A Perfectly Crude Solution to America’s Housing Shortage

The latest proposal to address America’s housing shortage has all the makings of a Faustian bargain. Paying off NIMBYs, those who fiercely resist new development in their neighborhoods, is being touted as a solution to overcome local opposition and get more housing built. However, this approach essentially acknowledges that the democratic process has failed.

At its core, paying off NIMBYs relies on an untested assumption: that money can buy silence or lukewarm support for new development. The idea is to make it financially attractive for residents to abandon their opposition to new housing projects, freeing up local officials to propose reforms without facing entrenched interests. However, this approach treats the symptoms rather than addressing the root causes of the housing shortage.

Research cited by proponents is based on a survey of residents in expensive areas, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia suburbs. The study found that more than 80% of respondents were willing to support new development if offered cash incentives, but only up to a point. Participants from densely populated neighborhoods required relatively small payments (a few hundred dollars) to approve new housing projects, while those from low-density suburbs needed much larger sums ($5,000 or more).

This data has been seized upon by think tanks and advocacy groups as evidence that paying off NIMBYs can be an effective way to overcome local opposition. However, it’s worth examining the underlying assumptions. Are we really saying that people in wealthy neighborhoods are so opposed to new development because they need a few thousand dollars to make up their minds? Or is this simply a case of developers and policymakers using money as a shortcut to bypass the democratic process?

The type of project being proposed also plays a significant role in determining whether paying off NIMBYs will be effective. As researchers noted, relatively low dollar amounts were required for residents to accept market-rate developments at the edge of their existing neighborhood – but much higher sums were needed for projects that would fundamentally change the character of these neighborhoods.

This approach won’t solve the underlying issues driving America’s housing shortage. By relying on cash incentives rather than meaningful policy reforms, we’re treating symptoms rather than causes. We need to tackle the root problems – affordability, gentrification, and unequal access to resources – rather than trying to buy off those who stand in our way.

Furthermore, this approach raises important questions about the value of democracy itself. Are we willing to sacrifice our democratic processes for a quick fix? By paying off NIMBYs, are we not simply perpetuating crony capitalism that has led to social and economic ills?

As policymakers consider implementing these proposals, they should remember that the value of democracy lies in its ability to reflect the will of the people – not just the will of those with deep pockets. Paying off NIMBYs risks creating a system where development is determined by who has the most money to throw around, rather than what’s best for our communities.

In the end, this proposal reveals that America’s housing shortage is less about finding creative solutions and more about confronting systemic inequalities that have led us here. We need to start addressing these underlying issues – not just trying to grease the wheels of progress with cash incentives.