Op-Ed: Defending the Indefensible—A Case for NIMBYism

If the left-wing and the right can agree on one thing, it is that NIMBYism is a problem. It is often seen as one of the central reasons for the high housing cost in many major cities, and there seems to be a political consensus on the national level that localities need less deliberative, more efficient zoning laws. 

As a lawyer-wannabe, I naturally decided to put the attack on zoning and NIMBYism under some scrutiny. This article only seeks to offer a limited defense of NIMBYism, with the ultimate aim to find common ground and bring much-needed development in major urban areas.

First, it is a pejorative label that no one identifies with, so there isn’t exactly a manifesto or a platform. I broadly define NIMBYism as the political movement that seeks to influence local policy, especially zoning law, to delay, relocate, or deny a construction project that stops short of a private nuisance to them and their property (who doesn’t want tort damage when they can claim some?). As the name suggests, the objection to the building project is not a principal objection to the project itself, but the objection to the time, place, and manner of the project. And the reason could be many, some believe the new infrastructure will decrease property value growth, while others think it would inhibit habitability. 

While affluent middle-aged homeowners in West Hollywood attending city council meetings and railing against changing “the character of the community” and “lowering the quality of life” aren’t the most sympathetic of people, the origin of zoning lobbying is a noble one. It started in NYC with the aim to limit factories, warehouses, and other commercial units in residential neighborhoods to ensure the safety and habitability of the community. The lobbying effort in NYC eventually spread to other localities, and local governments began to assert more political control over how, when, and where construction happens.

At the heart of city planning, zoning, and NIMBYism lies an objection to the future loss of interest and a concerted effort to prevent it through the political process. Although "sub-nuisance" construction nearby doesn’t violate any existing legal interest, the law does not capture every interest, yet it hurts those interests nonetheless. People decide to settle in a neighborhood for more than just a specific house; they seek the surrounding amenities, such as access to open space and well-funded public schools. When new development is built, whether it be a factory, high-density housing, or something else, it might eliminate the very benefits that drew them there in the first place. In effect, the current system asks original residents to subsidize the economic cost of new infrastructure by sacrificing their non-legal interests, a burden they shouldn't bear because they did not benefit from the change.

The recent construction of data centers across the country near low-income, rural communities and communities of color and the efforts of those communities to reject their construction, introduce another layer of complexity. These data centers presumably did not violate any legal rights held by owners, yet people are protesting and attempting to stop their construction regardless. As a society, we must ask what the point of zoning law is, and what level of sacrifice to existing landowners’ interests—legally entitled or not—we are willing to tolerate. If we do not treat the issue with nuance, the energy and frustration over the lack of affordable housing will be co-opted into a general deregulation movement, taking us back to an age where factories, houses, and apartments were built side-by-side.

This is not to say that every construction and infrastructure project must yield to the interests of current residents. Some projects—even those that people would rather not have near them, like parking lots, fire stations, and high-density housing—are overwhelmingly in the interest of the common good and must be completed. The needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few in many situations. However, I do believe that local owners, not just those selling their land, but also those who can reasonably expect to be affected by the negative impacts of the construction, deserve compensation because we are asking them to give up benefits they had or they wouldn’t object. The state or local government should set standards for compensation that builders must pay to local owners for certain types of projects of a certain size. If this is unsatisfactory to the current owners and further negotiation fails, the government should utilize the power of eminent domain and seize private land in exchange for market value if the interests are deemed compelling enough. This sets up a balance where the non-legal interests of existing inhabitants are protected and compensated, while creating a mechanism to push through necessary infrastructure over the objections of original residents.

The battle between NIMBYs and YIMBYs is a reflection of the dysfunction of our larger economic system, where resources and opportunities are concentrated in a select few parts of the country. While remote work and other technological innovations may eventually alleviate this problem, for now, we have to recognize that people organize against new construction not purely out of animus, but because of the expected loss of material benefits. These are benefits they have relied upon (Quasi-Contract Promissory Estoppel?) and for which they deserve compensation if we are asking them to give them up.

Author: Nathan Lee ’28, qks5uy@virginia.edu