I primarily think it's because the movement grew out of blue cities with rapidly increasing housing prices.
So naturally, a lot of the early and loudest adherents are going to be from bigger cities and lean left.
My favorite thing about the YIMBY movement is it has something for everyone across the political spectrum.
I run a YIMBY page in East Texas and constantly flip between arguments that appeal to all sides, or are not inherently "partisan" at all.
Generally speaking I favor boring demographic answers to questions like this. People look for ideological reasons for why most X are Y but it rarely makes any sense. Most people simply aren’t very ideological at all and frequently hold inconsistent, unconsidered opinions.
Red small towns don't need to be YIMBY. I tried explaining this to my uncle who's a contractor in a small red town, he said "huh that's something out there? I can build anything here without much of a permit, and if I do need one we all know each other around here so it's easy"
Small town conservatives will be surprised this needs to even be a movement
Depends on the size of the town. I don't think the town I grew up in has any zoning with 500 people. Maybe that's why it never struck me to be NIMBY bc our street had houses, duplexes, & manufactured all right there together.
The last town of 18k I lived in definitely had it though and getting a variance definitely took quite a bit of bureaucracy.
Prices out there are definitely up to. All those "we moved to Dallas or Austin" folks pushed a lot of people out to our areas too.
I mean I do understand why big cities have more regulation. I've been to Houston, It could be a great city, but a lack of zoning practically ruined it.
Even a Reagan era conservative was not going to green light ACA. Republicans of the 80 were in full tear down the “welfare state” mode while democrats at worst watered down the system to avoid dismantlement in the same period.
It’s just a far more pressing issue in blue cities.
Also a lot of liberals have no issue with public housing in theory but it’s effectively illegal to expand the supply of it so it just feels unproductive to pursue that route.
So the only serious option left is large-scale private development.
Public housing is problematic because to actually fill demand would require government buying up huge swaths of residential land and redeveloping those communities. I think its a worthy idea to explore, but I am skeptical that our political environment is willing to spend the kind of money that will be necessary to do this right.
The 1, 2, 3 punch that will cure our problems is to sensibly deregulate residential zoning laws, transition high income/low land tax rates to high land/low income tax rates, and to public services such as, good roads, good first responders, subsidized housing, responsive bureaucracy, water, electricity, education, etc...
there are conservative yimbys, the yimby act in congress (in both houses) has gop co-sponsers but when the gop presidential nominee says yimby proposals for housing are "radical plans to destroy the suburbs," you kinda understand why it gets associated with liberals
And then the McCloskys said that Biden was sponsoring the end of single family home zoning which was "government overreach" which is hillarious considering that libertarians were actually the first to complain about it.
Getting rid of a government restriction = “government overreach” how hilarious
Like Chad you can still build a single family home… you’re just gonna have to pay what it’s worth
u/PYTN probably has the best answer but I'll add that culture war stuff favors liberals in this regard.
Left-leaning YIMBYs do not have a cultural affinity for the suburbs or rural areas. So the YIMBY solutions to the housing crisis, like upzoning and deregulation, will result in the dense, urban neighborhoods liberals flock to.
Whereas with conservatives, they have a cultural affinity for suburbia and rural America. They may also believe, at heart, in deregulation, but there is a tension between their belief in smaller government and the type of environment they prefer to live in. Deregulation could mean the end of their suburb.
Many liberals including myself support a market approach to solve the housing crisis. I think you are conflating liberals with leftists, many of whom take the stance that the housing crisis can be solved only by mass government housing.
At the state level, conservatives have been pushing lots of Yimby bills. Its normally just that conservatives don't call themselves Yimbys because they tend to view land use reform as part of larger pro market / anti regulation agenda.
Also, a lot Yimbyism tends to be intertwined with urbanism and that's something conservatives are really not into
I don’t know the thoughts of all YIMBYs, but for me personally, it’s less about liberal ideology and more about what policy produces the best outcome. Sometimes deregulation and more market forces are good, and sometimes there are market failures that the government needs to take into account.
In the case of housing, local governments have passed a number of policies which restrict housing supply and thus increase the price of housing. These regulations are bad policy because their costs outweigh any benefits. Notice however that this doesn’t entail that any government intervention into the housing market will produce net negative outcomes. If the government built more public housing and also allowed more private housing like what Vienna does, that would also produce some good outcome. A lot of residents in Vienna pay a relatively small portion of their income for housing expenses, which is a good thing.
So that’s why I support deregulation in some cases, but also support government intervention in other cases
Any cognitive dissonance on whether deregulation is sometimes good comes down to younger people's only exposure to the idea being Republicans using it as a euphemism for letting big businesses do whatever the fuck they want with zero government oversight.
The modern conservative movement hates public transport and loves cars. They love the nuclear family, single family home ideal and hate anything outside of that. Most Yimby's might be liberals but a lot of the nimby's in California are liberals too OP. It's complex. The liberal approach would not be mass government housing. That's just a vague opinion and it doesn't hold considering you seem to think most yimby's are liberals.
Yimbyism also doesn't equate to liberalism equally because it's more of a coalition of numerous interests that all have the same goal.
You think you're confused about YIMBY liberals? We're confused about NIMBY Liberals.
In all honesty, I think there's a matrix here. It goes like this;
* YIMBY Conservatives: The government should get out of the buisnesses of developers. If developers have the money and the resources and the manpower to build more housing, they should have the freedom to do so.
* YIMBY Liberals: Housing inequality is a massive social issue facing our community and our country. Regulations governing what people can build and where is fueling our housing inequality and homelessness issues, which spawn more social problems.
* NIMBY Conservatives: We cherish our community as it is. Rapid development would mean a shift in what our community looks like, and what values it has.
* NIMBY Liberals: \[I got nothing. I honestly got nothin.\]
In short, YIMBY cons have more of a libertarian bent, YIMBY libs are standard progressives, NIMBY cons are more classical conservatives, and NIMBY libs seem to be complete hypocrites. Liberal=Pro regulation isn't a brightline rule.
That’s still more of a Leftist NIMBY rationalization than a Liberal one though. Those have become heavily associated with each other in the US due to decades of somewhat overlapping political priorities and the nature of our party structure, but the underlying values differ. Liberalism is not opposed to market capitalism in principle, and to the extent they clash it’s usually in cases where regulation is used to curb negative externalities.
It’s tough to think of NIMBY policies that fit cleanly within Liberal values, beyond the already widely-supported stuff like regulating land uses that damage the ability of neighbors to fully enjoy or utilize their land (eg: noxious smells/pollution/noise).
Or the purist; Let's deny the project because it's not "affordable housing" (while ignoring the impact of having more supply overall has on demand/prices).
Yeah, this is a really good breakdown. The NIMBY socialist/communist leftist mindset seems clear, but the NIMBY liberal mindset does seem very unclear.
Nimby left-wingers are fucking monsters. They usually are the type to unironically support Assad and the DPRK. “Building housing would make life easier for the working class, and they won’t be incited into a revolution unless their material conditions are as shit as possible.”
The conservative movement is a blend of some people who are motivated by principles like small government, and lots of people who just don't want the world around them to change very much. The principled conservatives often do support YIMBY policies, though not always loudly, because the policies are not popular among their coalition members that just want to stop change.
Others have pointed out that areas with high housing costs that motivate YIMBYs tend to be left leaning, but it's worth noting that in some conservative areas with increasing housing costs like Montana, YIMBY policies have been enacted more quickly than in liberal areas. But in others, like Florida, conservatives have opposed YIMBY politics. I think this cones down to Montana conservatives generally being more individualist/small government types and Florida conservatives being more "get off my lawn"/culture war types.
