YIMBY's Online Culture

A response to Freddie deBoer on how YIMBY culture stifles solidarity with tenant organizations for the greater good.

This piece is in response to writer Freddie deBoer’s latest substack.

---

I’ve talked to Freddie about YIMBYism before, and he makes a similar case that I’ve heard from Socialists time and time again: that YIMBYs are right but they’re too arrogant and condescending to low-income tenants in urban areas. His examples are mostly liberal pundits, although based on the tone it feels like he’s referencing YIMBY’s most prominent megaphone: social media.

I agree that the rift between tenant groups and YIMBYs isn’t helpful, and I applaud him for trying to convince tenant activists why more housing supply works. When I worked on policy with fellow YIMBYs that banned the demolition of rent controlled housing in California, many tenant groups didn’t even know it existed and were shocked at how useful it was. It was a terrible example of broken-down communication in which tenant organizations and YIMBYs became opponents in the aftermath of an upzoning battle.

DeBoer argues that YIMBYs can’t keep deriding NIMBYs as old white reactionaries without acknowledging that poor people in urban areas like NYC oppose new development too. But I’m not sure how that materializes in policy. Even when YIMBYs concede that there are areas at risk of displacement from upzoning, the debate then becomes what those areas exactly? In my experience, this means tenant groups try to exempt wide geographies and YIMBYs try to keep it narrow. Case and point: the SoHo rezonings of a long gentrified affluent neighborhood in NYC became contentious with these same oppositional stances between tenant groups and YIMBY groups.

DeBoer expresses frustration that YIMBYs aren’t focused on social housing, but that’s where he’s wrong. Ironically, the highest profile proposals for social housing were written or sponsored by YIMBYs in California and Hawai’i and YIMBY-allies in Portland. The California one was written by a DSA-elected who also is a proud YIMBY — it’s one of the first thing that shows up on English (U.S.) Google when you search “social housing.” But the reason Freddie and others don’t know about it was because many anti-YIMBY pundits (rather than statewide tenant organizers in CA) chose not to talk about it as to not give YIMBYs credit. On the day that California’s major Social Housing proposal — backed by many labor unions and YIMBY orgs — was up for a key vote against anti-public housing conservatives, Nathan J. Robinson was busy using his Current Affairs publication to rile up YIMBYs for no apparent reason. That leads to the second problem.

I’m not convinced that some 60 year old Hispanic grandmother or a Black woman organizer in these tenant activist spaces is following YIMBYs on Twitter or reading Yglesias’s pieces written by and for the pundit class. In all my years in this housing shit, I have never seen anyone outside the pundit class cite something from Eric Levitz or Matt Yglesias. They’re far more likely to know what a YIMBY is by talking to fellow members they organize with that actually engage with YIMBYs who are usually of the same activist class or online culture YIMBYs come from. This presents a major problem if those organizers don’t get along with those YIMBYs.

DeBoer and I both agree that YIMBYism shares many similarities with the Bernie movement of 2016, particularly the Berniebro stereotype. I also concede that many YIMBYs online lack awareness and will say moronic things that may be true on the facts but appear condescending and callous. Much of this comes as a defense mechanism from being shouted down at city meetings whenever someone speaks in support of housing and being forced to have to grow a pretty thick skin (for example, SoHo in NYC). But too many online YIMBYs get indiscriminate and mob random people for wrong but typical opinions which has the effect of turning people off to YIMBYism permanently. We agree that at least popular YIMBYs should reign in on this and be more diplomatic if someone appears genuinely naive rather than a quick dunk.

YIMBYs and Tenant Groups get along quite well in places like Oregon and Minneapolis where tenant protections and upzonings are usually proposed by the same YIMBY-Tenant org unified housing coalition. They also unify well at the federal level: the biggest YIMBY orgs in the Federal government are groups like the National Low Income Housing Coalition. The reality is that those on the ground who were serious and mostly offline put in the work to make it happen. YIMBY vs Tenant Organization culture wars mostly materialize in Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York City — the most unaffordable coastal metropolises where long organized and defensive tenant politics butts heads with the blossoming movement.

I’ve been here time and time again: attempted collaborations fail largely because a minority of people on both sides shit in the pool. Many don’t want it to work. They’ll hide behind their vague ideology for why they dislike the other side, but it’s mostly fueled by personal conflicts between organizations and being online too much. They’ll sneak poison pills into proposals, sponsor resolutions against the opposing sides, be totally inflexible on disagreements and spread rumors and uncharitable characterizations to their membership.

If we want serious collaboration between tenant groups and YIMBYs, we have to acknowledge the people in their respective movements who shit in the pool to prevent that from happening. Yes, including me. Oftentimes I recognize biases or bad blood I have and step aside. Pretending they don’t exist on both sides won’t do us any good, and it’s more impactful in the real world than social media and the pundit class. Also we need to accept that the tenant groups and YIMBYs aren’t going to agree. How we go about that? I don’t know, yet.

YIMBYism has grown more and more popular, with now President Obama and AOC adopting the movement’s beliefs. YIMBY voters and YIMBY candidates continue to grow from local to federal elections, and the movement is putting major legislative and policy wins on the board at such a young age. But housing affordability, especially in the expensive coastal areas where these culture wars are strongest, is not going to happen in a meaningful time frame if YIMBYs and tenant groups keep fighting each other. Especially if people who are essentially YIMBY are afraid to identify with the term due to the most obnoxious neoliberal or libertarian pundit pimping it out only to bash tenant activists on the head. Or even leftists who go: “aye, exclusionary zoning isn’t great” get hassled endlessly by a few obnoxious fanatics in their organization as a sell-out or traitor.

I say to Freddie that if we want an alliance to work, we can’t search for it on social media or in the pundit class. There are many notable NYC DSA activists including Paul Williams, a Socialist YIMBY who works on public housing and tenant rights, or urbanist eco-socialists like Nicole Murray, that further upzoning, social housing and tenant protections simultaneously. There are many people willing to put in the work. But be vigilant for the inevitable do-nothing detractors who will try to kill YIMBY collaboration attempts in the name of ideology and with the motivation of mindless culture wars and personal grudges. I’ll look out for the pundit or shitposter ready to pounce the at slightest deviation from YIMBY beliefs as a mere NIMBY segregationist.