Housing Is Popular, Actually

An Aggressive Defense of Optimism

Last week, I wrote about two new books — Abundance and Why Nothing Works — that explain how the American political system has lost its capacity to do things, and what that meant for housing politics. (And if you happen to be in Atlanta tonight, grab a ticket to my interview with author Derek Thompson!)

I got a lot of responses, and one in particular seemed worth responding to, because it comes up frequently as a critique of the YIMBY project. Here’s what avidiax said:

This is a classic argument, often called the “homevoter” problem. If voters are being accurately represented by NIMBY politicians and processes, how can we could break out of this housing shortage doom loop?

While I agree that the past few decades have been dominated by local homeowners who feel threatened by housing production, the incentives for elected officials to rush like lemmings over that cliff are not all driving in that direction. And there is a lot we can do to create new incentives.

Elected officials have various approaches to their jobs: Some are more focused on bringing money into their districts. Some want to benefit particular constituencies. Some — fewer than you think! — have thought-out political philosophies they are trying to enact. Some just want to get invited to parties.

But the one thing they all have in common is that they can’t do anything if they don’t win elections. (The point is worked out at length in this book.) That means that to be successful, politicians in democracies have to focus on their constituents.

Are Average Voters Super Anti-Housing?

The Homevoter Hypothesis relies upon the idea that homeowners believe keeping the supply of housing artificially low benefits property owners, increasing the value of their homes higher than they would otherwise be. These voters are both the majority and quickly organize for their interests. Groups whose members receive only diffuse benefits from policies — renters, boomerang adults living in the basement, and future residents — are functionally invisible to many elected officials.

Part of the strength of the YIMBY movement is that it is publicizing that fact that average voters are far less anti-housing than politicians think they are. In a 2024 Pew Research Center survey, 69% of Americans said they were “very concerned” about the cost of housing, up from 61% in April 2023. And Data for Progress has a great breakdown of the popularity of specific pro-housing policies. Is the data solid that voters are overwhelmingly pro-housing? No, but it’s also clear that average voters are not unrepentant NIMBYs either.

The housing shortages create a long-term fraying in the fabric of society, adding up to a “wrong track” vibe shift that is bad for incumbents. That’s the focus of my last piece, and the big argument that the Abundance authors are trying to make. This anti-housing stuff is bad for society, and voters are punishing elected officials for not delivering “the goods” of abundance policies.

Homeowners might want to keep their home prices high, but they also want a lot of other things too. They may want local businesses to thrive or high quality teachers in their district. They may want their adult children to live nearby or hey may want to cut their carbon emissions. They may love walkability. They may want to fight inequality and segregation. They may want the tax revenue from new developments. All of these arguments can help elected officials run compelling campaigns with pro-housing policies. And Data for Progress has great message testing on this for Democrats and Republican lawmakers.

New housing isn’t a silver bullet — but I do ascribe to the Housing Theory of Everything, and if everything feels shitty, incumbents get dinged by voters.

Politicians often fall into the trap of “Let’s talk about height limits,” which selects for people who care about the height of buildings. Instead, they can frame conversations as “Let’s talk about whether your kids are going to be able to afford to live here,” which can get the same people having a very different conversation.

But housing skeptics dominate the community meeting…

The key here is that Homevoters are activated, visible and vocal for elected officials. The logic is pretty simple. According to the political scientist Mancur Olson (and backed up by decades of research since his 1971 book), it is much easier to organize groups in support of policies when their members receive concentrated, individual benefits. The vocal, organized homeowner crowd at the community meeting can quickly and the neighborhood defenders are loud.

As neighborhood defenders are clear, loud, consistent and often host house parties for candidates. It’s reasonable to expect that politicians who prioritize the landed gentry will win elections. That has been the dominant logic of decades of local decision-making on housing. Elected officials deeply fear the backlash of the homevoters.

Here’s the funny thing: The facts don’t fit that prediction. 95 percent of pro-housing state legislators get reelected. Mayors across the country are YIMBYs and we’ve notched hundreds of policy victories just over the past few years. The Congressional YIMBY Caucus already has 33 members, including members of the House and Senate, and Democrats and Republicans.

Just this week, Evanston, IL Mayor Daniel Biss handily won re-election, while championing “Envision Evanston 2045,” an effort to overhaul their zoning to allow for more housing.

YIMBYs phone banking, press, and a pro-housing victory email

But it’s important to note that while the voters have spoken loudly in favor of Mayor Biss’s leadership, under the current process, politicians still need two things to be sucessful:

1. Active YIMBY supporters for his campaign (which Abundant Housing Illinois did fabulously)

2. Active YIMBY supporters for the legislative process

Building the YIMBY Parade

Another commenter asked the question: “what would it take to make the YIMBY endorsement seem at least as important to the council members as the firefighters' endorsement?”

This is fundamentally the work of the organized YIMBY movement. It’s creating new chapters locally so candidates can’t pretend that there is no one in their district who supports housing. It’s writing op eds in local papers so engaged people hear these arguments from local voices. It’s not just endorsing candidates, but also organizing a phone bank. It’s speaking up when specific housing projects are proposed and creating a vibe-shift at community meetings. And creating a visible voting block that inspires candidates to run on bolder pro-housing messaging and elected officials to introduce ambitious pro-housing legislation. And then hosting awesome parties where those elected officials have a room of people clapping for them.

Elected officials get to the heads of parades. The work of YIMBYism is building that parade.

So, of course, I encourage you to make your membership in that parade official!