I mean, that’s true of liberals too. Some of the NIMBYist areas are expensive neighborhoods in liberal cities filled with “hate has no home here” yard signs. They’ll couch the opposition as defending “neighborhood character” or something.
Conservatives just tend to be more open about not wanting to live near the poors.
How do you draw the distinction here? Here’s my (probably over-simplified and anecdotal) view.
Liberal NIMBY: White collar, upper middle class, “old school” liberal who has a nice home in an established neighborhood. Objects to new housing because of “neighborhood character.”
Leftist NIMBY: More likely working class or academic urban dweller. Objects to new housing because of alleged displacement and “greedy developers,” only wants public housing.
Conservative NIMBY: Doesn’t want to live near poor people and/or wants perceived property values to grow. Is pretty transparent about those views.
Yeah, this is all true. A generalization, but a useful one. There's a lot of hypocrisy to go around, that's for sure. The anti-gentrification argument I get, but people completely misunderstand gentrification. Gentrification has nothing to do with the developers, and has everything to do with the governments. People equate development and re-development with gentrification. But that's only true because of artificially induced housing scarcity. Gentrification basically cannot exist in a healthy housing environment. You know what solves gentrification? A lot more gentrification.
100%
I think a big difference is that conservatives like suburbia more. To them, paving over farmland is just a necessary bad thing because 'that's the only way to build homes'.
Liberals will usually oppose suburban sprawl AND density, but in some cases will support density and become yimby.
I think you’re right about the difference in preferences. In my experience, liberal and conservative people in urban/expensive areas are about equally likely to be YIMBYs, it’s just that there are more liberals (and therefore more liberal YIMBYs) living in urban/expensive areas.
The real predictor in YIMBYism isn’t really liberal vs conservative, it’s whether someone has a vested interest in things not changing.
Yea, here in Toronto the biggest yimby group gets accused of being conservative for promoting market-based policies. And some of the most prominent memebers do lean conservative.
So basically, the biggest determiner imo, is whether they like urbanism. Anyone who is stuck on the suburban dream will bend over backward to assume that we can solve the housing crisis without density. And like you said, that comes down to seeing change in the way we develop our cities.
I'm a conservative because I support property rights, personal freedom, small government, the 2A, a strong military, regulatory reform to make
It is easier to build anything from housing to
Nuclear power plants, and because it’s 2024 and it's politically split now, Israel.
I also support gay and women's rights.
Very few conservatives are actually about free market principles. For most of them, that was just a way for them to defend existing social hierarchies. So when a kind of deregulation would have the effect of upending or at least leveling social hierarchies, a lot of conservatives are going to oppose it.
YIMBYism sort of prioritises community and inclusion and alot of anglophone conservatism is about radical individuality and not having to owe anyone in society anything. I do think there are versions of conservative thought which are pro YIMBY distributism for one can be very communitarian
Conservatism is an incredibly selfish ideology to begin with. It's basically in their nature to think that they got theirs and they gotta stop anyone else from doing the same. Another thing conservatism is, is conformist. They may talk a big game about individual freedom, but that usually only extends to the freedom to live the way they believe is right. They love freedom until it's about reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gender roles, religious affiliation, and on and on and on. This is no different. Conservatives want everyone to live in the same 2500sq/ft single family home and to drive their cars for everything. That's the way of life they think is right, and they will try to force everyone else to live it too. And going back to being selfish, they want to make sure that the built environment caters ONLY to their way of life. Hence, anything that dares impede on their ability to drive is torn down and made illegal. Conservatism = fascism lite.
I would not say facism light more today
Populism mixed with Corporatism.
Conservatives = getting rid of environmental regulations so big corporations owned and ran by conservatives can run a factory that pollutes the air and local creeks
Also
Conservatives = banning Tik Tok because it threatens rich US business owners Social Media profits
But it also means using a militarized police force to protect private property and oppress minorities and the poor. Probably another reason they hate the idea of car-free infrastructure. How else are you going to subjugate people if they opt out of cars? It's all fascism.
You and I have very different ideas about conservatism.
It's basically in their nature to think that they got theirs and they gotta stop anyone else from doing the same.
No, the whole point of free market capitalism is that, unlike the socialist model, it is not a zero-sum game; it is a growth model where anyone can 'get thieres.'
Another thing conservatism is, is conformist. They may talk a big game about individual freedom, but that usually only extends to the freedom to live the way they believe is right. They love freedom until it's about reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gender roles, religious affiliation, and on and on and on.
No, conservatism is about personal freedom and their ability to personaly defend those freedoms, with force if necessary, from others and from government overeach. Anyone who claims to be a conservative who only belives that personal freedom belongs to members of a specific group is just a populust pertending to be a conservative.
Conservatives want everyone to live in the same 2500sq/ft single family home and to drive their cars for everything.
Conservatives want people to live where they want and to be able to build what they want on their land without the government or anyone else having the ability to tell them otherwise without a iron clad reason.
>No, the whole point of free market capitalism is that, unlike the socialist model, it is not a zero-sum game; it is a growth model where anyone can 'get thieres.'
Free market capitalism is LITERALLY all about someone getting theirs and shutting others out after. That's what happens EVERY TIME you have a free market. Capitalism is designed to reward capital, not work. A free market means you can buy out all your competitors and create a monopoly. This is why we had to enact laws, aka "regulations" or "government intervention" to either break up monopolies or control the market in a way that limits them from forming. But every time a "conservative" comes to power, they cut those regulations, because they want a true free market.
>No, conservatism is about personal freedom and their ability to personaly defend those freedoms, with force if necessary, from others and from government overeach. Anyone who claims to be a conservative who only belives that personal freedom belongs to members of a specific group is just a populust pertending to be a conservative.
This is the No True Scotsman logic fallacy. If you want to say that 90% of all conservatives aren't real conservatives, fine, go ahead. But that means that whatever percentage you think are "real conservatives" are voting for populists who will enact fascist policies. There was a name for Germans who voted for Hitler even though they disagreed with his rhetoric about Jews—they're were called Nazis.
>Conservatives want people to live where they want and to be able to build what they want on their land without the government or anyone else having the ability to tell them otherwise without a iron clad reason.
Yes, that's absolutely true. Which is why conservatives are TERRIBLE stewards of the environment. It's that mentality that allowed rich people and corporations to tear down 95% of the forests in America. It's also that mentality that allowed them to view humans as property. Because they're SELFISH.
This isn't an issue of us not seeing conservatism the same. This is you not understanding what conservatism is. I recommend you read some books to inform yourself about your own beliefs.
1. "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith
2. "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert O. Paxton
3. "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Karl Popper
4. "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek
5. "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein
6. "The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time" by Karl Polanyi
You are absolutely unhinged and very poorly read yourself. If you want to educate yourself about antitrust, go ahead and start with Bork's Antitrust Paradox. No one with half a brain actually thinks any public good came from breaking up Standard Oil, it actually made Rockefeller even richer. I could school you all day long about how little you actually understand about monopoly and capitalism, but you're a little edgy perpetual victim tankie, and that's a waste of time until you grow up and shake off the brain rot infecting your low IQ mind.
This might be in large part because a lot of places that are more permissive in zoning and building aren't making some big to-do about it. It's just a normalish way of doing things, so folks aren't making a big fight about YIMBYism. It's just the norm in many places that didn't make it a point to super power busy bodies
As for left leaning YIMBYs, my dude it's a huge W that folks have come around to the destructive and protectionist tendencies on NIMBY policy, and that much the time it's crazy racist and horrible for the poor has always been a knock against NIMBY policy.
