I think that most people have heard of the term "NIMBY." This stands for Not In My Back Yard and generally refers to those who want to remonstrate or otherwise impede development. Further, it reflects the idea that many people are perfectly fine with developing property so long as that property is not to close to their own homes.
There is a movement in other cities, in response to NIMBYism, called YIMBY, i.e. Yes In My Back Yard.
Count me in. I would like to see development in my backyard. I want to see Wilshaw built, particularly if it is not dominated by parking structures. I want to see increased bus routes between Speedway and every other part of the city. I want to see a train connecting the airport to downtown via Speedway. I want to see condos built around IMS for wealthy racing team owners to stay in, hopefully for more than just a few weeks in May. I would like to see more bars and restaurants open throughout Speedway, not just on Main St. I want to see the Speedway Supercenter (i.e. the Kroger development) grow like gangbusters. I would like the McGilvery's development to fill in, whether it is with liquor stores, bible stores, health clubs, or whatever.
Along those lines, I love the International Marketplace on W. 38th Street! In a city that is dominated by chain franchise restaurants and stores, it is so refreshing to see all of those independently owned and operated restaurants and other businesses. I try to patronize them as often as I reasonably can.
As I wrote a long time ago, the traffic that comes along with these developments is evidence that people actually want to be here. That is a good thing. If there is no traffic and considerably more parking than would ever reasonably be required, that is evidence that our home is not worth visiting to those who don't live here. That is a bad thing!
PLEASE in my backyard! Maybe instead of YIMBY we should call people like myself PIMBYs.
In light of Hurricane Harvey's devastation of Houston, I found this piece by Sheila Kennedy (another local blogger and a favorite of mine) to be most enlightening. An excerpt:
Last year, for example, a ProPublica/Texas Tribune investigation found that officials charged with addressing Houston’s obvious susceptibility to flooding had discounted scientists’ warnings as “anti-development.”
That reaction was so typically Houstonian.
For years, Houston has reveled in its “freedom” from “onerous, unnecessary regulations.”
I suppose Houston, and Texas writ large, and any other area of the country, has the right to implement policies that they believe are in their interests. This is the very essence of federalism. This piece highlights that Houston, presumably after weighing the costs/risks/benefits, decided that doing things like regulating how much concrete a developer can put down or how much wetland can be drained is not worth the cost of doing so.
As I said above, I suppose this is Houston's prerogative. Of course, it reminded me of another common story that we in Indiana hear often about Illinois' budget problems. See here, here, and here, for but a few examples. We often hear horror stories about how the federal government (i.e. the citizens of Indiana, among others) will have to bail out Illinois' failing budget obligations.
I can't help but link the two stories together.
Illinois, like Texas, has the prerogative to set policies that it believes are in its own interest. If Texas wants to pave over wetlands, perhaps that is their right. If Illinois wants to put itself in debt guaranteeing pensions to its public employees, perhaps that too is their right.
The problem comes when they externalize the costs of those policies. As it sits, the citizens of relatively eco-friendly Vermont, Massachusetts, and California are going to be on the hook for the policies of Texas, that surely the citizens of eco-friendly states would view as "penny wise and pound foolish." Similarly, the citizens of Indiana, Tennessee, and Kentucky may be on the hook for the policies of Illinois, which those of us in fiscally prudent states may view as "profligate."
My point is not to evaluate any of these policies on their merits, because all public policy is typically a choice between imperfect options. Perhaps Illinois could have been stingier with their pensions, but they determined that doing so would have a negative effect on their public workforce. Perhaps Texas could have been stricter in its environmental and building regulations, but they determined that doing so would stifle development.
At risk of repeating myself, this is their prerogative. However, it is not their prerogative to externalize the costs of their decisions onto their fellow citizens. If I want to quit my job, that means that I would have more free time to spend with my kids. However, I don't think that I have the right to expect my neighbors to cover the negative externalities of that decision (i.e. I have no right to expect my neighbors to pay my mortgage or buy my groceries).
Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. However, it really sticks in my craw when I hear Texas politicians (who constantly lecture the country on personal responsibility and making fiscally sound decisions) now approach the federal government with their hands out, seeking a bailout from the predictable consequences of their policy decisions.
How can it be that with two very polarized political parties in this country, and the polarized policies that go along with them, we wind up with a basic issue that is addressed so poorly by both sides? The issue I'm talking about is zoning.
The disaster in Houston is partly Mother Nature — natural disasters will happen sometimes whatever we did — but with a powerful assist from human action. Climate change definitely made such an event more likely; beyond that, Houston’s total lack of zoning, complete failure to limit the amount of land paved over, made it much more vulnerable than sheer geography required.
But this isn’t a simple parable where hostility to government intervention is the villain. In general, I have contempt for “both sides” arguments; given the corruption of modern American conservatism, on most issues there is a huge asymmetry between left and right. When it comes to land use policies, it really is true that both sides get it wrong.
Having no zoning, no control, can be disastrous — which is what we’re seeing in Houston now. But all too many blue states end up, in practice, letting zoning be a tool, not of good land use, but of NIMBYism, preventing the construction of new housing.
In fact, liberal (in the non-political sense) land use policy is probably the secret behind Texas economic growth: the state doesn’t offer high wages, but it does offer cheap housing even in huge metro areas. Compare real housing price evolution over the decades in Houston and San Francisco (sorry, the blue state is the red line and vice versa):
Photo
Credit
What we need is effective land-use regulation that doesn’t strangle housing construction. But how do we get there politically? No idea.
Now, as is commonly known to the reader(s) of this blog, I generally think that modern "conservative" policy ideas are, in a word, terrible. Nonetheless, the facts are what the facts are. In places like New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago, constructing new residential housing is nearly impossible. The predictable result of this is that the cost of housing skyrockets . . . you know, that old "supply and demand" thing.
Of course, I also have environmental sensitivities, so I don't think that constantly putting, for example, high rise condos on coastal Florida (which is eroding) is a good idea, if for no other reason than it destroys copious amounts of natural wetlands (natural weather buffers and water filters).
I guess it's because I think that zoning is generally both "overinclusive" and "underinclusive" that I have such an issue with people's reactions to the Wilshaw project. I support development, particularly in places that have already been developed once. I think the Wilshaw project should go through, even though I don't think that the Town of Speedway should be underwriting Wilshaw's parking garage: if Wilshaw wants a parking garage, they can build one; if the Town of Speedway wants one, we can build one. "He" who builds it, pays for it; "he" who pays for it, owns it. This is not a difficult concept.
Anyway, I thought this was interesting. I also have some thoughts about the national flood insurance program, which is currently quite deep in debt, but I'll save those for another day.
