Thread by @CSElmendorf

Here's the first of my two essays for @NiskanenCenter's "party of abundance" series. ⤵️

In the piece, @ProfSchleich & I argue that big-city YIMBYs should endeavor to forge a cross-issue, party-like faction & drive an urban quality of life agenda.

@GrowSF is the model.
🧵/24

https://twitter.com/NiskanenCenter/status/1948043858434044231

The immediate response of many has been, "That's crazy! It's hard enough to win on housing."

/2

https://x.com/DBS_Lattice/status/1948190090234146841

I get it. But hear us out. There are at least three good reasons for big-city YIMBYs to take on a wider range of issues.

/3

First, adding density in existing cities does worsen congestion, other things equal. Congestion costs can be greatly mitigated with better transportation policy--but you've got to get the policy right.

(Witness the success of congestion pricing in NY.)

/4

Second, a urban-quality-of-life YIMBYism offers something to the "losers" of YIMBY housing policy, i.e., incumbent homeowners.

/5

If there's a big positive shock to housing supply, the value of incumbent homeowners' physical capital will go down. But if schools, transportation, and policing are all getting better, the homeowners' quality of life (and the value of their upzoned land!) will go up.

/6

This point is really important. It's clear from recent work in urban economics that most of the welfare gains from expanding big cities' housing supply will accrue to nonresidents.

So you need something beyond housing to persuade the incumbents to support the change.

/7

Third, and more subtly, work I'm doing w/ @j_kalla & @dbroockman suggests that the mass public's support for YIMBY housing policies is deeply entwined w/ feelings about big cities.

/8

osf.io/preprints/osf/…

Today, old people are famously more NIMBY than the youngs--and they're also a lot more negative on "city living."

We show that it wasn't always so in the U.S. (and it isn't always so in Europe).
/9

Rather, many of the Americans who are old today spent their formative years--their late teens, early 20s--watching cities go up in flames or buckle under the crime waves and fiscal crises of the 1970s.

/10

It's no coincidence that the YIMBY movement formed after the great "return to the city" of the 1990s and 2000s.

Declining crime & urban amenities drew young professionals back to the city. They loved it, more came, rents went up, and YIMBYism was born out of the reaction.

/11

If YIMBYs are going to score durable wins, they need to persuade more people--and especially more young, impressionable people--that cities are really great.

This means delivering not only on housing and transit, but also on schools, public safety, parks, and more.

/12

(And copy Washington State's new law authorizing developers to add unlimited 3-BR apartments to any building near fixed transit!)

/13

https://x.com/CSElmendorf/status/1940939465947861302

So what would it take for YIMBYs to become a functional urban "party" -- that is, a potential-winning electoral coalition with a public-facing brand that most voters roughly understand?

/14

As @GrowSF has shown, there's a lot you can do just w/ shoe-leather, smarts, and committed donors.

Their Nov. 2024 online voter guide was visited by 181,000 unique viewers, equal to about 35% of the registered voters in S.F.!

/15

growsf.org/impact-report-…

But as @ProfSchleich & I argued over a decade ago, there's a lot more that cities could do to facilitate the emergence & legibility (to voters) of coherent party-like factions.

/16

illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr…

In particular, we think cities should authorize mayors or broad-based civic society groups to make ballot-printed endorsements in formally nonpartisan city council elections.

/17

City-council elections are super low-information affairs, whereas mayors have a bit of brand.

Ballot-printed mayoral endorsements would help voters figure out which city-council candidates would ally w/ the mayor, & which ones would probably vote the other way.

/18

I'm also intrigued by (though wary of) the new CA law that calls for printing "up to 5" pro/con endorsements on the ballot next to voter-initiative and referendum measures.

/19

The problem with the CA ballot-measure law is that it lets almost anyone be a ballot-printed endorser. This is going to induce loads of strategry and, within the electorate, "heuristic projection."

/20

@dbroockman @aaronrkaufman & @GabeLenz find that voters who know nothing about an endorsing organization tend to infer from the org's endorsement that the candidate's issue positions line up with ... the voter's. Oops.

/21

Turning the ballot into a bulletin board for candidates to name all their favorite groups (or vice versa) might just tire out voters, rather than helping them make good sense of their choices in down-ballot races.

/22

But if the right to make ballot-printed endorsements were reserved for a small number of groups that demonstrate broad support (e.g., with signatures, or success of their previously endorsed candidates), this could induce the formation of more @GrowSF-like orgs and...

/23

help voters learn, over time, what they really stand for.

And in turn, meaningful, party-like competition for control of city council should generate better municipal governance, the foundation of a durable urban YIMBYism.

/end

@threadreaderapp unroll