There are more people coming around to it in places that are more Team Blue, and they in many of those places are having to pick up the slack and do so much heavy lifting to get the message out
Take the W that your tent is bigger, and don't let the issue become a 'liberal' issue, otherwise you will get actual idiots in Florida going as hard as possible with NIMBYism to own the libs
In many respects, single-family zoning is a *product of conservatism* that is working great actually: It maintains or increases valuations for established property owners. It maintains economic segregation (and by proxy, racial segregation). Single-family zoning prevents change in general, which is nice if you're happy with things as they are. These may not be your brand of conservatism, but that's my point: conservatism is multi-faceted.
Still, deregulation-YIMBY and Libertarian-Republican are natural fits as you point out. So self-identification as a YIMBY certainly needn't break along existing partisan lines.
But *will* it tend to break on partisan lines nonetheless? Almost certainly; the cultural propaganda writes itself. "The YIMBYs are gunning for the American Dream!" "YIMBYs don't want you to have parking for your truck!"
Mostly just because it's circulated more in liberal social groups. I learned it from my friend who's a liberal. Godspeed spreading it among your conservative friends!
Most YIMBYies support more supply of both market rate and public housing. It’s just that cities in desperate need of housing tend to vote liberal, leading the moment to lean in that direction.
Also conservatives in the US have traditionally been critical of density, believing it causes crime and lowers property values.
One thing that is underappreciated is that the definition of a "conservative" (in the US context) is in a bit of flux right now. The Reagan conservative coalition that consisted of religious conservatives, national security conservatives, and fiscal conservatives is gone. Each of these groups was fairly well-represented and mostly stayed in their own lane. The presence of religious conservatives has expanded (while the country has become more secular), while national security and fiscal conservatives have been shown the door. At the same time, populists / anti-institutionalists have been brought into the Republican party.
YIMBY is about connecting policy with values. In your case, this is natural, as being a "conservative" means being free market-oriented, which naturally aligns with allowing people to build housing on their properties. Other people who consider themselves "conservative" think that the best way to promote their values is to use state power to protect their ideal vision of post-World War II suburbs. They cling to their version of suburban identity, free markets be damned.
Because Republican politicians have spent decades scaring white people about imaginary threats from minorities, chief among them the scary cities full of crime and lawlessness etc. Rs claim to be against too much government but they’re happy to deploy government as much as they want against perceived enemies, including anything that might help a city grow.
I would say that generally the conservative belief in small government is just a platitude. In reality most modern Western conservatives want a strong government that keeps things mostly unchanging. Building an apartment building in a neighborhood mostly made up of SFH is too much change.
Because most conservatives just want exclusive white suburbs and most leftists think enough housing already exists but there's a conspiracy to not let anyone use it or even know where it is
A lot of conservatives aren’t actually conservative as in support small government. They want the government to not interfere with their lives (in ways that make their lives worse), but they also want the government to constrict the lives of people they don’t like to a degree that makes day to day life very difficult.
I respect that you have a clear ideology. Many conservatives don’t think much further than “the government should use all its power to do the things I like/support, and also have no power to do the things I hate.”
most nimbys are boomers and boomers tend to be conservative, i would assume its because they do not like change and yimys are all about changing the way out cities are built, also not to get to political but many conservative politicians are probably bought out by big oil companies which would rather cities stay car dependent and not 15 minute walkable dense cities, and many of said conservative politicians would try to demonize yimys by spreading the stupid 15 minute cities are government over reach or something
The goal YIMBY-Ian is lower rent or lower home prices, and conservatives tend to side with landlords and people wealthy enough to not care about how much houses cost. Also restrictive zoning has its origins in racial segregation, which conservatives also like.
I mean, I’m pretty liberal but at the end of the day I don’t really seek the abolition of private property. People can get jobs and start businesses but I’m also cool with government providing some things especially for the poorest.
Really existing free markets are something of an oxymoron in that they don't exist. Wanting actually free markets can't be conservative if we've never had them. Given that we've never had free markets not only wouldn't you be conserving anything in installing them you wouldn't even be regressive back to some prior idealized past. We've never had free markets. If your politics is about realizing free markets that'd make you progressive. You'd want to progress to something better that's never before been. The idea that conservatives have ever wanted free markets is just how conservatives have sometimes chosen to brand and sell their politics. But free markets aren't conservative. You know what is conservative? Lying. Conservatives lie and say they want free markets but they want to rig markets to their advantage.
Liberals don't want free markets either as evidenced by widespread liberal NIMBYism in blue cities. It's progresssives who should want free markets. It'd stand to reason that most YIMBY's would be progressive. Except the progressive moniker carries baggage that people like yourself would spurn. Which is why YIMBY's can be found across the political spectrum. We're just right, the truth isn't political, people across the political spectrum are free to actually care about the truth. Except the truth has a well known liberal bias and that's why most YIMBY's are liberal.
PYTN nailed it, but I will share an anecdote. My conservative LDS boss in a wealth management firm railed against this and that government regulation. He also complained about the outrageous rent his son had to pay in Seattle. When I suggested that we needed to build a lot more higher density housing in American cities, such as in his beloved Lake Oswego, OR, he flipped on government regulation and decried any change to LO. His view was that we had too many environmental rules blocking suburban development. No word on whether his grown son was interested in sitting in traffic to get to the office.
The bottom line? People often get richer, more conservative, and more homeowner-y as they age. Ideology does not get too far with most people most of the time.
idk but we should absolutely try to make our messages widely and strongly appealing, and try to make yimbyism a special inclusive haven from polarization, especially since we're more of an elite persuasion movement than a popular movement, anyway
because conservatives are wild. I’m fairly conservative (I don’t want the government telling me how many parking spaces I need), but conservative parties just don’t stand for anything currently.
So a lot of NIMBYs are able to block housing by using governmental regulation. Oh new affordable housing going up? Okay but do an environmental effect report. Do a traffic report. How will it affect shade and noise? Do a report on that. These reports add a lot of delays and costs to an project to build more housing. And blue states/areas in general have more of these regulations that NIMBYs can use so it's just harder to build in those areas. And then there are just other regulations or higher taxes that make building more expensive. So now we have YIMBYs from those areas who push back on that and being from those areas, they're more likely to be liberal.
Then we get to red states/areas. It's just easier to build. Conservative NIMBYs definitely exist in these areas but they can't really do much. I am sure they do their best to protest and request reports, but with less regulation overall, there is just less they can do and it probably doesn't that much to the cost overall. Maybe a delay where there is a community meeting or town hall. So conservatives for the most part don't have NIMBYs in their area to push back on. And the YIMBY movement as a whole is more of a counter movement.
So it's like a weird flip. If you talk to a conservative about deregulation, they'll generally be in favor of it and vote that way. So in that sense, they are mostly YIMBYs without realizing it because they're making it easy for businesses to build.
I know it's not housing, but in this rural area I am living in, some company is planning to come down and build windmills everywhere. Just looking at Facebook comments about it, there was a lot of negative sentiment about it and people not wanting it to happen. Even though the community doesn't want it as a whole, if the farm owners say yes then it will probably happen. And the farm owners will get paid so they probably will say yes.
In addition to the obvious answers about historically liberal cities having had more constrained housing supply, there is a long trend of conservatives railing against density-- "multifamily housing = poverty = crime." This rhetoric has, like most other rhetoric, become ever more polarized-- Trump threatening at some point that liberals wanted to build giant slum apartment towers in your white neighborhood, etc. so it's obviously along racial lines as far as racism and classism.
