Connor Dougherty published this thoughtful piece about NIMBYs over the weekend in the New York Times. And it has been making the rounds online ever since.
It is thoughtful in that Connor tries to understand what makes NIMBYs tick. And he does this by interviewing people like Susan Kirsch, a resident of Marin County, California who generally opposes all of the things that California is doing to try and address its housing shortage and who has been fighting a townhouse project in her neighborhood for the last 18 years.
The developer, who is now 86, started the project in his 60s. In the article he is quoted saying that he's either going to succeed or he's going to die. It's one or the other.
What is clear is that we all see things differently. While some people might see new housing as serving an important need. Others see new development as running counter to environmentalism and good stewardship. Indeed, for some, there is no shortage of housing (even in cities that are growing in population). It's simply a problem of too many investors buying and creating rental homes or too many Airbnbs or some other red herring.
Whatever the case may be, it's hard not to pay attention to quotes like this one:
“From my backyard I see the hillside,” Ms. Kirsch wrote from her Hotmail account. “Explain how my property value is not deflated if open space is replace(d) with view-blocking, dense, unsightly buildings.”
Look, we all get this. Nobody wants their views obstructed. Nobody wants more cars parked in their neighborhood. And nobody wants more dog shit in their local park, among many other things. But implicit in this statement is a view that certain people's needs and desires are more important than those of others. I was here first. Too bad for you.
We have all seen these headlines before, so it's not so under the radar for us. But the New York Times just published this article about Toronto calling it a "quietly booming tech town." Depending on how you want to measure things, Toronto is now the third largest tech hub in North America after Silicon Valley and New York City (or at least that's what the NY Times is telling me). The article touches on some of the ingredients for this success, but let me be a bit more explicit in this post because I think it is particularly relevant right now.
Canada is a "Western" country. What does that mean? It means that we're a democracy, we have the rule of law, we respect individuals (including private property), and we allow for pluralism of opinion, along with many other freedoms. These are all wonderful and magical things that are sometimes taken for granted. But I couldn't imagine living in a place that doesn't allow for such freedoms, nor would I want to.
On top of this foundation, we have two other important ingredients: extraordinary universities, like the ones mentioned in the article (University of Toronto and University of Waterloo), and some of the most liberal immigration policies in the world. Our borders are open for the smartest and most ambitious. With just these handful of things -- freedom, rules, education, and talent -- we can screw up a lot of other stuff and still accomplish some pretty great things. I may be oversimplifying, but probably not by much.
Humans are wonderfully talented. Let people be and they'll show you. Because history has shown us time and time again that the above recipe works remarkably well. (Related post: Do the best cities have a lot of immigrants?)
Toronto's new garden suite (accessory dwelling unit) policies are headed to Planning and Housing Committee this week for approval. If you'd like to leave a supportive comment, you can do that over here by clicking "submit comments" at the top of the page. I just finished doing exactly that.
Given that this is happening, I figured I would share this related article from the New York Times talking about ADUs and informal housing in Los Angeles. I discovered it through this Strong Towns article by Jay Strange. And I love how he refers to informal structures as the "desire paths" of housing.
Desire paths, for those of you who may be unfamiliar, are the naturally formed paths and lines that get created when people just walk where they want to walk. Usually these are the shortest and/or most logical routes and, by definition, they don't align with any designed paths or walkways.
Jay's point with informal housing is that it is similarly what people actually want to do, but maybe can't, usually because of restrictive zoning and/or building codes.
The New York Times gives the example of a family that illegally built an accessory dwelling unit at the back of their house in the 1990s. It was rented to friends and family, and it helped them get through some difficult financial times. But again, it wasn't lawful.
According to some researchers at UCLA, Los Angeles County is estimated to have some 200,000 informal units. Many are forced into demolition, but many, like the above example, manage to sneak under the radar because lots of other people are building them and nobody in the community wants to disrupt things.
Of course, Los Angeles now allows backyard cottages. And so what was once illegal is now not only permitted, but encouraged. Funny, isn't it? I don't know if it was the "desire housing" that ultimately made it happen. But it is clear that many people wanted it and they were voting with their actions.