Latest news with #YIMBYs
The Age
07-05-2025
- Politics
- The Age
One Liberal leader will be grateful for Dutton's demise
If there is one Liberal grateful for Peter Dutton's stunning leadership failings – and his history-making defeat – it must be NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman. Dutton's demise will be the making of Speakman, and will cement his leadership heading into the 2027 state election. But to capitalise on the complete rejection of the federal Liberals – now seen as a party that is anti-renewables, anti-women and anti-migrant – Speakman must ignore the white male Boomer membership of his party, the so-called base, which has proven to be completely out-of-touch with modern Australia. Instead, Speakman must make a virtue of his best asset: a sizeable chunk of his party room are Millennials, including nine MPs under the age of 40. This is a demographic cohort that punished the conservatives at the federal poll. Those younger MPs should guide Liberal policy heading into the 2027 election. The most crucial policy involves housing. The NSW Liberals have struggled to land a position on whether to be NIMBYs or YIMBYs. If the federal results are anything to go by, areas with an increasing number of apartments – such as Bennelong and Parramatta – turned their backs on the conservatives. Opposing high-density living options, such as units around railway stations, will only keep younger voters away. The NSW Liberals need to be a party of YIMBYs. But housing is not the Liberals' only weakness. Election after election, they have failed to acknowledge that if women are to vote for their party, it needs more women candidates. The only conclusion you can draw is that some parts of the organisation – that mystical base that selects candidates – do not really want women in parliament. The party refuses to back quotas, yet cannot find a better way to achieve equal gender representation within its ranks. To be fair, the state Liberals have had a better track record than their federal counterparts, though men still outnumber women in the lower house (15 to nine). However, when you combine both houses of parliament, Liberal women make up 45 per cent of the party room. The party needs to build on that, not rest on its laurels. You need to only look to Gladys Berejiklian's protege Gisele Kapterian, who is on track to buck the overwhelming trend and hold the once blue-ribbon federal seat of Bradfield for the Liberals. Kapterian is an exemplary candidate for the NSW Liberals moving forward: an accomplished progressive woman from a migrant background who wants to serve. Indeed, NSW Labor heavyweights were rooting for Kapterian to beat teal candidate Nicolette Boele amid fears she would run for a state seat if unsuccessful. Kapterian, in Labor's view, would be a threat in Macquarie Street. Berejiklian, mark two. Although the ABC and Nine initially called the seat for Boele, the vote in Bradfield is ongoing and, as of Wednesday, Liberal strategists were quietly confident that postal and absentee ballots would swing the seat in Kapterian's favour. That will be a shame for the state Liberals, who no doubt would have welcomed her into their party room. Her election to federal parliament will at least provide one bright moment for the conservatives in NSW.
Sydney Morning Herald
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
One Liberal leader will be grateful for Dutton's demise
If there is one Liberal grateful for Peter Dutton's stunning leadership failings – and his history-making defeat – it must be NSW Opposition Leader Mark Speakman. Dutton's demise will be the making of Speakman, and will cement his leadership heading into the 2027 state election. But to capitalise on the complete rejection of the federal Liberals – now seen as a party that is anti-renewables, anti-women and anti-migrant – Speakman must ignore the white male Boomer membership of his party, the so-called base, which has proven to be completely out-of-touch with modern Australia. Instead, Speakman must make a virtue of his best asset: a sizeable chunk of his party room are Millennials, including nine MPs under the age of 40. This is a demographic cohort that punished the conservatives at the federal poll. Those younger MPs should guide Liberal policy heading into the 2027 election. The most crucial policy involves housing. The NSW Liberals have struggled to land a position on whether to be NIMBYs or YIMBYs. If the federal results are anything to go by, areas with an increasing number of apartments – such as Bennelong and Parramatta – turned their backs on the conservatives. Opposing high-density living options, such as units around railway stations, will only keep younger voters away. The NSW Liberals need to be a party of YIMBYs. But housing is not the Liberals' only weakness. Election after election, they have failed to acknowledge that if women are to vote for their party, it needs more women candidates. The only conclusion you can draw is that some parts of the organisation – that mystical base that selects candidates – do not really want women in parliament. The party refuses to back quotas, yet cannot find a better way to achieve equal gender representation within its ranks. To be fair, the state Liberals have had a better track record than their federal counterparts, though men still outnumber women in the lower house (15 to nine). However, when you combine both houses of parliament, Liberal women make up 45 per cent of the party room. The party needs to build on that, not rest on its laurels. You need to only look to Gladys Berejiklian's protege Gisele Kapterian, who is on track to buck the overwhelming trend and hold the once blue-ribbon federal seat of Bradfield for the Liberals. Kapterian is an exemplary candidate for the NSW Liberals moving forward: an accomplished progressive woman from a migrant background who wants to serve. Indeed, NSW Labor heavyweights were rooting for Kapterian to beat teal candidate Nicolette Boele amid fears she would run for a state seat if unsuccessful. Kapterian, in Labor's view, would be a threat in Macquarie Street. Berejiklian, mark two. Although the ABC and Nine initially called the seat for Boele, the vote in Bradfield is ongoing and, as of Wednesday, Liberal strategists were quietly confident that postal and absentee ballots would swing the seat in Kapterian's favour. That will be a shame for the state Liberals, who no doubt would have welcomed her into their party room. Her election to federal parliament will at least provide one bright moment for the conservatives in NSW.