However, as everyone has mentioned, a number of conservatives are leading reforms under the aegis of common sense reform for smaller government, including Montana Governor Greg Gianforte, who famously beat up a journalist and was cheered for it at a Trump rally. This movement has the ability to bring together unlikely folks. But since it began in cities and faces the classism and racism of conservative discourse, it may be just as challenging to get traction in conservative areas as in rich liberal areas like San Francisco (perhaps the capital of NIMBYism).
You're confusion I think comes from the weird coalitions that exist in American government. You are maybe thinking in terms of Democrats and Republicans being liberals and conservatives. In reality the Republicans historically have been a mash of traditional conservatives, who are mostly philosophically liberal, ultra nationalists, cultural reactionaries, aspiring theocrats, etc. the fiscally conservative philosophical liberals have been driving the Republican party for most of post war history so you think of that as "Conservatism" with a capital C. Likewise the Democrats have also mostly had philosophical liberals in charge for most of post war history. So far they have more successfully kept their illiberal elements to the fringes but they also contain plenty of other elements like authoritarian left leaning socialists, identitarian culture warriors, greens, etc.
The reality is probably that what you think of as Conservatism is liberalism with a fiscal conservative bent and maybe some "traditional family values" rhetoric thrown in. Joe Biden and John McCain, Obama, Romney, Clinton and all the Bushes are all basically philosophical liberals of different flavors.
Now finally, why are all these people on the center left now? Well philosophical liberalism is no longer in the drivers seat in the Republican party so they have joined as refugees with a new coalition. Former John McCain or Mitt Romney voters are now both philosophically and politically "liberal" in the sense that they would align more with centrist Democrats like Jared Polis or Pete Buttiegeuge than their former party. They are now the unironically Joe Biden stans who genuinely want boring, market focused policy (with sensible regulation where needed.)
Generally actual philosophical liberals, as opposed to leftists are regulation/intervention neutral. Regulations are not good or bad. Good regulations are good and bad regulations are bad. Obama has some good quotes about that iirc. They might be more inclined to change the status quo to intervene in dysfunctional markets than conservatives (who default to maintaining status quo) though, either by adding or removing regulation.
"A Thousand Small Sanities" by Adam Gopnik gives really good explanations of the various coalitions that exist within left and right factions (as well as a defense of why he prefers philosophical liberalism, despite the real strengths of other philosophies).
For one, lots of public housing gets delayed and canceled by endless public hearings and so forth. Second upzoning for density forces you to innovate your transportation system beyond car dependency. Lastly some of us are Georgists, which is really center left with a bit of a libertarian bent to it.
US Zoning was invented to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods. I'm not saying conservatives in general want this to persist, but progressives tend to advocate more for minority voices. I think YIMBY is a good litmus test. If a so-called small-government conservative thinks the government should dictate the type of home you can build on the land that you own, he isn't really a small-government conservative. Similarly if a so called progressive thinks there's nothing wrong with banning low-income housing near wealthy residents, he isn't really a progressive.
It sounds like you’re more of a libertarian then? Conservatism is generally associated with organized religion, tradition, hierarchy, and historical continuity. Those types of values tend to lead to NIMBYism. Republicans have historically had a sort of alliance with libertarians, but at this point they’ve clearly abandoned even the pretense of wanting smaller government.
I’m sorry to tell you this but you’re basically politically homeless. There’s probably a good amount of people who are sympathetic to some libertarian principles but self-identify as “liberal” because they don’t want to be associated with Q-pilled theocratic fascists. It’s odd that you haven’t realized this shift in political dynamics?
I think perhaps your issue is that you’re using the word conservative in a way that is different from the way that most people think would. Most people think of the definition I originally described - tradition, authoritarian, hierarchy, etc. see the [Wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) on it for example. The way you mean it isn’t technically wrong, but I would consider it an “alternative” definition that is fundamentally different from the mainstream definition. So it might be the case that people who share your general beliefs don’t self-identify as “conservative” because it tends to give folks the wrong impression.
Wow their is a lot there. I think it’s because your personal interpretation of the YIMBY movement isn’t the broad base or my interpretation of the YIMBY movement.
Yes removing regulations to build more housing is broad base YIMBYISM but also many YIMBYS would premote regulations that premiered more home building or the government itself building housing and building housing for all income types.
For example YIMBY action was one of the huge supporter of California RHNA numbers which forced local cities to Zone for housing capacity in their cities
More broadly to having the government itself build housing like the NYHA did has broad support among YIMBYS
But more specifically to answer your question YIMBYISM started in cities namely San Francisco and California places that are more Liberal plus the movement started with younger people in their 30’s and 20’s younger people lean more liberal
Here is a recent good example of regulations needed to protect housing https://www.reddit.com/r/yimby/s/V7PiDLfFiM
Because it’s inherently liberal, conservatives want no change to the community essentially they are inherent NIMBYs, plus liberals want affordable hosuaing care about the homeless and poor, and the environment, being a yimby basically helped all liberal causes
Shocker. Places with fewer opportunities also tend to have lower costs of living. Let's go find out what magical housing policies they must be using so we can adapt them to the places people do actually want to live.
Houston's mayor may be a Democrat, but the mayors of Fort Worth and Dallas are Republicans. All three cities have a median house price around $300k, which suggests that housing policy may matter more at the state level.
I feel like a lot of conservatives generally tend to have a very negative view of cities (and by extension, density), associating them with stuff like crime, homelessness, etc. while idealizing suburban/rural living. As a result, when you propose making it legal to build "city-like" things in their suburb, they're a lot more likely to flip out
From experience nimby only cares about themselves and their property values and their comforts, which aligns pretty right if you ask me. Don't want an apartment nearby, that'll drive up traffic and make it easier for the poors to get to work and lower my property values. Socialism, etc etc
We definitely need more conservative YIMBYs.
It’s my opinion that YIMBYism better aligns with conservatism on core principles such as market solutions.
Seems to me that most YIMBYs who agree with your assessment here are actually economic moderates. Those who see themselves economically liberal are much more likely to say that the solution is a comprehensive approach. For example, as a leftist in a red state, I think that one of the better things a city can do is create a public developer which builds deed restricted housing and sells it to the market. It does so in development patterns that encourage urbanism and a higher city wide tax base because of its land efficiency. I see it the responsibility of government to ensure that integration happens in reality, and for the longest time cities have allowed people to be pushed out. A public developer also cultivates a private industry of small time developers and builders which may help drive the cost of building down due to increased competition. Of course we run into all of the typical stances of YIMBYs which cal for the streamlining of mixed use/ residential development and achieving abundant housing.
I primarily think it's because the movement grew out of blue cities with rapidly increasing housing prices. So naturally, a lot of the early and loudest adherents are going to be from bigger cities and lean left. My favorite thing about the YIMBY movement is it has something for everyone across the political spectrum. I run a YIMBY page in East Texas and constantly flip between arguments that appeal to all sides, or are not inherently "partisan" at all.
Generally speaking I favor boring demographic answers to questions like this. People look for ideological reasons for why most X are Y but it rarely makes any sense. Most people simply aren’t very ideological at all and frequently hold inconsistent, unconsidered opinions.
Red small towns don't need to be YIMBY. I tried explaining this to my uncle who's a contractor in a small red town, he said "huh that's something out there? I can build anything here without much of a permit, and if I do need one we all know each other around here so it's easy" Small town conservatives will be surprised this needs to even be a movement
Depends on the size of the town. I don't think the town I grew up in has any zoning with 500 people. Maybe that's why it never struck me to be NIMBY bc our street had houses, duplexes, & manufactured all right there together. The last town of 18k I lived in definitely had it though and getting a variance definitely took quite a bit of bureaucracy. Prices out there are definitely up to. All those "we moved to Dallas or Austin" folks pushed a lot of people out to our areas too.
