Hi Aaron, longtime fan of your newsletter here! I'm curious about the association you make in this post between Progressive politics and NIMBYism. How exactly are these two connected? It seems like you (or Applebaum) are laying the country's housing policy failures at the feet of a political movement that is fueled primarily by young, geographically mobile, unpropertied people -- exactly the opposite group you would expect to be NIMBYs. The fact that NIMBYs create the biggest problems in cities that are considered culturally "Progressive" -- Seattle, LA, NYC -- does not necessarily mean that its the Progressive voters in those cities creating the problem.
Hey Charles, great questions. We see a lot of this in Durham, which I think is a bellwether for the state of progressivism and the Democratic Party. The term "progressive" can mean very different things to very different people, but currently we're seeing a pretty strong bifurcation between pro-housing progressives and anti-housing progressives. I would argue that the latter is an oxymoron. Anti-housing Progressives split into two groups. One is a wealthy, overeducated older class that is more associated with the legacy elites of the Democratic Party; the other is anti-capitalist, anti-West, anti-institution leftists. These two often partner to attack builders, small businesspeople, and growth. Outside of extremely blue cities, they're losing, but it doesn't stop them from trying.
Ahh, this makes a lot more sense. I can definitely see how an anti-business "Progressive" cohort could be detrimental to housing production. Thank you for the thoughtful replies!
Also - is the implication (again, not sure if yours or The Atlantic's) that there aren't Republican NIMBYs? Not disagreeing with the thrust of the post in general, just trying to clarify how you are seeing this debate play out.
There are absolutely Republican NIMBYs. In many contexts, they are less relevant because they are more prototypically suburban or rural, where urbanism and inclusion matter less. There's a certain hypocrisy when the political party that presents itself as inclusive and equitable spends so much of its working hours blocking people's choices and opportunities. That's really what Yoni's book is about.
Man, I’ve had this book on my shelf for a few months. Excited to read it.
Hi Aaron, longtime fan of your newsletter here! I'm curious about the association you make in this post between Progressive politics and NIMBYism. How exactly are these two connected? It seems like you (or Applebaum) are laying the country's housing policy failures at the feet of a political movement that is fueled primarily by young, geographically mobile, unpropertied people -- exactly the opposite group you would expect to be NIMBYs. The fact that NIMBYs create the biggest problems in cities that are considered culturally "Progressive" -- Seattle, LA, NYC -- does not necessarily mean that its the Progressive voters in those cities creating the problem.
Hey Charles, great questions. We see a lot of this in Durham, which I think is a bellwether for the state of progressivism and the Democratic Party. The term "progressive" can mean very different things to very different people, but currently we're seeing a pretty strong bifurcation between pro-housing progressives and anti-housing progressives. I would argue that the latter is an oxymoron. Anti-housing Progressives split into two groups. One is a wealthy, overeducated older class that is more associated with the legacy elites of the Democratic Party; the other is anti-capitalist, anti-West, anti-institution leftists. These two often partner to attack builders, small businesspeople, and growth. Outside of extremely blue cities, they're losing, but it doesn't stop them from trying.
Ahh, this makes a lot more sense. I can definitely see how an anti-business "Progressive" cohort could be detrimental to housing production. Thank you for the thoughtful replies!
I refer to them as "the regressive wing of the progressive party"
Also - is the implication (again, not sure if yours or The Atlantic's) that there aren't Republican NIMBYs? Not disagreeing with the thrust of the post in general, just trying to clarify how you are seeing this debate play out.
There are absolutely Republican NIMBYs. In many contexts, they are less relevant because they are more prototypically suburban or rural, where urbanism and inclusion matter less. There's a certain hypocrisy when the political party that presents itself as inclusive and equitable spends so much of its working hours blocking people's choices and opportunities. That's really what Yoni's book is about.