Boston Globe
05-04-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Cambridge's new housing plan is deeply flawed
Advertisement All new projects can also be built without design oversight or means of legal appeal by neighbors. As a result, residents who invested in solar technology or are considering doing so are now at risk, as their roofs could be shadowed by taller neighboring buildings. The assumption driving the new zoning policy is that loosening zoning restrictions will flood the market with thousands of units of housing, addressing a severe housing shortage in one of the most expensive markets in the country. But a recent study for the Many younger residents may have been led to believe that Cambridge's upzoning would lead to cheaper rents. But in cities across the country, there are mixed results from zoning reform: In Austin, Advertisement In Cambridge, market dynamics, some unique to the city (two world-class universities and a burgeoning life-sciences and biomedical research sector) and some not (suburban boomers exchanging large homes for an urban lifestyle) suggest that upzoning alone is unlikely to create more affordability. In recent weeks, several Cambridge real estate transactions and proposed construction projects is actually likely to lead to more expensive, larger homes. The 'Yes in My Backyard' movement often argues that even an increase in luxury housing development would be good, because it would free up housing downmarket, as affluent households move into newer homes. But this 'trickle-down' housing economics makes no sense in Cambridge, where wealthy homeowners typically do not leave their homes for more luxurious ones, and their current homes do not then become magically affordable. In truth, Meanwhile the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission had it right in its recent Advertisement A surge in luxury housing construction will deepen Cambridge's gentrification, forcing out lower-income residents, including many from marginalized communities. Cambridge is increasingly becoming a city of extremes of rich and poor, where profit-driven policies override community needs. Cambridge residents see a strong need for more affordable housing, according to a YIMBYs celebrating the new measure claim moral high ground, dismissing critics as selfish NIMBYs while ignoring well-founded concerns about gentrification and the environment. Meanwhile, critics of historic-housing demolition, tree loss, heat-island impacts, and traffic congestion have been dismissed. Instead of the new upzoning measure, better alternatives would include leveraging city-owned lots for affordable housing and prioritizing the building of new apartment properties over condominiums. Cambridge is already very dense — one of the densest cities in the state and the Several amendments would improve Cambridge's new measure. First, the city should limit projects relying on the new upzoning criteria to multifamily homes of three or more units. Second, projects six stories tall should be shifted to corridors near commercial establishments. Third, Cambridge should reintroduce design oversight, in part to protect residential solar-power installations. Advertisement If the city truly wants to address its housing crisis, it must abandon the myth that deregulation will solve the problem. Affordability requires proactive intervention, oversight, and a commitment to keeping housing accessible — not a free pass for developers.
Forbes
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Could Ezra Klein's ‘Abundance Agenda' Help Housing?
