It’s worth remembering that the “freaking out about overpopulation” Thing dates back to Malthus, who I don’t think can be reasonably described as “Uber-environmentalist left”.
Beyond that nitpick, I’ll argue that the overpopulation scare caught on because it was Useful to a wide array of jackasses: heavy polluters got to blame third-worlders (and China) for their pollution, 70s Environmentalists (truly one of the most self-defeating groups of all time, thanks to their opposition to nuclear power) got A Big Issue to rally around, racists got to say Something Must Be Done about China and India, The Media got to make scary predictions and thereby get more eyeballs on televisions, etc.
Alright, now that’s off my chest—back to the article!
Yes Malthus, but the 1960s/1970s incarnation of this stuff that directly inspired NIMBY housing policies was mostly a left-environmentalist movement. I am sure there were a broader array of people who took on that issue too, though.
I’m not 100% sure that Ehrlich (but for whom there probably would not have been an overpopulation scare) himself was necessarily a product of the “left”*-environmentalist movement (the only aspect of his politics that I can find is “I sure hate India”), but I do agree that in general the overpopulation scare started with said movement. I’m just saying that said scare only became influential because it was adopted by other groups.
* I’m of the opinion that The Hippies and their immediate ideological descendants (which definitely includes early 70s environmentalists) were not (as a group) left-wing in any meaningful way, but that’s not really relevant to this conversation.
Very thoughtful essay, and it gives me a more well-reasoned basis for what I try to do - try to focus my neighbors on the base problems. And if more housing creates parking problems, well, let's work on parking management strategies. As you say, there are ways to address legitimate concerns as long as the argument is actually about those legitimate concerns, and not a false pretense to prevent any change. It's also important to note that in many places, inclusionary zoning is important to provide MIDDLE income housing these days - teachers, nurses, office administrators, public workers, etc. An indication of just how short the housing supply is.
Thought you'd find this interesting, from Cincinnati. In this case, the homeowners opposing the new development, targeted to renters making 50% to 70% of the area median income, are black residents. The justification for this project (recently approved by city council) is that this development is along a major BRT (bus rapid transit route) that's under development, connecting residents who may be more likely to rely on mass transit to a major jobs corridor.
This is part of the city's new Connected Communities rezoning plan, which has encountered opposition from the usual suspects (wealthier communities), but also from traditionally lower income and often majority black communities, like the one in this article.
The predominantly Black, middle-class residents of the Villages of Daybreak along East Seymour Avenue want the development that had been planned for the 4.3-acre site when their homes were built two decades ago: 43 attached condominiums or, barring that, more single-family homes.
The developer called real estate agents and other witnesses who said that such developments are financially unfeasible. Single-family homes would have to be sold for a minimum of $550,000, while condominiums would have to go for $350,000, prices the market in Bond Hill will not sustain.
Jason Dunn, a Villages of Daybreak home owner, said if there are issues building what was promised, the blame is with the city and large land owners, such as the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority, because they have allowed blight in the Reading Road corridor to fester.
It sends the message that “we are not worthy of the same resources or investment as the rest of Cincinnati," said Dunn, the former chairman of the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority. “Any of us could have chosen to live in Mason, West Chester, Evendale or even, yes, Indian Hill.”
That banks won’t finance condos at the site is “modern-day redlining,” Dunn said.
Residents said they need retail, including restaurants, hardware stores and grocery stores, and so will the apartment residents.
“We literally live in a food and retail desert,” said resident Tara Harris, who said she has not seen the city approve any similar projects in Hyde Park, Oakley or Mount Lookout. [clarification: wealthier, predominantly white neighborhoods] “It seems like we’re under attack. We’re tired of being dumped on.”
Sean Suder, an attorney for the developer, said LDG has made significant concessions. The pool was removed to eliminate a potential source of noise, more parking was added and more green space will be put in to buffer the site from the home owners.
“It has changed, I think pretty significantly, in response to robust engagement in the neighborhood,” Suder said. “We need more housing in the city. We need more affordable housing in the city. It always comes down to ‘We need this, but not here.’ This is actually a fantastic place for this. The developments they build are pretty indistinguishable from market-rate.”
