The Roots of YIMBYism: A Journey Through Housing History
When did the YIMBY movement really begin?
In The Uneven March of Progress: The Past, Present, and Future of Zoning Reform in the United States, Stephen Menendian draws historic parallels between the modern YIMBY movement, which arose during the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2007 – 2008, and the fair housing and open housing movements of the 1950s and 60s.
Key Takeaways:
- The modern zoning reform movement has strong parallels to the 1950s and 60s fair housing movements.
- Housing reforms tend to be more effective when pursued at higher levels of government.
- While zoning reformers have made significant progress in the modern era, it is still early days; and we should expect to see broader, stronger reforms in coming years.
Menendian begins with a brief history of zoning ordinances, then runs through the basic critiques of exclusionary single-family zoning: it raises the cost of housing; promotes and reinforces racial and economic segregation; limits access to opportunity and social/economic mobility; and depresses economic growth.
From there, he recounts YIMBY-era zoning reform efforts at various levels of government, beginning with local reforms like Minneapolis’ 2018 triplex legislation, local ADU ordinances, form-based codes, and San Francisco’s poison-pilled 2022 fourplex legislation.
Moving up to the state level, he describes Oregon’s 2019 HB 2001, which legalized “missing middle” housing throughout the state; California’s 2021 lot-split and duplex law, SB 9, and 2022 commercial property upzoning bill, AB 2011; Massachusetts’ 2021 transit-oriented development MBTA Communities bill; Washington State’s 2023 reform package; the 2023 “Montana Miracle;” as well as successful efforts in Maine and Vermont. He also points out failed reform efforts, most notably in New York.
Following a brief look at potential federal reforms, Menedian turns to a broad typology of zoning reforms covering ADU laws, parking reform, transit oriented development, legalizing “missing middle” small-plexes, and streamlining measures.
Finally, Menendian draws on the history of the fair housing movement to make four points about the likely future of zoning reform. First, while housing reforms begin at the local level, they are more likely to succeed at higher levels of government – namely, state legislatures. Second, narrow, incremental, early reforms tend to be weaker than later bold action. Third, fair housing enforcement measures will tend to get stronger over time. Fourth, progress is not always linear: initial reforms will provoke backlash, after which stronger state and federal policies will emerge.