Could Democrats begin to see the difference between compassion and embracing more and more rules and ... More regulations? Writer Ezra Klein of the New York Times advocates for something called an 'abundance agenda,' a progressive embrace of economic development and increased supply of housing by reducing regulatory barriers. Klein was one of the first progressives, or anyone of any persuasion I've seen, the way we're addressing housing in the United States is 'absolutely insane,' imposing the massive spending on housing with no effect on housing prices or homelessness. In a recent articulation of this, Klein points out the general tenants of the abundance agenda without specifics on how to overcome regulation. That's fine. But I'd caution that to succeed, specific proposals must contain reforms that are both necessary and sufficient to improve housing for people with less money. It's simple from my perspective having spent decades in deep blue Washington state. 'Look at the places Democrats govern' Klein points out, 'liberal strongholds like New York, Illinois and California. In 2023, California saw a net loss of 268,000 residents; in Illinois, the net loss was 93,000; in New York, 179,000. Why are they leaving? In surveys, the dominant reason is simply this: The cost of living is too high. It's too expensive to buy a house. It's too expensive to get child care. You have to live too far from where you work. And so, they're going to places where all of that is cheaper — Texas, Florida, Arizona.' Those are red, Republican states. Which, for progressives, Klein argues is 'also a spiritual crisis.' There's no doubt that across the country families at the lower end of the economic ladder voted in greater numbers for Trump. These families have become the battleground, maybe appropriately, for ambitious politicians. There's nothing wrong with the political debate being about who can best help people struggling to make ends meet. You can't make this case, Klein argues, or be 'the party of working families when the places you govern are places working families can no longer afford to live.' Again, I agree, 'this is the policy failure haunting blue states' What's the answer? I often hear about the Yes In My Back Yard or YIMBY movement. I'm not convinced. First, I've pointed out that YIMBYs aren't generally developers, builders, or housing providers but generally are planners, architects, or local government employees. That's not a bad thing, but they tend to support public housing options. They talk about supply, but in practice the YIMBY argument leans not so much on regulatory relief but the equivalent of single-payer housing. A national YIMBY leader quoted in the linked post above said this: 'We need publicly subsidized and/or public housing too. And we could transition to entirely public housing. I have no problem with that.' When YIMBYs embrace supply, they generally mean more money for subsidies not reducing regulation. And when the YIMBY set does advocate for rolling back rules, they often neglect the myriad of contingencies and conditions that surround the changes they propose. In Austin, as I've mentioned before, a significant allowance for as many as three units on previously single-family lots was necessary for increasing housing opportunity but not sufficient. The regulatory changes there were real, but things like existing surface water management charges and an inability to subdivide lots made it likely that very few single-family lots would become multifamily homes. This happens largely because YIMBYs usually seek a big headline not a big economic opportunity; remember they're mostly planners not people with their hands in the dirt as builders of housing. Those people get the millions of pinpricks of legislation that make it challenging in places like Seattle or Austin or San Francisco to build more housing. Finally, almost every big change supported by YIMBYs ends up with extractions and mandates to squeeze the projects for money to pay for the big Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) projects that Klein called 'absolutely insane.' In Seattle, the Mayor and Council embraced Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning, what I've called, essentially, a bribery scheme that requires fees to build new housing, fees that wind up in LIHTC housing which has dramatically high per unit costs and takes years to build and usually houses people who earn more money to pay the rent. Usually, even when trying to reform housing regulation, blue states and cities can't resist creating more regulation. Consider former San Francisco Mayor's effort to create a new department to try and reduce regulation; the irony of a bureaucracy to reduce bureaucracy is lost in may big blue cities. And remember, Klein's abundance agenda diagnosis 'The problem is the rules and the laws and political cultures that govern construction in many blue states.' He is right, 'if Democrats are to become the party of abundance, they have to confront their own role in creating scarcity.' Right at the heart of this is a genuine embrace of the price system, an economic view that sees prices as a quantitative indicator of supply and demand. That means when prices go up, it isn't gouging or greed, it is lack of supply and too much money. This would make most progressive and populist heads explode; the heart of their views is that there are billionaires and millionaires programing the economy for their own benefit. 'To unmake this machine will be painful,' says Klein, and he says, 'It's also necessary.' So, before any lofty ideals of abundance can take hold among progressives, they will have to figure out an alchemy that allows an acceptance of both capitalism (or more accurately, human nature) without trying to transmogrify it into some perfect system of economic distribution. Instead, progressives must see abundance is expanding the pie, not handing out thinner and thinner slices. This is what, as Klein points out, what 'they need to offer Americans a liberalism that builds.'
