To free the cities from NIMBYism that restricts growth and land usage: return to citywide planning.
So is the unexpected call for reform in a new report from the libertarian Cato Institute. Roderick M. Hills, Jr. and David Schleicher argue that municipal-wide planning can deregulate land use and overcome practical problems that many cities face.
Recommended Stories
If municipalities catch on to the idea, the result could be more development, lower costs, and a market-based approach to challenges presented by gentrification and the high demand for affordable living space in booming cities.
The result would be economically diverse and vibrant cities — cities that attract more millennials.
Some of the biggest barriers to development and change throughout cities have been NIMBYs — residents who already live in the area targeted for change. They don’t want change in their neighborhood, to the detriment of the rest of the city and possible residents who would like to live and work in the area if the changes occur.
In an effort to preserve the positive aspects of a neighborhood or city, NIMBY activism hampers the long-term prospects of a vibrant city. Home values remain high for the lucky ones, but restrictions on new housing drive up rents for others and prevent young talent from flocking to the city. San Francisco’s problems are well-known, for instance.
The victims of NIMBY victories are the unseen: the people who would move to the city for better economic opportunities and cultural immersion if they could afford, or even find, an apartment to rent.
If cities can’t find ways to accommodate millennials, their economic prospects could shrink and cause another exodus from the cities.
A citywide approach to planning faces some difficulties, as a mayor might gain too much unitary power or bad relations between the mayor and city council stall development completely. Enforcement mechanisms will be necessary to prevent abuse of the system, but it would also help city councilors to look beyond their district for the good of the city at large and its future.
Logrolling would become less of a concern. Limiting the blind support of district-specific initiatives in exchange for future legislative favors among councilmembers can produce smarter policies that involve less spending.
As Hills and Schleicher wrote, “Paradoxically, sometimes rigidity and centralization of a general framework for buying and selling land is more market-friendly than the bargaining free-for-all that keeps everyone guessing—and paying lobbyists to improve the odds of their guesses.”
Millennials might not gravitate toward the minutiae of city ordinances and zoning, but it bears on their future (and their wealth) in important ways that they cannot afford to ignore.
