The YIMBY Movement Faces Challenges on Both Sides of the Aisle

“Yes In My Backyard” — if the phrase has yet to enter your lexicon, the YIMBY movement is a growing cultural and political response to its predecessor, NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”), which conjured images of wealthy property owners in manicured neighborhoods railing against property development nearby that would change the “feel” of the area. Whether or not that image is fair and accurate, as the nation faces a shortage of nearly 4 million homes, a pro-housing response is understandably on the rise. And while the YIMBY movement has garnered impressive traction on both sides of the political aisle — Harris and Trump have both vocalized pro-housing development sentiment — it is also not immune to criticism from both sides.

A recent Vox analysis of the future of the YIMBY movement asks, “How much should democratic preferences matter” in the development and distribution of new housing? Describing the YIMBY housing movement as “divided against itself,” author Rachel Cohen casts the policy debate as a “paradox that echoes earlier civil rights battles: using higher levels of government to ensure broader participation and protect minority interests, even when that means overruling local control.”

In the greater Seattle region, three recent examples of democratic processes stymying housing development challenge the NIMBY stereotype and highlight the YIMBY paradox:

• A year ago, the Kenmore City Council voted to reject a permanent supportive housing development from being built downtown. The near-unanimous vote came after hours of public comment in which residents expressed frustration with a lack of communication, and concerns about unrestricted drug use and crime associated with similar low-barrier developments. While Kenmore Deputy Mayor O’Cain described the community input as a vital part of democracy, state and county leaders were quick to criticize the Kenmore Council for halting the creation of new, affordable housing. Following this, the Washington State Legislature introduced a bill that would have given the state authority to override local decision making on the siting of shelters and transitional or permanent supportive housing.

• In Tacoma, the Hosmer Business Association has been gathering residents and city officials to bring awareness to a tiny home village (of 60 units) that is being planned for development between a private school and a church property. According to an attendee, residents in the area were not notified of the plans and have been told that the tiny houses will not prioritize locals experiencing homelessness. Instead, the village will serve residents from three other cities.

• In December, the Bellevue City Council voted unanimously to halt housing development plans for a 12-acre plot of land by purchasing the space for $19.1 million from a building company. According to the Seattle Times, advocates for preserving the land, which is bordered by a regional park and natural area, have “spent years fighting the development through petitions, rallies and land-use appeals.” Their efforts succeeded in preventing the creation of at least 35 homes geared towards lower-income households and preserving the land for wildlife, hikers, and visitors.

A clear tension exists between the democratic engagement associated with NIMBYism and the enforcement of deregulation associated with YIMBYism. As much as YIMBYism has received bipartisan support, it also faces bipartisan skepticism among the general public and political advocates. According to a 2024 survey from Navigator Research, both Democrats and Republicans say that rental assistance and price regulation will do more to address housing affordability than building more homes.

The survey also showed that Americans on both sides of the aisle are seven times more likely to perceive a nationwide housing shortage than to perceive a shortage of homes in their own neighborhood. It’s far easier to say “yes” to housing development in someone else’s city or state than in your own town, especially if you perceive no need for it. Speaking in broad terms, on the right, opponents of YIMBYism favor local authority and decision making over state mandates. On the left, opponents of YIMBYism express concerns about the environment, the preservation of history and the arts, and the commodification of housing to begin with.

Though it’s uncertain what the future of the region’s housing movement is, one thing is clear. The stakes are high, with the Seattle-Bellevue-Tacoma metro facing a shortage of more than 70,000 homes. If saying “yes” to unfettered building is truly the best path forward, the YIMBY movement must be equipped to counter the challenges coming from both sides of the aisle with a compelling message for political activists and the average citizen alike.