The coming battle among YIMBYs

The YIMBY (“yes in my backyard”) movement has achieved remarkable growth in the past few years, uniting people across the political spectrum who share a common belief: It should be easy to build more housing. You can find shared interests among unlikely alliances when you step out of political tribes. People who label themselves as socialists and capitalists are standing at town hall podiums to support and promote abundant housing. High fives! Hooray for unity, right? 

Insert record scratch. Socialists and capitalists have economic worldviews that are incompatible with each other. There’s definitely consensus about the ends (plenty of homes), but the means will be hotly debated. The clash was inevitable, and the recent book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, Abundance, has keyboard warriors starting to realize there are a host of competing opinions on how to get past the gatekeepers who would have homes remain scarce. 

You might think something as apolitical as a townhouse wouldn’t be a lightning rod for a populist left-versus-right debate. The reason is economics. Considering the surge in populism in recent years, it’s worth understanding why economics, not “neighborhood character,” is at the heart of the argument.

The Socialist YIMBY

Socialist YIMBY advocates believe housing should be universally accessible, treated fundamentally as a human right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold for profit. Prominent democratic socialists, like New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani and Minneapolis mayoral candidate Omar Fateh, argue for “decommodifying” housing, where the government would guarantee homes. Market forces are not part of the equation. A socialist YIMBY is going to want state-managed housing solutions, price controls, rent freezes, and strict regulations on private ownership. Mamdani even said he’d be open to the abolition of private property if it meant getting people places to live. 

Socialist YIMBYs build their case on fairness, social justice, and community stability. They argue that a free market creates disparities, displaces vulnerable populations, and commodifies essential human needs. The belief here is that removing profit motives from housing reduces speculation, stabilizes communities, and ensures housing stability and equity, prioritizing human dignity and communal well-being above private gain.

The Capitalist YIMBY

Capitalist YIMBY advocates believe in leveraging market mechanisms. To them, the root cause of housing shortages lies in artificial restrictions imposed by zoning laws, burdensome permitting processes, and other bureaucratic interference. Their economic rationale hinges on the concept of supply and demand, and prices as crucial signals.

Capitalist YIMBYs argue that when the price of a type of home goes up in an area, it signals to developers, investors, and builders that demand is high and supply low. Rather than suppressing these signals through artificial price controls, they propose getting rid of laws that prohibit housing and streamline approval processes in order to spur rapid and flexible housing production. They argue that robust competition among builders and investors inherently leads to diverse housing options, lower overall costs, and more innovation in housing solutions.

The Perplexed YIMBY

A person is standing at the philosophical crossroads to abundant housing and two fellow YIMBYs are giving conflicting directions: “We have to go left.” “No, we have to go right.”

Socialists look at capitalist solutions as inherently exploitative, always creating more inequalities, and they believe profit motives are what make homes too expensive. Capitalists look at socialist solutions as inevitably leading to inefficiencies, housing shortages, and stagnation. 

When I’ve asked people about their take on this conflict, a common response is something like “We’ll have enough homes for everyone if building regulations are relaxed and the government is in charge of low-income housing.” I believe that’s wishful thinking, since it brings us right back to the fundamental disagreement on economics. A capitalist will say, “There is a market for small and modest housing, so get the government out of the way.” The socialist will say, “We don’t believe you.”

I truly believe that populists on the left and the right want there to be enough homes for everyone. But it’s also clear that the populist left and right will forever treat each other like they’re living in a cartoon or comic book. “I’m the good guy and you’re the bad guy.” In spite of their shared interest in abundant housing, the socialist YIMBYs and capitalist YIMBYs are never going to agree on the means to the end. 

The best first step is something both sides claim to support: getting rid of the local regulatory barriers that are preventing anyone from building a granny flat, a townhouse, a duplex, etc. 

Legalize housing and let’s see where that takes us.