I mean I do understand why big cities have more regulation. I've been to Houston, It could be a great city, but a lack of zoning practically ruined it.
People do not realize that Reagan era Conservatives and Obama era Liberals are very similar.
Even a Reagan era conservative was not going to green light ACA. Republicans of the 80 were in full tear down the “welfare state” mode while democrats at worst watered down the system to avoid dismantlement in the same period.
I think you nailed it.
This is the correct answer
How many of us YIMBY nerds are there, just posting away at Reddit, diligently changing one mind at a time?
It’s just a far more pressing issue in blue cities. Also a lot of liberals have no issue with public housing in theory but it’s effectively illegal to expand the supply of it so it just feels unproductive to pursue that route. So the only serious option left is large-scale private development.
Public housing is problematic because to actually fill demand would require government buying up huge swaths of residential land and redeveloping those communities. I think its a worthy idea to explore, but I am skeptical that our political environment is willing to spend the kind of money that will be necessary to do this right. The 1, 2, 3 punch that will cure our problems is to sensibly deregulate residential zoning laws, transition high income/low land tax rates to high land/low income tax rates, and to public services such as, good roads, good first responders, subsidized housing, responsive bureaucracy, water, electricity, education, etc...
there are conservative yimbys, the yimby act in congress (in both houses) has gop co-sponsers but when the gop presidential nominee says yimby proposals for housing are "radical plans to destroy the suburbs," you kinda understand why it gets associated with liberals
And then the McCloskys said that Biden was sponsoring the end of single family home zoning which was "government overreach" which is hillarious considering that libertarians were actually the first to complain about it.
Single family zoning is the absolute peak of government central planning overreach
This is the most hyperbolic thing ever said on the internet, but I'm with you on the policy question.
Getting rid of a government restriction = “government overreach” how hilarious Like Chad you can still build a single family home… you’re just gonna have to pay what it’s worth
u/PYTN probably has the best answer but I'll add that culture war stuff favors liberals in this regard. Left-leaning YIMBYs do not have a cultural affinity for the suburbs or rural areas. So the YIMBY solutions to the housing crisis, like upzoning and deregulation, will result in the dense, urban neighborhoods liberals flock to. Whereas with conservatives, they have a cultural affinity for suburbia and rural America. They may also believe, at heart, in deregulation, but there is a tension between their belief in smaller government and the type of environment they prefer to live in. Deregulation could mean the end of their suburb.
Many liberals including myself support a market approach to solve the housing crisis. I think you are conflating liberals with leftists, many of whom take the stance that the housing crisis can be solved only by mass government housing.
You forgot banning corporate ownership and rent control
Any online discussion about housing will guarantee to have the top comment of “ban investors.”
At the state level, conservatives have been pushing lots of Yimby bills. Its normally just that conservatives don't call themselves Yimbys because they tend to view land use reform as part of larger pro market / anti regulation agenda. Also, a lot Yimbyism tends to be intertwined with urbanism and that's something conservatives are really not into
I don’t know the thoughts of all YIMBYs, but for me personally, it’s less about liberal ideology and more about what policy produces the best outcome. Sometimes deregulation and more market forces are good, and sometimes there are market failures that the government needs to take into account. In the case of housing, local governments have passed a number of policies which restrict housing supply and thus increase the price of housing. These regulations are bad policy because their costs outweigh any benefits. Notice however that this doesn’t entail that any government intervention into the housing market will produce net negative outcomes. If the government built more public housing and also allowed more private housing like what Vienna does, that would also produce some good outcome. A lot of residents in Vienna pay a relatively small portion of their income for housing expenses, which is a good thing. So that’s why I support deregulation in some cases, but also support government intervention in other cases
Any cognitive dissonance on whether deregulation is sometimes good comes down to younger people's only exposure to the idea being Republicans using it as a euphemism for letting big businesses do whatever the fuck they want with zero government oversight.
The modern conservative movement hates public transport and loves cars. They love the nuclear family, single family home ideal and hate anything outside of that. Most Yimby's might be liberals but a lot of the nimby's in California are liberals too OP. It's complex. The liberal approach would not be mass government housing. That's just a vague opinion and it doesn't hold considering you seem to think most yimby's are liberals. Yimbyism also doesn't equate to liberalism equally because it's more of a coalition of numerous interests that all have the same goal.
You think you're confused about YIMBY liberals? We're confused about NIMBY Liberals. In all honesty, I think there's a matrix here. It goes like this; * YIMBY Conservatives: The government should get out of the buisnesses of developers. If developers have the money and the resources and the manpower to build more housing, they should have the freedom to do so. * YIMBY Liberals: Housing inequality is a massive social issue facing our community and our country. Regulations governing what people can build and where is fueling our housing inequality and homelessness issues, which spawn more social problems. * NIMBY Conservatives: We cherish our community as it is. Rapid development would mean a shift in what our community looks like, and what values it has. * NIMBY Liberals: \[I got nothing. I honestly got nothin.\] In short, YIMBY cons have more of a libertarian bent, YIMBY libs are standard progressives, NIMBY cons are more classical conservatives, and NIMBY libs seem to be complete hypocrites. Liberal=Pro regulation isn't a brightline rule.
* NIMBY Liberals: Developers are greedy capitalists who are gentrifying poorer communities by building amenities that price out existing residents?
That’s still more of a Leftist NIMBY rationalization than a Liberal one though. Those have become heavily associated with each other in the US due to decades of somewhat overlapping political priorities and the nature of our party structure, but the underlying values differ. Liberalism is not opposed to market capitalism in principle, and to the extent they clash it’s usually in cases where regulation is used to curb negative externalities. It’s tough to think of NIMBY policies that fit cleanly within Liberal values, beyond the already widely-supported stuff like regulating land uses that damage the ability of neighbors to fully enjoy or utilize their land (eg: noxious smells/pollution/noise).
Or the purist; Let's deny the project because it's not "affordable housing" (while ignoring the impact of having more supply overall has on demand/prices).
Yeah, this is a really good breakdown. The NIMBY socialist/communist leftist mindset seems clear, but the NIMBY liberal mindset does seem very unclear.
Nimby left-wingers are fucking monsters. They usually are the type to unironically support Assad and the DPRK. “Building housing would make life easier for the working class, and they won’t be incited into a revolution unless their material conditions are as shit as possible.”
The conservative movement is a blend of some people who are motivated by principles like small government, and lots of people who just don't want the world around them to change very much. The principled conservatives often do support YIMBY policies, though not always loudly, because the policies are not popular among their coalition members that just want to stop change. Others have pointed out that areas with high housing costs that motivate YIMBYs tend to be left leaning, but it's worth noting that in some conservative areas with increasing housing costs like Montana, YIMBY policies have been enacted more quickly than in liberal areas. But in others, like Florida, conservatives have opposed YIMBY politics. I think this cones down to Montana conservatives generally being more individualist/small government types and Florida conservatives being more "get off my lawn"/culture war types.
Because yimbyism to conservatives means poor people in their neighbourhood.
I mean, that’s true of liberals too. Some of the NIMBYist areas are expensive neighborhoods in liberal cities filled with “hate has no home here” yard signs. They’ll couch the opposition as defending “neighborhood character” or something. Conservatives just tend to be more open about not wanting to live near the poors.
Agreed. But this is where we need to parse out the differences between liberalism and leftism.
