We talk about YIMBYism because we can't talk about class
I’m a big fan of higher density, more apartments, tackling sprawl, and walkable, bikeable neighbourhoods. So why do I have reservations about the recent rise of the YIMBY movement in Melbourne?
The central problem is that it’s a topic that we talk about because we’re not allowed to talk about class.
Today’s capitalistic, highly class-based society puts people in arbitrarily different life circumstances based on accidents of birth or chance. Some have more wealth than they could ever possibly spend, some have nothing. But it’s considered impolite, or downright taboo to mention this, at least in mainstream circles.
Close proxies for class
There’s a lot of these other-than-class topics about, the most popular of which is “generational warfare”.
Do young people have it harder than their parents and grandparents? Or do they have it easier. There’s endless media coverage exploring this question.
But somehow these stories always avoid discussing class directly. While there’s changes in circumstances between generations, class was and still is the main determinant of ones circumstances: a high earning millennial with rich parents will still probably do great, in the end. And an out-of-work millennial with poor parents will always probably struggle.
But we’re not allowed to talk about it so bluntly. “Does a homeless person have it harder than Andrew Forrest or Mike and Scotty from Atlassian?” isn’t a headline you’ll ever see in The Age or any mainstream news. Class isn’t something to be challenged fundamentally - prevailing ideology treats the existence of class as more like a law of physics that can never be changed.
Nevertheless, the problems and unfairness linger. They affect people in very real ways, and with that comes the desire to talk about them.
So if you can’t talk about the thing itself, you can talk about something closely related instead. Because wealth generally increases with age, age becomes a rough proxy for class. Generational discourse has become a proxy for talking about class directly.
YIMBYism is just another proxy
Tackling affordability through redistribution would mean talking about class. No can do, but we can talk about supply.
A land tax to force wealthy landholders to pay for owning all the valuable land would mean talking about class. No can do, but we can talk about density.
Running a Marxism book group isn’t going to get you coverage in The Age - but running a YIMBY group is.
YIMBYism is an escape valve for class anger
YIMBYism provides a convenient outlet that avoids class issues. Angry about house prices? Instead of blaming the people who own all the housing and demanding redistribution, demand more property development! Are the local Greens demanding public housing? Write them off as NIMBYs!
Building more housing, and higher density housing, is necessary but not sufficient. No amount of increased housing supply and density will make housing affordable for somebody who has nothing.
Housing is intricately bound up with class, and you can’t fix housing without talking about class too.
YIMBYism makes a fine goal, but a terrible cause.
Another approach to the problem: https://hartmannreport.com/p/are-we-at-peak-commodification-of?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Quote:
It’s almost entirely absent from our political dialogue, but the issue of who owns the commons and how they’re to be used (and by whom) is at the core of almost all the major debates between Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, and even those advocating democracy versus those trying to expand the American oligarchy.
The commons is the stuff we all use or is necessary to life: the air and water, the public roads and schools, the police and fire departments, the airways that our planes fly over and through which we send radio and TV signals, outer space, and our oceans.
The commons, in aggregate, are one of the major stores of the wealth of a nation.
One of the main reasons people throughout history have established governments is to protect and regulate the commons.
I feel the reason people focus on YIMBYISM is because time and energy here advocacy for a change actually feels like it’ll get rewarded with outcomes. It feels like low hanging fruit and most defences of bad faith local planning decisions fold like a chair. If we were to talk about class, where do we start, which parts have the low hanging fruit to address inequalities? Most challenges to the status quo here regardless of merit require a lot of time and energy to change, even if they are more effective at addressing inequality. I also think discussing class isn’t as concrete or specific òa topic as discussing housing supply
Supply can be tackled at every level. It’s also relevant in all states as well. Also I’m pretty sure each state govt in has the agency to override local government(?), making time & energy pushing for change here more productive.
I realise you were talking about more than just land tax but to use your example of Land tax, it’s more complicated, it’s gets politicised at the level where there is agency to make the change (the state government), there isn’t a 3rd party that can undermine any states hesitation to commit to land tax (federal govt has no agency here beyond carrot incentives). Chris Minns immediately politicised the former NSW premier’s transition to land tax as a “family tax”, this only works because the general public has a very poor understanding of how they would benefit from a land tax (I remember seeing a survey on opinions on land tax, most were indifferent). I also think this could improve if there was a dedicated group for advocating for producing education material on the actual benefits.
I still think there’s allot of value in advocacy for land value tax, Singapore style public housing, etc. But I think we’re seeking outcomes it’s unwise to exclusively focus our time and energy advocating for these when there’s other low hanging fruit right in front of us.
At least that’s the way I see it. Either way I think any effective solution to Australia’s housing and rent affordability problem will probably be best addressed by a confluence of different solutions, it’s just that supply is the easiest lever to pull