If you self-identify as pro-urban & anti-NIMBY, why aren't you demanding more public housing? | shelterforce.org/2017/11/02/tim… "The affordable housing field shouldn’t cede the 'increasing the supply of housing' and 'freeing up units through filtering' arguments to the luxury developers"
A lot of YIMBYs are replying to say that of course they support public housing! Surprised but delighted to discover that there are such huge numbers of municipal socialists in the YIMBY ranks
There's obviously a significant difference between "public housing" on the one hand and "affordable housing" or "below market-rate housing" (which many replies have invoked) on the other, but we let's leave that aside for now.
I also think the way that people use the term "NIMBY" these days is quite unhelpful, but that's for another day. Let's talk for a moment about what YIMBYism means.
If you consider yourself a YIMBY and to you that means eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction, pursuing the densification of suburbia, expanding public transportation, welcoming immigrants, or building more public housing, then good, I support those things too
In that case I'm not sure what the term YIMBY does for you or why you identify with it, but whatever, if those are the things you're mobilising for, then more power to you.
Similarly, if YIMBYism to you means private-property-centric libertarianism, then okay, I get it. I fundamentally disagree with you about housing markets and probably much else, but I doubt either of us are going to change the other's mind and don't see the point in arguing.
What I find interesting are those for whom YIMBYism means just demanding more housing now of whatever kind and more urban density, arguing that a huge building boom will make cities more dynamic and better for everyone.
It's interesting because it relies on a mismatch between ends & means. The benefits of urban growth today are simply not democratised or channeled towards making a more equal city--they're appropriated by a small elite. Accelerating this process will not lead to better urbanism.
It matters what kind of housing and urban space is produced, and for whom. Building safe-deposit boxes in the sky or luxury developments predicated on evicting poorer households simply won't produce the kind of dynamic, democratic city that many YIMBYists of this kind affirm.
Saying that, in the long run--or if only housing regulations were eliminated--wealth and housing will trickle down is precisely the kind of magical, quasi-utopian thinking that you’d presumably want to eschew, especially if you're not otherwise some sort of Lafferite
Not to mention, if you really don't care what kind of housing is produced, if your desired housingscape is truly tenure-neutral, why not form an alliance with long-standing housing movements and together argue for more social housing?
We can offer many accounts of what a better kind of urban life would be, but to me, inequality, increasing the power of elites, and stripping away the rights (housing and otherwise) of the poor--these things should be considered anti-urban
If you look at the operation of the housing system and urban development today and think, yes, I affirm this and believe cities would be better with more of it--then you might want to look again at who's helped and who's harmed in the process.