Boston Globe
12-02-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
The YIMBY movement has a major win in Cambridge, even as many neighbors cry foul
At City Hall, there were the young YIMBYs, like those among the 10 Harvard students from a group called the Harvard Undergraduate Urban Sustainability Lab, or HUUSL (pronounced like 'hustle'), who had come to watch the vote. Advertisement There were casual YIMBYs who called in to say they hoped new housing would make it easier to get a Cambridge apartment, or keep rents from spiking every year. And there were the more hardcore YIMBYs, like the chatty and zealous members of A Better Cambridge, the city's most visible and best organized YIMBY group that has pushed, very hard, to make it easier for developers to build bigger. YIMBYs of all stripes. 'The door has been opened,' said Fred Watts, a 33-year-old data scientist who lives in Kendall Square, and who came to City Hall see the ordinance passed. 'There's going to be a hundred city councils hopefully seeing our demonstration saying this is possible and worthwhile.' Related : The ordinance, which has been tweaked Advertisement Other rules were added during months of debate, including minimum amounts of green space needed in the developments, and a rule that six stories can only be built under the law on lots that are at least 5,000 square feet. A hotly debated effort among councilors earlier this year to allow only three stories, and an additional three only if developers added the 'affordable' units, Monday's night version passed 8-1. Only Councilor Catherine Zusy opposed it, calling it a 'recipe for random development at the whim of developers.' Debate over the sweeping zoning reform, which all sides agree is likely to set in motion a major change in the cityscape, Some of the critics feared giving developers this much freedom to build would do little to make Cambridge more affordable, and might only drive home and apartment prices higher, while lining the pockets of investors or people who already own homes. Related : 'It hurts my heart when I hear people who are renting say they want this proposal to maintain their rent,' said Sara Nelson, a 52-year-old Cambridge resident who is a pediatrician in Chelsea and works with families who are being battered by the housing crisis. 'It's not realistic. It's a dream.' She has tried to convince officials to use public funds to, for example, offer zero-interest loans to low-income families looking to buy in the city, or pay to build affordable housing directly. Advertisement 'Prices aren't going to go down unless there is a non-market influence put into it,' Nelson said, adding, with a laugh, 'My family thinks I'm a socialist, but that's OK.' To others, the solution offered by loosening zoning was just common sense. Emma Bouton, 27, said she felt lucky to have found an apartment at all in Cambridge when she moved into her unit near Fresh Pond last summer, given how competitive the market is. She's getting married this year, and thinking about raising a family here, but can't imagine doing so with rents rising every year, and too few less expensive options nearby. Walking her dog in the neighborhood, she has been struck by the number of big lots occupied by only one home. 'I just think about what it would mean to be able to have a multi-story apartment building there,' Bouton said. 'What would it mean for more families to be able to live in Cambridge and have more supply bring the cost down for all the renters here?' The vote on Monday had come with somewhat of a deadline, as failure to pass it might have meant having to wait months to try again. Councilor Patricia Nolan, before the meeting started, said she thought there was still more room to refine it, but that there was enough momentum, and pressure from the YIMBY movement, that waiting longer to tweak the rules wasn't feasible. 'I am really excited and thrilled that we're going to do something. It's just unfortunate it's not the best proposal that we had on the table,' she said. Related : Advertisement As the votes came in, a crowd of YIMBYs in a gallery viewing area leaned over a railing to record it on their phones. There was halting applause and a single 'woo!' An after-party was held across the street, at 730 Tavern, although it hadn't been planned ahead of time. Actually the whole thing had been 'organized by private developers,' one of the revelers said, grinning. It was a joke, but distrust in the industry and a belief that the YIMBY movement overall is too much in the thrall of real estate investors has been at the center of the debate here as the movement began zeroing in on Cambridge. Clara Wellons was one of those skeptics. Born 38 years ago in a house on Green Street in Cambridge — literally in the house, as her mom favored a home-birth — she said she and her parents have for her whole life been battling with what she described as rapacious building developers intent on turning Cambridge into a hub for luxury high-rises. She worried about neighbors having less say in what gets built, and where that might lead. 'What I see happening to not just my neighborhood, but to Cambridge, is Kendall Square,' Wellons said, referring to a neighborhood where large glass towers have sprouted. 'It's kind of a mini-New York City. I love New York, but my parents came to Cambridge to have a family. They wanted to have clean air and a healthy environment.' To the YIMBYs, though, many concerns about the law during its drafting were at best misguided, or at worst, disingenuous. Advertisement 'They're always coming up with arguments that at the end of the day are meant to just stop anything from happening,' said Dan Eisner, a Cambridge resident who strongly supported the up-zoning push. 'People have this inherent distrust of developers. You see that in places like Cambridge because there's this anti-business mentality in progressive communities. They don't trust people who make a lot of money,' Eisner said. 'They don't want to see developers make money. Well, that's kind of what makes the world go round.' Spencer Buell can be reached at