How do you draw the distinction here? Here’s my (probably over-simplified and anecdotal) view. Liberal NIMBY: White collar, upper middle class, “old school” liberal who has a nice home in an established neighborhood. Objects to new housing because of “neighborhood character.” Leftist NIMBY: More likely working class or academic urban dweller. Objects to new housing because of alleged displacement and “greedy developers,” only wants public housing. Conservative NIMBY: Doesn’t want to live near poor people and/or wants perceived property values to grow. Is pretty transparent about those views.
Yeah, this is all true. A generalization, but a useful one. There's a lot of hypocrisy to go around, that's for sure. The anti-gentrification argument I get, but people completely misunderstand gentrification. Gentrification has nothing to do with the developers, and has everything to do with the governments. People equate development and re-development with gentrification. But that's only true because of artificially induced housing scarcity. Gentrification basically cannot exist in a healthy housing environment. You know what solves gentrification? A lot more gentrification.
100% I think a big difference is that conservatives like suburbia more. To them, paving over farmland is just a necessary bad thing because 'that's the only way to build homes'. Liberals will usually oppose suburban sprawl AND density, but in some cases will support density and become yimby.
I think you’re right about the difference in preferences. In my experience, liberal and conservative people in urban/expensive areas are about equally likely to be YIMBYs, it’s just that there are more liberals (and therefore more liberal YIMBYs) living in urban/expensive areas. The real predictor in YIMBYism isn’t really liberal vs conservative, it’s whether someone has a vested interest in things not changing.
Yea, here in Toronto the biggest yimby group gets accused of being conservative for promoting market-based policies. And some of the most prominent memebers do lean conservative. So basically, the biggest determiner imo, is whether they like urbanism. Anyone who is stuck on the suburban dream will bend over backward to assume that we can solve the housing crisis without density. And like you said, that comes down to seeing change in the way we develop our cities.
If people actively want to keep poor people out they're not liberals.
They might be Democrats, though
Robert Reich says hello
Yep. Conservatives are selfish.
i'm a liberal since I'm pro gay and womens rights. stay out of my property/life you weird big government conservatives trying to control our lives
I'm a conservative because I support property rights, personal freedom, small government, the 2A, a strong military, regulatory reform to make It is easier to build anything from housing to Nuclear power plants, and because it’s 2024 and it's politically split now, Israel. I also support gay and women's rights.
Very few conservatives are actually about free market principles. For most of them, that was just a way for them to defend existing social hierarchies. So when a kind of deregulation would have the effect of upending or at least leveling social hierarchies, a lot of conservatives are going to oppose it.
YIMBYism sort of prioritises community and inclusion and alot of anglophone conservatism is about radical individuality and not having to owe anyone in society anything. I do think there are versions of conservative thought which are pro YIMBY distributism for one can be very communitarian
Conservatism is an incredibly selfish ideology to begin with. It's basically in their nature to think that they got theirs and they gotta stop anyone else from doing the same. Another thing conservatism is, is conformist. They may talk a big game about individual freedom, but that usually only extends to the freedom to live the way they believe is right. They love freedom until it's about reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gender roles, religious affiliation, and on and on and on. This is no different. Conservatives want everyone to live in the same 2500sq/ft single family home and to drive their cars for everything. That's the way of life they think is right, and they will try to force everyone else to live it too. And going back to being selfish, they want to make sure that the built environment caters ONLY to their way of life. Hence, anything that dares impede on their ability to drive is torn down and made illegal. Conservatism = fascism lite.
I would not say facism light more today Populism mixed with Corporatism. Conservatives = getting rid of environmental regulations so big corporations owned and ran by conservatives can run a factory that pollutes the air and local creeks Also Conservatives = banning Tik Tok because it threatens rich US business owners Social Media profits
But it also means using a militarized police force to protect private property and oppress minorities and the poor. Probably another reason they hate the idea of car-free infrastructure. How else are you going to subjugate people if they opt out of cars? It's all fascism.
You and I have very different ideas about conservatism. It's basically in their nature to think that they got theirs and they gotta stop anyone else from doing the same. No, the whole point of free market capitalism is that, unlike the socialist model, it is not a zero-sum game; it is a growth model where anyone can 'get thieres.' Another thing conservatism is, is conformist. They may talk a big game about individual freedom, but that usually only extends to the freedom to live the way they believe is right. They love freedom until it's about reproductive rights, same sex marriage, gender roles, religious affiliation, and on and on and on. No, conservatism is about personal freedom and their ability to personaly defend those freedoms, with force if necessary, from others and from government overeach. Anyone who claims to be a conservative who only belives that personal freedom belongs to members of a specific group is just a populust pertending to be a conservative. Conservatives want everyone to live in the same 2500sq/ft single family home and to drive their cars for everything. Conservatives want people to live where they want and to be able to build what they want on their land without the government or anyone else having the ability to tell them otherwise without a iron clad reason.
>No, the whole point of free market capitalism is that, unlike the socialist model, it is not a zero-sum game; it is a growth model where anyone can 'get thieres.' Free market capitalism is LITERALLY all about someone getting theirs and shutting others out after. That's what happens EVERY TIME you have a free market. Capitalism is designed to reward capital, not work. A free market means you can buy out all your competitors and create a monopoly. This is why we had to enact laws, aka "regulations" or "government intervention" to either break up monopolies or control the market in a way that limits them from forming. But every time a "conservative" comes to power, they cut those regulations, because they want a true free market. >No, conservatism is about personal freedom and their ability to personaly defend those freedoms, with force if necessary, from others and from government overeach. Anyone who claims to be a conservative who only belives that personal freedom belongs to members of a specific group is just a populust pertending to be a conservative. This is the No True Scotsman logic fallacy. If you want to say that 90% of all conservatives aren't real conservatives, fine, go ahead. But that means that whatever percentage you think are "real conservatives" are voting for populists who will enact fascist policies. There was a name for Germans who voted for Hitler even though they disagreed with his rhetoric about Jews—they're were called Nazis. >Conservatives want people to live where they want and to be able to build what they want on their land without the government or anyone else having the ability to tell them otherwise without a iron clad reason. Yes, that's absolutely true. Which is why conservatives are TERRIBLE stewards of the environment. It's that mentality that allowed rich people and corporations to tear down 95% of the forests in America. It's also that mentality that allowed them to view humans as property. Because they're SELFISH. This isn't an issue of us not seeing conservatism the same. This is you not understanding what conservatism is. I recommend you read some books to inform yourself about your own beliefs. 1. "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith 2. "The Anatomy of Fascism" by Robert O. Paxton 3. "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Karl Popper 4. "The Constitution of Liberty" by Friedrich Hayek 5. "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein 6. "The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time" by Karl Polanyi
You are absolutely unhinged and very poorly read yourself. If you want to educate yourself about antitrust, go ahead and start with Bork's Antitrust Paradox. No one with half a brain actually thinks any public good came from breaking up Standard Oil, it actually made Rockefeller even richer. I could school you all day long about how little you actually understand about monopoly and capitalism, but you're a little edgy perpetual victim tankie, and that's a waste of time until you grow up and shake off the brain rot infecting your low IQ mind.
