Skip to main content

The Yimbys are coming

So, nimbyism works. The decades long ground war to besiege town halls with petitions, traffic surveys and legal challenges has, I know this is hard to accept, been incredibly effective in halting the cause of new homes. 

New research published by the Institute for Government confirms what we've all known for a long time. Essentially areas with high levels of home ownership tend to have lower levels of growth in new housing stock. Nimbys organise, mobilise and very often win – the findings suggest the nimby-effect could have prevented up to one million homes being built between 2001-2011. 

The report identifies a number of policy factors which give in-built advantage to nimbyism: weak or absent regional planning coordination, limited local fiscal autonomy and development control (any change of land use is subject to planning permission). Clearly a shift in power is required. 

Nimbys have fought an aggressive war over decades - fuelled by rising home ownership, a sense of entitlement to ever-increasing house prices and a fear of what is new. Powerful people with vested interests have created a distorted view about what localism means and who it should serve. There has, for too long, been only one narrative in town. Despite that fact that every home was once a new home. 

The only antidote to the nimby is the yimby (yes in my back yard). Ipsos Mori polling suggests 80% of us believe there is a housing crises. This 80% is a disparate bunch: the well-housed, the badly-housed and the homeless. But it is nonetheless a yimby coalition in the making – already being induced by positive campaigns like Yes to Homes

Nimbys have not proved to be great neighbours. The rise of the yimbys promises the coming of more progressive conversations in our communities. Change only happens when enough people talk about it and demand it, not just of politicians but of each other. The keys to solving the housing crisis are in our hands.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Charities, politics and pragmatism

This blog considers the parameters and possibilities for charities seeking to influence policy in the context of a looming general election. There are two broad questions for charities to think about when developing their approach to public affairs. One relates to legalities and the other pragmatism. I will briefly reflect on each in turn.  I wanted to start by making a statement that should go without saying. Attempting to improve public policy is a noble pursuit. Many undermine and belittle it, often driven by ideological or commercial interests, however this activity is vital to a thriving democracy. It should be prized; and pursued without fear or favour. It is entirely proper for charities to argue for changes in policy, regulation, law and spending. Guidance from the Charity Commission makes clear that "campaigning and political activity can be legitimate and valuable activities." Although it should not be the sole purpose of a charity and must be undertaken "only

It’s called ‘public’ health

In times of trauma, we look to family, friends and neighbours for solace and strength. But the nature of the COVID-19 threat, a virus transmitted through close contact with others, tested this instinct. Despite that, people emerged as one of the main tools in the response to COVID-19. Communities rallied to deliver food parcels and medical supplies, we wore face coverings to protect others and adapted our behaviour as part of a common cause to limit illness and death. One innovative approach to building and sustaining community power was the COVID-19 Community Champions Scheme . As rapidly developed vaccines offered hope, attention turned to delivering messages to diverse and disadvantaged communities that made them feel comfortable about stepping up and receiving a vaccination. The messenger was key, especially in poorer areas and particular ethic minority groups. They had to be trusted by people and rooted in their area. The idea behind Community Champions was to encourage and

Don't be poor

Following the Spring Statement in March, the Resolution Foundation published analysis estimating that another 1.3 million people would be pushed into poverty next year. Professor Michael Marmot has warned of an impending “humanitarian calamity” and argued that to deprive citizens of basic material needs robs them of their dignity. In place of a policy response to the poverty pandemic there is a void. Cue the Health Disparities White Paper (currently being drafted in the new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities). It could be out as soon as May or June, so the influencing window is narrow. The priority given, by the public and politicians, to tackling the elective backlog in the NHS is understandable. We can see it, right here and right now. However, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has also acknowledged the link between poverty and poor health and outlined his ambition to address the ‘social backlog’. Both are essential and both are connected. The Preve