Hard to tell how much merit there is to their objections, since it’s always the same objections. We can get jaded and think it’s always cynical, but case by case they might have a point. I don’t know enough to say. The point about retail is an important one, though.
I must be missing something with the argument that the city subsidizes the suburbs. I wouldn’t, for example, say that my office subsidizes my bedroom. The fact is, I need a place to sleep, and I can’t just evaluate my house only in terms of where all the economic activity takes place. I think that the city and the suburbs largely have a symbiotic relationship: the city is where you work and raise hell, and the suburbs are you where you sleep and raise a family.
The problem is that elites in urban areas support policies that make cities unlivable. You can’t raise a family if the schools are unusable, if crime is a constant concern, if the police are almost nonexistent, and so on. In this way, the suburbs exist so the elites can continue their experiments, while the middle class can maintain separation from the impact of those experiments. If you do invest in a city, you don’t know when leaders will decide to let riots run unabetted and burn everything to the ground. You don’t know when the next time you might be locked into your house, cut off from any access to nature because of a pandemic. At least in the suburbs you’re largely insulated from the negative impact of liberal policies.
So, I see the artificial zoning and hatred for affordable housing projects and all things urbanism as a way of trying to maintain some separation from policies that will eventually destroy a community.
I think you highlight well why a lot of right of center folks seemingly find themselves on the losing end of a lot of policy battles. There’s too often a reflexive “it is what it is” attitude that doesn’t understand there’s actually a problem needing to be solved. And, that there’s a historical reason for what led us to this point, often created by policy decades ago - not the market. So progressives walk right into that void with ideas, policies, solutions, and tend to win the day by working proactively. Now, those solutions might be awful. Inclusionary zoning, for example, is a horrid solution for housing. But the left side is much more organized and proactive, so I think the conservatives tend to be on their heels and reacting.
Cathartic. Thanks for the rant (I say that in the best way).
It’s worth remembering that the “freaking out about overpopulation” Thing dates back to Malthus, who I don’t think can be reasonably described as “Uber-environmentalist left”.
Beyond that nitpick, I’ll argue that the overpopulation scare caught on because it was Useful to a wide array of jackasses: heavy polluters got to blame third-worlders (and China) for their pollution, 70s Environmentalists (truly one of the most self-defeating groups of all time, thanks to their opposition to nuclear power) got A Big Issue to rally around, racists got to say Something Must Be Done about China and India, The Media got to make scary predictions and thereby get more eyeballs on televisions, etc.
Alright, now that’s off my chest—back to the article!
Yes Malthus, but the 1960s/1970s incarnation of this stuff that directly inspired NIMBY housing policies was mostly a left-environmentalist movement. I am sure there were a broader array of people who took on that issue too, though.
I’m not 100% sure that Ehrlich (but for whom there probably would not have been an overpopulation scare) himself was necessarily a product of the “left”*-environmentalist movement (the only aspect of his politics that I can find is “I sure hate India”), but I do agree that in general the overpopulation scare started with said movement. I’m just saying that said scare only became influential because it was adopted by other groups.
* I’m of the opinion that The Hippies and their immediate ideological descendants (which definitely includes early 70s environmentalists) were not (as a group) left-wing in any meaningful way, but that’s not really relevant to this conversation.
I immediately like where this is going
You're gonna love it
Very thoughtful essay, and it gives me a more well-reasoned basis for what I try to do - try to focus my neighbors on the base problems. And if more housing creates parking problems, well, let's work on parking management strategies. As you say, there are ways to address legitimate concerns as long as the argument is actually about those legitimate concerns, and not a false pretense to prevent any change. It's also important to note that in many places, inclusionary zoning is important to provide MIDDLE income housing these days - teachers, nurses, office administrators, public workers, etc. An indication of just how short the housing supply is.
Thought you'd find this interesting, from Cincinnati. In this case, the homeowners opposing the new development, targeted to renters making 50% to 70% of the area median income, are black residents. The justification for this project (recently approved by city council) is that this development is along a major BRT (bus rapid transit route) that's under development, connecting residents who may be more likely to rely on mass transit to a major jobs corridor.
