Adding neighbors has to make the neighborhood better

People won't be shamed into accepting decline

Today

Hamilton Nolan

wrote a passionate cry for “blue cities” to add more housing. It’s worth a read, and I agree with much of it.

More Housing In Your Neighborhood Is a Progressive Value

As a politically homeless person I don’t care much about electoral votes shifting, but the other harms that Nolan points out are severe and deserve our full attention. Quoting a study by the city of Los Angeles, “Angelenos pay more of their income on housing, live in more overcrowded conditions, and have the highest rates of unsheltered homelessness of any city in the country.” The housing crisis hits each of us differently, but it affects us all.

Unfortunately, in his piece, Nolan implicitly buys into the premise that is the heart of the NIMBY problem, the idea that adding more housing to our existing neighborhoods will make them worse.

(To fair to Nolan, I really doubt he believes this premise, but we’re all so used to the conversation being framed this way that it unintentionally slips into the way we talk about it.)

Here are a few excerpts, emphasis mine:

The honest reason why most desirable cities have failed to build enough housing to keep up with demand is that once people buy a home in a nice neighborhood they want to keep it how it is. They don’t want a whole lot of new stuff built that would ruin their nice neighborhood.

…

If you are a single family homeowner in LA, it is not your fault that the racist roots of zoning have produces an urgent housing crisis today, but it is your responsibility, once you understand all of this, to support the construction of a lot of new housing, and be willing to share the burden in your own neighborhood.

…

…we don’t want to inconvenience the neighborhoods where all the rich people with political power live.

He closes with:

This little vignette is an illustration of how hard it is to overcome the stubborn, self-centered refusal of homeowners to allow new housing in their nice neighborhoods.

Well that’s the nut, isn’t it?

There are a small, virtuous minority that will endure genuine hardship for the benefit of others, but the vast majority will always act in their own self-interest. This is the core idea of a liberal society with democratic governance! The most good for the most people comes from each individual being free to act in their own self interest and able to elect representatives who will support those interests.

So if the premise is true, that adding housing really will ruin the neighborhood, then this cause is hopeless, and not a good goal to pursue in the first place.

Fortunately, that premise is wrong!

More neighbors means more retail, more restaurants, more services. More neighbors might mean enough kids that we can keep our city schools open instead of having to consolidate them away. More neighbors means more libraries and book stores.

Making room for more neighbors by adding housing makes housing more affordable, and since housing is the biggest expense in most people’s life, bringing down the cost of housing can make everything else much more affordable. Do you want cheaper babysitting? Cheaper haircuts? Or what about restaurants that aren’t always understaffed? An affordable lawn guy or handyman? For your city to have enough teachers, police officers, and firefighters? Affordable housing helps make all that possible.

What about local businesses? More affordable housing means more opportunity for entrepreneurship, for arts and culture, for general human flourishing.

But most of all, would you like your kids to be able to stay in the neighborhood when they grow up? Or for your aging parents to be able to move in down the street when they reach the point they need a little help?

These are real, tangible, meaningful benefits that we’ll all share in if we can just get out of our own way when it comes to housing.

And we can get there without doing massive redevelopment ala “urban renewal.” California is already showing that backyard cottages can add a lot of supply. Let’s get permits streamlined for duplexes, townhomes, and accessory apartments too. That kind of gentle density is hardly noticeable in a neighborhood, but collectively it could double our existing supply (and in most places, doubling is more than enough to catch up to demand). This is why Strong Towns advocates so strongly for Incremental Housing, legalizing the next increment of development by right.

So in summary, I deeply share Hamilton Nolan’s concern about housing, and agree that solving the housing crisis is a moral obligation. But to get there, I think we have to reject the premise that adding units will make neighborhoods worse. To persuade the public we should focus on all the ways that adding housing will make our communities better. Fighting self-interest with shame doesn’t work, we have to harness self-interest and help people see how the reform we’re proposing will benefit everyone.