sort of movement in my mind, in that I still see huge swaths of Rust Belt metro areas that are undervalued relative to coastal metros and suffer from a lack of demand rather than real demand intensity. Sure, there are spots within the Midwest’s biggest metros that are as expensive as coastal cities, with the same kinds of demand pressures. But Midwest metros aren’t as uniformly expensive as coastal metros. They’re usually offset by less expensive (and yes, less desirable) communities and neighborhoods that have borne the brunt of deindustrialization over the decades. That’s a problem for many Rust Belt metros – and one without a YIMBY solution.

My second concern about YIMBYism? I’ve written lots over the years about how relaxed zoning regulations could have a negative impact on low-demand metros like those in the Rust Belt. In fact, it’s already happened. The rapid expansion of post-WWII suburbia pulled wealth out of cities and into the suburbs, and many of those cities had nothing to replace the lost wealth. YIMBYism implemented nationwide will most certainly help more Bay Area residents find affordable housing across the region. However, in metro Milwaukee, you might find that neighborhoods that are already affluent receive an increase in housing options and affordability, while disinvested neighborhoods continue on the same path.

I could see the same happening with a nationwide “Abundance” movement. Streamlined processes could help get a high-speed rail network developed affordably, and quickly. But would it get it developed equitably?

I propose another point of view. America is a nation that functions best when it’s pursuing the next frontier. When we are settling the nation’s interior, establishing a nationwide rail network, becoming a global manufacturing colossus, winning the space race, or leading the world in creating new technologies, we see America at its best. Occasionally, America reaches a point when it becomes evident that its aspirational pursuits didn’t reach all aspects of American society. The abundance/scarcity dynamic discussed by Klein and Thompson in Abundance happens in America when people fear that there’s no “next frontier”. America is reacting to the uncertainty of the time. We just don’t know what the next frontier will be.

Relaxing our restrictions to create abundance won’t cut it. We need to identify a new frontier.

Whatever political party decides it will be the party that says “America will be the best *blank* nation in the world, and people see economic opportunity in it, the nation will join in. If the majority of Americans agree, our nation will align its government, its institutions, its businesses, with its aspirational goals.

America’s next frontier, however, has to be more expansive, more inclusive, than the last few it’s taken on. I’d say since the advent of the space race in the late 1950’s, our frontiers have been oriented toward technology and STEM-related fields. Our tech-oriented pursuit left out millions of people who had no desire to pursue those fields, but who still wanted to pursue a solid and fruitful quality of life.

There are many viable options for what the next frontier of opportunity could be. Climate action, renewable energy production and national infrastructure come to mind. That’s not for me to determine. Of course, in their book Klein and Thompson may have identified the kind of path to get us to a politics of abundance.

Removing barriers to get things done sounds reasonable. But it must come with a foundational purpose for doing so to work.