This is part of the city's new Connected Communities rezoning plan, which has encountered opposition from the usual suspects (wealthier communities), but also from traditionally lower income and often majority black communities, like the one in this article.
The full article is paywalled but I'll pull out a few paragraphs (https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2024/08/16/cincinnati-apartments-villages-of-daybreak.html):
The predominantly Black, middle-class residents of the Villages of Daybreak along East Seymour Avenue want the development that had been planned for the 4.3-acre site when their homes were built two decades ago: 43 attached condominiums or, barring that, more single-family homes.
The developer called real estate agents and other witnesses who said that such developments are financially unfeasible. Single-family homes would have to be sold for a minimum of $550,000, while condominiums would have to go for $350,000, prices the market in Bond Hill will not sustain.
Jason Dunn, a Villages of Daybreak home owner, said if there are issues building what was promised, the blame is with the city and large land owners, such as the Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority, because they have allowed blight in the Reading Road corridor to fester.
It sends the message that “we are not worthy of the same resources or investment as the rest of Cincinnati," said Dunn, the former chairman of the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority. “Any of us could have chosen to live in Mason, West Chester, Evendale or even, yes, Indian Hill.”
That banks won’t finance condos at the site is “modern-day redlining,” Dunn said.
Residents said they need retail, including restaurants, hardware stores and grocery stores, and so will the apartment residents.
“We literally live in a food and retail desert,” said resident Tara Harris, who said she has not seen the city approve any similar projects in Hyde Park, Oakley or Mount Lookout. [clarification: wealthier, predominantly white neighborhoods] “It seems like we’re under attack. We’re tired of being dumped on.”
Sean Suder, an attorney for the developer, said LDG has made significant concessions. The pool was removed to eliminate a potential source of noise, more parking was added and more green space will be put in to buffer the site from the home owners.
“It has changed, I think pretty significantly, in response to robust engagement in the neighborhood,” Suder said. “We need more housing in the city. We need more affordable housing in the city. It always comes down to ‘We need this, but not here.’ This is actually a fantastic place for this. The developments they build are pretty indistinguishable from market-rate.”
Hard to tell how much merit there is to their objections, since it’s always the same objections. We can get jaded and think it’s always cynical, but case by case they might have a point. I don’t know enough to say. The point about retail is an important one, though.
I must be missing something with the argument that the city subsidizes the suburbs. I wouldn’t, for example, say that my office subsidizes my bedroom. The fact is, I need a place to sleep, and I can’t just evaluate my house only in terms of where all the economic activity takes place. I think that the city and the suburbs largely have a symbiotic relationship: the city is where you work and raise hell, and the suburbs are you where you sleep and raise a family.
The problem is that elites in urban areas support policies that make cities unlivable. You can’t raise a family if the schools are unusable, if crime is a constant concern, if the police are almost nonexistent, and so on. In this way, the suburbs exist so the elites can continue their experiments, while the middle class can maintain separation from the impact of those experiments. If you do invest in a city, you don’t know when leaders will decide to let riots run unabetted and burn everything to the ground. You don’t know when the next time you might be locked into your house, cut off from any access to nature because of a pandemic. At least in the suburbs you’re largely insulated from the negative impact of liberal policies.
So, I see the artificial zoning and hatred for affordable housing projects and all things urbanism as a way of trying to maintain some separation from policies that will eventually destroy a community.
None of us today would want to live in the Queensgate of the 1950s.
I think you highlight well why a lot of right of center folks seemingly find themselves on the losing end of a lot of policy battles. There’s too often a reflexive “it is what it is” attitude that doesn’t understand there’s actually a problem needing to be solved. And, that there’s a historical reason for what led us to this point, often created by policy decades ago - not the market. So progressives walk right into that void with ideas, policies, solutions, and tend to win the day by working proactively. Now, those solutions might be awful. Inclusionary zoning, for example, is a horrid solution for housing. But the left side is much more organized and proactive, so I think the conservatives tend to be on their heels and reacting.