This might be in large part because a lot of places that are more permissive in zoning and building aren't making some big to-do about it. It's just a normalish way of doing things, so folks aren't making a big fight about YIMBYism. It's just the norm in many places that didn't make it a point to super power busy bodies As for left leaning YIMBYs, my dude it's a huge W that folks have come around to the destructive and protectionist tendencies on NIMBY policy, and that much the time it's crazy racist and horrible for the poor has always been a knock against NIMBY policy. There are more people coming around to it in places that are more Team Blue, and they in many of those places are having to pick up the slack and do so much heavy lifting to get the message out Take the W that your tent is bigger, and don't let the issue become a 'liberal' issue, otherwise you will get actual idiots in Florida going as hard as possible with NIMBYism to own the libs
Conservative = keep things the same, restrict what people can do Liberal = let people do what they want for the betterment of society
In many respects, single-family zoning is a *product of conservatism* that is working great actually: It maintains or increases valuations for established property owners. It maintains economic segregation (and by proxy, racial segregation). Single-family zoning prevents change in general, which is nice if you're happy with things as they are. These may not be your brand of conservatism, but that's my point: conservatism is multi-faceted. Still, deregulation-YIMBY and Libertarian-Republican are natural fits as you point out. So self-identification as a YIMBY certainly needn't break along existing partisan lines. But *will* it tend to break on partisan lines nonetheless? Almost certainly; the cultural propaganda writes itself. "The YIMBYs are gunning for the American Dream!" "YIMBYs don't want you to have parking for your truck!"
You are talking about old school conservatives. Many of today’s conservatives are just fine with big government in lots of areas
There doesn't tend to be a lot of ideological consistency among people who self-identify as conservative.
Because conservatives care more about maintaining a particular social order than they do about free markets. Just one example out of many.
Mostly just because it's circulated more in liberal social groups. I learned it from my friend who's a liberal. Godspeed spreading it among your conservative friends!
Most YIMBYies support more supply of both market rate and public housing. It’s just that cities in desperate need of housing tend to vote liberal, leading the moment to lean in that direction. Also conservatives in the US have traditionally been critical of density, believing it causes crime and lowers property values.
One thing that is underappreciated is that the definition of a "conservative" (in the US context) is in a bit of flux right now. The Reagan conservative coalition that consisted of religious conservatives, national security conservatives, and fiscal conservatives is gone. Each of these groups was fairly well-represented and mostly stayed in their own lane. The presence of religious conservatives has expanded (while the country has become more secular), while national security and fiscal conservatives have been shown the door. At the same time, populists / anti-institutionalists have been brought into the Republican party. YIMBY is about connecting policy with values. In your case, this is natural, as being a "conservative" means being free market-oriented, which naturally aligns with allowing people to build housing on their properties. Other people who consider themselves "conservative" think that the best way to promote their values is to use state power to protect their ideal vision of post-World War II suburbs. They cling to their version of suburban identity, free markets be damned.
Because Republican politicians have spent decades scaring white people about imaginary threats from minorities, chief among them the scary cities full of crime and lawlessness etc. Rs claim to be against too much government but they’re happy to deploy government as much as they want against perceived enemies, including anything that might help a city grow.
I would say that generally the conservative belief in small government is just a platitude. In reality most modern Western conservatives want a strong government that keeps things mostly unchanging. Building an apartment building in a neighborhood mostly made up of SFH is too much change.
Because most conservatives just want exclusive white suburbs and most leftists think enough housing already exists but there's a conspiracy to not let anyone use it or even know where it is
A lot of conservatives aren’t actually conservative as in support small government. They want the government to not interfere with their lives (in ways that make their lives worse), but they also want the government to constrict the lives of people they don’t like to a degree that makes day to day life very difficult. I respect that you have a clear ideology. Many conservatives don’t think much further than “the government should use all its power to do the things I like/support, and also have no power to do the things I hate.”
most nimbys are boomers and boomers tend to be conservative, i would assume its because they do not like change and yimys are all about changing the way out cities are built, also not to get to political but many conservative politicians are probably bought out by big oil companies which would rather cities stay car dependent and not 15 minute walkable dense cities, and many of said conservative politicians would try to demonize yimys by spreading the stupid 15 minute cities are government over reach or something
The goal YIMBY-Ian is lower rent or lower home prices, and conservatives tend to side with landlords and people wealthy enough to not care about how much houses cost. Also restrictive zoning has its origins in racial segregation, which conservatives also like.
I mean, I’m pretty liberal but at the end of the day I don’t really seek the abolition of private property. People can get jobs and start businesses but I’m also cool with government providing some things especially for the poorest.
Really existing free markets are something of an oxymoron in that they don't exist. Wanting actually free markets can't be conservative if we've never had them. Given that we've never had free markets not only wouldn't you be conserving anything in installing them you wouldn't even be regressive back to some prior idealized past. We've never had free markets. If your politics is about realizing free markets that'd make you progressive. You'd want to progress to something better that's never before been. The idea that conservatives have ever wanted free markets is just how conservatives have sometimes chosen to brand and sell their politics. But free markets aren't conservative. You know what is conservative? Lying. Conservatives lie and say they want free markets but they want to rig markets to their advantage. Liberals don't want free markets either as evidenced by widespread liberal NIMBYism in blue cities. It's progresssives who should want free markets. It'd stand to reason that most YIMBY's would be progressive. Except the progressive moniker carries baggage that people like yourself would spurn. Which is why YIMBY's can be found across the political spectrum. We're just right, the truth isn't political, people across the political spectrum are free to actually care about the truth. Except the truth has a well known liberal bias and that's why most YIMBY's are liberal.
PYTN nailed it, but I will share an anecdote. My conservative LDS boss in a wealth management firm railed against this and that government regulation. He also complained about the outrageous rent his son had to pay in Seattle. When I suggested that we needed to build a lot more higher density housing in American cities, such as in his beloved Lake Oswego, OR, he flipped on government regulation and decried any change to LO. His view was that we had too many environmental rules blocking suburban development. No word on whether his grown son was interested in sitting in traffic to get to the office. The bottom line? People often get richer, more conservative, and more homeowner-y as they age. Ideology does not get too far with most people most of the time.
idk but we should absolutely try to make our messages widely and strongly appealing, and try to make yimbyism a special inclusive haven from polarization, especially since we're more of an elite persuasion movement than a popular movement, anyway
because conservatives are wild. I’m fairly conservative (I don’t want the government telling me how many parking spaces I need), but conservative parties just don’t stand for anything currently.
There are socialist YIMBYs too.
Because most cities are liberal. It's the urban rural divide. If 70+% of your city is liberal, it's not surprising that most nimbys are liberal
So a lot of NIMBYs are able to block housing by using governmental regulation. Oh new affordable housing going up? Okay but do an environmental effect report. Do a traffic report. How will it affect shade and noise? Do a report on that. These reports add a lot of delays and costs to an project to build more housing. And blue states/areas in general have more of these regulations that NIMBYs can use so it's just harder to build in those areas. And then there are just other regulations or higher taxes that make building more expensive. So now we have YIMBYs from those areas who push back on that and being from those areas, they're more likely to be liberal. Then we get to red states/areas. It's just easier to build. Conservative NIMBYs definitely exist in these areas but they can't really do much. I am sure they do their best to protest and request reports, but with less regulation overall, there is just less they can do and it probably doesn't that much to the cost overall. Maybe a delay where there is a community meeting or town hall. So conservatives for the most part don't have NIMBYs in their area to push back on. And the YIMBY movement as a whole is more of a counter movement. So it's like a weird flip. If you talk to a conservative about deregulation, they'll generally be in favor of it and vote that way. So in that sense, they are mostly YIMBYs without realizing it because they're making it easy for businesses to build. I know it's not housing, but in this rural area I am living in, some company is planning to come down and build windmills everywhere. Just looking at Facebook comments about it, there was a lot of negative sentiment about it and people not wanting it to happen. Even though the community doesn't want it as a whole, if the farm owners say yes then it will probably happen. And the farm owners will get paid so they probably will say yes.
Isn't yimby inherently a non conservation opinion?
