There is a YIMBY group in my city and I swear half the Twitter followers have "dev op" or "scrum pro" in their profile.
They also seem to have no interest in any other broader social or economic issue. Zip about poverty, climate change, reproductive rights, trans rights, etc. It's about market housing. Pure and simple.
Tech bros move into cities like san fran where it's impossible to find housing at a reasonable price. Since they moved in they don't have the incentive of someone like a landlord to prevent other people from building houses, all they care about it getting themselves cheaper housing. When they eventually make enough to buy property somewhere or become a small landlord they will change their tune and become advocates of "historical preservation" and act to keep their property values and rental income going up as much as possible.
Probably true, but at the very least they're not demanding to pay more in rent "because I'll be rich one day" and at least waiting until then, that's progress!
OR they move into the still-shitty parts of town and want to YIMBY it up with bike lanes and 5 over 1's instead of homeless camps
Their scope of possibility precludes anything but 'market solutions' due to the :brainworms: and the general discourse about housing in the USA being exactly like that.
The Faircloth Limit is the anchor that prevents most discourse from going anywhere but towards 'market solutions':
In 1998, the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) was passed and signed by President Bill Clinton. Following the frame of welfare reform, QHWRA developed new programs to transition families out of public housing, developed a home ownership model for Section 8, and expanded the HOPE VI program to replace traditional public housing units. The act also effectively capped the number of public housing units by creating the Faircloth Limit as an amendment to the Housing Act of 1937, which limited funding for the construction or operation of all units to the total number of units as of October 1, 1999 and repealed a rule that required one for one replacement of demolished housing units.
On the other hand, having 'progressive' NIMBYs oppose any zoning denser than Single Family with the cry of "It's just supply side Reaganomics!" kinda poisons the discourse as well. There's a huge housing crisis in most cities. Basically both camps have terrible :brainworms: that prevent even the possibility of thinking about solutions that are not directed by incumbent powers to their benefit. It's basically the same red vs blue shit in a more niche domain of local politics. You end up with weird shit like progressive NIMBYs and conservative YIMBYs.
You hit the nail on the head. Also I would add that YIMBYism in urban (often early stage gentrifying) neighborhoods is not so much tech bros as it is anyone who subscribes to the technocratic liberalism mindset a la Warren that we can plan our way out of the problem, without acknowledging or willing to fight for the deeper issues that present these symptoms. It's not just bad or outdated zoning, motherfuckers.
Afaik we're currently very far below the Faircloth limit. By all means we should remove it, but it's not the discussion-ender some people act like it is.
Now, California's Article 34, that is a problem.
As a person who left the Bay, is in tech, was tangentially involved with YIMBY groups, and is a socialist, it's because the most unaffordable places in the country are the places where you can get a high salary in tech.
And also because fuck rich white NIMBYs.
I was at a bar and sat next to a YIMBY meet up and wanted to blow my brains out. The biggest neolib shills you’ve ever heard.
NIMBY = Not In My Backyard, don't build new housing that will drive down the price of my house/rental unit.
YIMBY = Yes In My Backyard, please build new housing because I don't want to spend 75% of my salary on housing but I still want to live in the city where my job is.
Yes In My Backyard, opposed to the NIMBYs of the suburbs or older housing developments that, through voting and showing up to city council meetings, keep new apartments and higher-density housing from being built.
YIMBYs can still be very bad. They can be techbros, libertarians, or astroturfed real estate developers. Along with libs that are slightly better than NIMBY libs.
Advocacy groups often focus on one thing.
fwiw, part of the YIMBY sales pitch has to do with climate change how expensive housing exacerbates poverty, but they're a focused org not really a broad thing
Like, I don't expect MADD to talk about poverty.
YIMBY is a neoliberal dog whistle, all its complaints and solutions are technocratic shit that avoids root causes. Example: their solution to housing unaffordability is deregulation.
Yeah I'm not down YIMBYs.
I live close to the college in AZ, and there has been new developments built in past 6 months. But because of the area, rent keeps going up. Currently, rent for 1 bedroom apartments is about$1400 to $1500 a month. Like, how would a college kid even think that they could live in my area, let alone your average worker making less than $1400 a month?
So while I'm for building new housing, it only makes sense if it's rent controlled AND co op owned.
