NIMBYs, NIMBYs, Everywhere...

Who will even debate me on housing regulation?

Water, water, everywhere,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.

― Samuel Taylor Coleridge, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner"

My Open Borders provoked abundant direct criticism. Not only is the world of ideas packed with full-time critics of immigration. The anti-immigration movement has multiple national think tanks. Sure, the Center for Immigration Studies preposterously claims to be “low-immigration, pro-immigrant,” but approximately 100% of their publications forthrightly complain about immigrants as well as immigration. The same goes for Numbers USA, and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Though I would be happier if these organizations didn’t exist, they’re good for Open Borders. I thrive on intellectual controversy. Controversy means attention, and attention means sales and influence. To quote a tired lawyer joke:

What do you have if there is only one lawyer in town?

Too little work.

What do you have if there are two lawyers in town?

Too much work.

My new Build, Baby, Build, in contrast, has provoked almost no direct criticism. If you google “build baby build criticism,” nothing relevant pops up on the first page of hits. After our recent immigration debate, Sohrab Ahmari told me he, too, is a YIMBY. (Though I’m still waiting for him to start publicizing my YIMBY olive branch to national conservatives). While the country and the world are packed with NIMBYs, there are no notable anti-construction intellectuals or think tanks. On a deep level, the national “Not In My BackYard” movement barely exists.

Though I’m glad such organizations don’t exist, it would be wonderful for Build, Baby, Build if they did. To repeat, I thrive on intellectual controversy. And despite the extreme unpopularity of my policy recommendation — 100% abolition of housing regulation — I’ve failed to inspire a single outspoken intellectual opponent. Literally no one has asked to debate me on housing. Not a single soul.

NIMBYism is the epitome of a parochial movement. It is bereft of nationally prominent champions and institutions. How then does it wield such overwhelming power? Because human beings everywhere have petty complaints — and almost every locality has a few activists willing to donate their time to promote those petty complaints.

As a result, every city, town, and village burdens construction. When the cumulative burdens in a locality intensify enough, they strangle construction locally — even though it would be hard to find anyone who consciously wants to “strangle construction locally.” And when the local burdens extensify enough, they strangle construction nationally, even though virtually no one consciously wants to “strangle constuction nationally.”

Prepare for death by a thousand cuts!

The lesson: NIMBY is a proverbial case of “death by a thousand cuts.” Despite its vast influence, there is no master anti-construction plan. Just hundreds of thousands of little plans, each with a little “regrettable” collateral damage that, taken together, have roughly doubled the price of American housing.

For many YIMBYs, the solution is to move regulatory authority up to regional, state, or national levels. While I’m tempted to agree, I’m worried about losing low-regulation outliers like (most of) Texas. And if housing regulation were done at the federal level, I’m also nervous that NIMBYism would finally attract some high-flying intellectual proponents. My best-case scenario is ultimately that the Supreme Court realizes that the 1926 Euclid decision elevating local control over private property rights was a tragic mistake. If you know any way to put Build, Baby, Build in the nine justices’ hands, I’m all ears.