The End of Nimbyism
Nimbyism isn't as popular as you may think. That doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
“For what do we live, but make sport by subjecting our neighbours to endless discretionary reviews for minor additions?” - Jane Austin (Probably)
One of the most fascinating features of Britain’s housing market is that it generates political coalitions and cleavages alike that many may find counterintuitive.
Traditional Labour heartlands that may be described as ‘asset-rich (through home ownership), cash-poor’, suddenly possess similar material interests to middle class Conservatives in the south. As long as the rentier economy (as lucidly outlined by Brett Christophers) is growing, asset owners will remain (relatively) satisfied with their lot.
An unfortunate symptom of this curious constituency of folk, according to many smart housing policy Twitter types, is NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yardism).
NIMBYs come from all sorts of different backgrounds, as the Centre for Cities’ Anthony Breach outlined in his acute taxonomy of the NIMBY:
“Close your eyes and picture a row of wooden tables, on each one, sits a different segment of the Save Tidemill campaign’s coalition.
Table 1: The founders of the garden, mostly your classic NIMBYs, primarily asset-rich and comfortable. They’ll miss their garden when it’s gone and they don’t want pesky social housing spoiling their Saturday afternoon sun-spot.
Table 2: Assorted Left-wing groups. Nearly all older NIMBYs as well, these lot are driven primarily by political opportunism and they want to find a wedge issue to campaign against the local Labour council (internally in the Labour Party, or externally). For this group, they’ll reject any council-led development programme from the pin-head of ideological grounds. Any development that is not 100% council ‘target rent’ is rejected, even if the private sale properties on-site are necessary to fund the building of the social homes. It means that in reality, they reject any new large-scale affordable house building.
Table 3: Eco-Nimbys, probably Green Party members, you know the ones — the type of people who weep over fallen trees on the HS2 path, despite HS2 being a piece of crucial infrastructure to increase our rail and freight capacity and reduce our over-reliance on private cars and lorries which has a huge knock-on effect on our nation’s carbon emissions and the death of more of your bloody trees.
Table 4: Anarcho-crusties / Green-Black Groups. A bit like the Eco-Nimbys but they are more inclined towards violence towards the man. “
But despite the constant presence of anti-development tweets from MPs, the dense defences of brownfield sites which both Labour and Conservative politicians protect like they are national heritage, the NIMBY worldview isn’t as popular as you may think.
A great article by the always incisive Anoosh Chakelian in the New Statesman denoted the undeniable fact: There are more YIMBYs (Yes In My Back Yarders) than NIMBYs!
Exclusive polling for the New Statesman by Redfield & Wilton Strategies* shows a majority of Britons (57 per cent) support the construction of additional houses by the UK government, and just 14 per cent oppose it. Yet when asked if they’d support construction in their local area, the picture changes: the proportion of support drops to 50 per cent, and 27 per cent oppose.
Of those who are opposed to the construction of additional houses in their area, 78 per cent say this is because there are already enough houses there, 52 per cent say that it would cause traffic congestion, 29 per cent that it would cause noise and light pollution, 28 per cent that it would ruin the look of their area, 9 per cent that house prices might go up, 7 per cent that prices might go down, and 7 per cent that building works would be inconvenient. (22 per cent say they have another reason).
This is also backed up by data from the 2018 Social Attitudes Survey on housing (caveat, which shows only English data here), which found that:
57% of people said they supported more homes being built in the local area, whilst 23% said they opposed, and 17% said they neither supported nor opposed
Opposition has fallen from 47% in 2010
Support for building in local areas also outweighs opposition in every region of England
Support for home building seems fairly resounding. So why does NIMBYism have a stranglehold on British politics?
Theory 1: NIMBYs are far more politicised than YIMBYs
In the same way that NIMBYs consist of a panoply of backgrounds, YIMBYs also are derived from diverse perspectives, ranging from staunch libertarians to young lefties desperate to get on the housing ladder.
The issue is that NIMBYs, unlike YIMBYs, have more formalised networks and structures which enable them to exercise their authority. Swift opposition can organise to generate momentum to stymy upcoming projects.
Furthermore, NIMBYs, according to the Social Attitudes Survey, are generally older and wealthier. As a result, they are also more likely to vote, and have greater access to political power.
This is seen in recent YouGov polling of ‘Blue Wall voters’, who despite believing that more houses are needed nationally (55% support, 37% oppose), are less keen to see homes built in their local area (43% support, 52% oppose). With winning the majority of England effectively essential for either Labour or the Conservatives to find themselves in Number 10, currying favour with this constituency is really important.
This is compounded when considering the strength of YIMBY vs NIMBY preferences. Although there is less data on this, I believe that a lot of the YIMBY population could be characterised as ‘weak YIMBYs’. This means that although they see building more homes as important, it is not at the top of their local or domestic political priorities.
NIMBYs, on the other hand, may well express a stronger preference towards housing policy. As a result, it is these issues that they are writing to their MP’s about, above others.
Theory 2 - YIMBY political coalitions are not in as important swing seats
Another plausible explanation is an extension of the weak vs strong YIMBY observation: strong YIMBY populations do not live in key electoral battlegrounds.
Age is a major factor in determining whether someone supports or opposes further development. 64% of 18-25 year olds supported further housing development, with this support decreasing with age.
Often, younger populations cluster together, particularly in large cities. These areas, such as London, Newcastle Central, Manchester, Leeds, and Liverpool, are largely (but not always), safe Labour seats. As a result, there is much less incentive for parties to cater to YIMBY preferences, where more hotly contested seats are somewhat less YIMBY.
Whilst this view has some purchase, the fact that YIMBYism is more popular than NIMBYism in all regions of Englands makes this theory less compelling. And perhaps the tide is turning, as many on the right recognise that home building is essential to winning over younger generations.
How to defeat NIMBYism
One of the biggest features of NIMBYism is that locals want control over decision-making. They often feel like big developers steamroller through their community without giving them a say.
As a result, Street Votes are a workable solution. This consists of letting individual streets vote on their design and density rules, so that, for example, semi-detached streets can choose to build up into townhouses and mansion blocks.
Housing wonk Sam Bowman, who refers to Policy Exchange’s work on this in an informative Twitter thread, says further building would be incentivised by ‘uplift’.
Effectively, this is where allowing upward building on a plot of land that you own could increase land value by an immense amount. The beauty of this approach is its bottom up nature; ultimately it derives authority from local knowledge and decision making, something that both YIMBYs and sensible NIMBYs alike would buy into.
It's not all about the NIMBYs
Many YIMBYs, especially those on the pro-market right, believe that defeating NIMBYs and liberalising planning laws is essentially the solution to the housing crisis.
This ignores many other components of the problem. The soaring of the price of land is partly due to stringent planning laws, but also to do with low interest rates, the further financialisation of housing, and botched schemes such as Help to Buy.
As a result, supply isn’t the only part of the equation. You also have to consider
Developing a more humane approach to dealing with homelessness
Some other policies that would prove highly useful here would be
Cash prizes for developers who made homes which met certain criteria, e.g.; affordability, beauty, net zero
Having a ‘use it or lose it’ crackdown on landbanking
Of the Week - My Favourites
Podcast: Intelligence Squared - The Right to Sex, with Amia Srinivasan and Merve Emre
Song: The Manor - Grealish
YouTube Video: Let’s Talk FPL: 0 FPL TIPS FOR A HIGH RANK (HOW I FINISHED 1294th) | Fantasy Premier League 2021/22
Article: MIT Technology Review: “Hundreds of AI tools have been built to catch covid. None of them helped.”