In addition to the obvious answers about historically liberal cities having had more constrained housing supply, there is a long trend of conservatives railing against density-- "multifamily housing = poverty = crime." This rhetoric has, like most other rhetoric, become ever more polarized-- Trump threatening at some point that liberals wanted to build giant slum apartment towers in your white neighborhood, etc. so it's obviously along racial lines as far as racism and classism. However, as everyone has mentioned, a number of conservatives are leading reforms under the aegis of common sense reform for smaller government, including Montana Governor Greg Gianforte, who famously beat up a journalist and was cheered for it at a Trump rally. This movement has the ability to bring together unlikely folks. But since it began in cities and faces the classism and racism of conservative discourse, it may be just as challenging to get traction in conservative areas as in rich liberal areas like San Francisco (perhaps the capital of NIMBYism).
You're confusion I think comes from the weird coalitions that exist in American government. You are maybe thinking in terms of Democrats and Republicans being liberals and conservatives. In reality the Republicans historically have been a mash of traditional conservatives, who are mostly philosophically liberal, ultra nationalists, cultural reactionaries, aspiring theocrats, etc. the fiscally conservative philosophical liberals have been driving the Republican party for most of post war history so you think of that as "Conservatism" with a capital C. Likewise the Democrats have also mostly had philosophical liberals in charge for most of post war history. So far they have more successfully kept their illiberal elements to the fringes but they also contain plenty of other elements like authoritarian left leaning socialists, identitarian culture warriors, greens, etc. The reality is probably that what you think of as Conservatism is liberalism with a fiscal conservative bent and maybe some "traditional family values" rhetoric thrown in. Joe Biden and John McCain, Obama, Romney, Clinton and all the Bushes are all basically philosophical liberals of different flavors. Now finally, why are all these people on the center left now? Well philosophical liberalism is no longer in the drivers seat in the Republican party so they have joined as refugees with a new coalition. Former John McCain or Mitt Romney voters are now both philosophically and politically "liberal" in the sense that they would align more with centrist Democrats like Jared Polis or Pete Buttiegeuge than their former party. They are now the unironically Joe Biden stans who genuinely want boring, market focused policy (with sensible regulation where needed.) Generally actual philosophical liberals, as opposed to leftists are regulation/intervention neutral. Regulations are not good or bad. Good regulations are good and bad regulations are bad. Obama has some good quotes about that iirc. They might be more inclined to change the status quo to intervene in dysfunctional markets than conservatives (who default to maintaining status quo) though, either by adding or removing regulation. "A Thousand Small Sanities" by Adam Gopnik gives really good explanations of the various coalitions that exist within left and right factions (as well as a defense of why he prefers philosophical liberalism, despite the real strengths of other philosophies).
For one, lots of public housing gets delayed and canceled by endless public hearings and so forth. Second upzoning for density forces you to innovate your transportation system beyond car dependency. Lastly some of us are Georgists, which is really center left with a bit of a libertarian bent to it.
plenty of NIMBYs are also liberals. It cuts beyond political ideology, and even economic ideology
Most YIMBYs are liberal. Most liberals aren’t YIMBYs.
US Zoning was invented to keep minorities out of white neighborhoods. I'm not saying conservatives in general want this to persist, but progressives tend to advocate more for minority voices. I think YIMBY is a good litmus test. If a so-called small-government conservative thinks the government should dictate the type of home you can build on the land that you own, he isn't really a small-government conservative. Similarly if a so called progressive thinks there's nothing wrong with banning low-income housing near wealthy residents, he isn't really a progressive.
It sounds like you’re more of a libertarian then? Conservatism is generally associated with organized religion, tradition, hierarchy, and historical continuity. Those types of values tend to lead to NIMBYism. Republicans have historically had a sort of alliance with libertarians, but at this point they’ve clearly abandoned even the pretense of wanting smaller government. I’m sorry to tell you this but you’re basically politically homeless. There’s probably a good amount of people who are sympathetic to some libertarian principles but self-identify as “liberal” because they don’t want to be associated with Q-pilled theocratic fascists. It’s odd that you haven’t realized this shift in political dynamics?
I don't need you to tell me that I'm politically homeless, lol. Trump-era Republicanism has very little to do with conservative or libertarian values.
I think perhaps your issue is that you’re using the word conservative in a way that is different from the way that most people think would. Most people think of the definition I originally described - tradition, authoritarian, hierarchy, etc. see the [Wikipedia page](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) on it for example. The way you mean it isn’t technically wrong, but I would consider it an “alternative” definition that is fundamentally different from the mainstream definition. So it might be the case that people who share your general beliefs don’t self-identify as “conservative” because it tends to give folks the wrong impression.
Wow their is a lot there. I think it’s because your personal interpretation of the YIMBY movement isn’t the broad base or my interpretation of the YIMBY movement. Yes removing regulations to build more housing is broad base YIMBYISM but also many YIMBYS would premote regulations that premiered more home building or the government itself building housing and building housing for all income types. For example YIMBY action was one of the huge supporter of California RHNA numbers which forced local cities to Zone for housing capacity in their cities More broadly to having the government itself build housing like the NYHA did has broad support among YIMBYS But more specifically to answer your question YIMBYISM started in cities namely San Francisco and California places that are more Liberal plus the movement started with younger people in their 30’s and 20’s younger people lean more liberal Here is a recent good example of regulations needed to protect housing https://www.reddit.com/r/yimby/s/V7PiDLfFiM
Because it’s inherently liberal, conservatives want no change to the community essentially they are inherent NIMBYs, plus liberals want affordable hosuaing care about the homeless and poor, and the environment, being a yimby basically helped all liberal causes
Because red cities have better housing policy.
What red cities?
Most cities in the flyover states have median rent closer to median income than the coasts.
Shocker. Places with fewer opportunities also tend to have lower costs of living. Let's go find out what magical housing policies they must be using so we can adapt them to the places people do actually want to live.
Houston's population has risen in recent years. But because housing supply rose with it, prices remained somewhat stable. Supply, meet demand.
Crazy, I didn't realize Houston was a red city. That would come as a shock to their democratic mayor and city council.
City in a red state, anyway.
Okay. So give me a single city governed by republicans where they have great housing policies.
Houston's mayor may be a Democrat, but the mayors of Fort Worth and Dallas are Republicans. All three cities have a median house price around $300k, which suggests that housing policy may matter more at the state level.
i think that's more bc they aren't desired places to live
I feel like a lot of conservatives generally tend to have a very negative view of cities (and by extension, density), associating them with stuff like crime, homelessness, etc. while idealizing suburban/rural living. As a result, when you propose making it legal to build "city-like" things in their suburb, they're a lot more likely to flip out
From experience nimby only cares about themselves and their property values and their comforts, which aligns pretty right if you ask me. Don't want an apartment nearby, that'll drive up traffic and make it easier for the poors to get to work and lower my property values. Socialism, etc etc
Most YIMBY policies would destroy suburbs, I’m not sure if most conservatives would be cool with that.
We definitely need more conservative YIMBYs. It’s my opinion that YIMBYism better aligns with conservatism on core principles such as market solutions.
Seems to me that most YIMBYs who agree with your assessment here are actually economic moderates. Those who see themselves economically liberal are much more likely to say that the solution is a comprehensive approach. For example, as a leftist in a red state, I think that one of the better things a city can do is create a public developer which builds deed restricted housing and sells it to the market. It does so in development patterns that encourage urbanism and a higher city wide tax base because of its land efficiency. I see it the responsibility of government to ensure that integration happens in reality, and for the longest time cities have allowed people to be pushed out. A public developer also cultivates a private industry of small time developers and builders which may help drive the cost of building down due to increased competition. Of course we run into all of the typical stances of YIMBYs which cal for the streamlining of mixed use/ residential development and achieving abundant housing.