I talk to Tim Helm about the rise of “Yes In My Back Yard” (YIMBY) as a cultural movement and dig into some of the economics missing from housing debates. Follow Cameron and Jonathan on X/Twitter. Please like, comment, share, and subscribe. Theme music: Happy Swing by Serge Quadrado Music under Creative Commons Licence CC BY-NC 4.0
I’ve really enjoyed both discussions with Tim thanks. A couple of questions I have are:
Do we know much about the stickiness of people when it comes to spatial equilibrium? For example it would seem that on straight economics, many more people should have moved out of Sydney a long time ago. But I guess family and existing friends become a big factor of quality?
Also, if we do want to make housing more affordable would it be reasonable for government to focus less on zoning for density and instead focus more on making new housing creation more profitable for developers?
YIMBY,s are the natural result of a housing crisis and are misguided. It’s no good blaming Boomers, NIMBY,s empty nesters or green tape it’s a problem caused by governments Big Australia dream.
Important thing is to minimize time wasted in travel (the critical externality) by promoting multi use zoning (or abolish zoning) so that people can live, work, play and do everything they need to do in the ambit of a five-minute walk. In other words, plan for relatively self-sufficient communities whether they are located in the inner city or the outer margins. Thats the only sort of YIMBYism that will bear fruit.
But I agree, that to achieve affordability we need to change taxation policy so that housing is no longer the quickest source for accumulating more wealth for the already wealthy. It's only the already wealthy that can afford to borrow.
Meanwhile, those who can't afford to borrow need to be able to access cheap unsubdivided rural land and build appropriately sized more affordable housing in non-traditional formats.
Zoning in the US did not arise as a proxy tool for racial exclusion. It evolved for a series of valid reasons as a more refined and efficient tool than "nuisance" law and to manage externalities from incompatible uses, and along with the City Beautiful movement. And yes, it evolved over time.
There were early attempts to use zoning (and every other land use tool) to segregate, by 1917 the ability to use zoning to discriminate by race was formally struck down, whereafter zoning could only be used, if so applied, to proxy discrimination by income.
Near that time, racially exclusive covenants were legally upheld, and realtor groups formed and adopted formal business practices of overtly steering minorities into segregated areas.
The racial origins of zoning myth gained steam after the George Floyd incident and was the final straw used to topple single family zoning first in Minneapolis and then in so-called "blue" states and areas.
Could we get an exemplar of a particular YIMBY movement to explain themselves? Even if it is in a specific city context it would be interesting. Do YIMBYS ever go to the practical application of density. Strata law is so crucial to good density but seems to be totally ignored as an issue.
I’ve really enjoyed both discussions with Tim thanks. A couple of questions I have are:
Do we know much about the stickiness of people when it comes to spatial equilibrium? For example it would seem that on straight economics, many more people should have moved out of Sydney a long time ago. But I guess family and existing friends become a big factor of quality?
Also, if we do want to make housing more affordable would it be reasonable for government to focus less on zoning for density and instead focus more on making new housing creation more profitable for developers?
YIMBY,s are the natural result of a housing crisis and are misguided. It’s no good blaming Boomers, NIMBY,s empty nesters or green tape it’s a problem caused by governments Big Australia dream.
Important thing is to minimize time wasted in travel (the critical externality) by promoting multi use zoning (or abolish zoning) so that people can live, work, play and do everything they need to do in the ambit of a five-minute walk. In other words, plan for relatively self-sufficient communities whether they are located in the inner city or the outer margins. Thats the only sort of YIMBYism that will bear fruit.
But I agree, that to achieve affordability we need to change taxation policy so that housing is no longer the quickest source for accumulating more wealth for the already wealthy. It's only the already wealthy that can afford to borrow.
Meanwhile, those who can't afford to borrow need to be able to access cheap unsubdivided rural land and build appropriately sized more affordable housing in non-traditional formats.
Zoning in the US did not arise as a proxy tool for racial exclusion. It evolved for a series of valid reasons as a more refined and efficient tool than "nuisance" law and to manage externalities from incompatible uses, and along with the City Beautiful movement. And yes, it evolved over time.
There were early attempts to use zoning (and every other land use tool) to segregate, by 1917 the ability to use zoning to discriminate by race was formally struck down, whereafter zoning could only be used, if so applied, to proxy discrimination by income.
Near that time, racially exclusive covenants were legally upheld, and realtor groups formed and adopted formal business practices of overtly steering minorities into segregated areas.
The racial origins of zoning myth gained steam after the George Floyd incident and was the final straw used to topple single family zoning first in Minneapolis and then in so-called "blue" states and areas.
Could we get an exemplar of a particular YIMBY movement to explain themselves? Even if it is in a specific city context it would be interesting. Do YIMBYS ever go to the practical application of density. Strata law is so crucial to good density but seems to be totally ignored as an issue.