Big picture, agree that there is a difference between campaigns and governing, between marketing and the product. In reality, if the product doesn't reflect the marketing, then it's not going to be viable. Related, the marketing sets the stage for how we interpret the product.
I've made no secrets about my distaste for the marketing approach of CA YIMBY, the organization (not YIMBY ideas, in general). I find their approach, especially the marketing on social media, to be too often caustic and unnecessarily divisive. NIMBYs are the enemies to defeat, not people whose hearts/minds need to be changed, some of which do have legitimate concerns that can reasonably be addressed. I get how this makes for good campaigning (marketing), but I'm skeptical that this sets the stage for good governance (the product).
Skeptical, but hopeful. I'm also hopeful that as more housing advocacy around North America finds its own local voice, that the YIMBY movement takes their cues from places other than our most broadly dysfunctional state.
Charles, first I want to say, I am a huge fan of Strong Towns. The insights you and your team are bringing to the surface are so important, and rarely published. Would love to collaborate on your intersection design briefings project. Super smart.
I would be happy to introspect the tradeoffs in approach California YIMBY and the YIMBY movement broadly. Your comments take me back the earliest days of YIMBY where Laura, Sonja, and Brian were debating calling it YIMBY which was a pretty combative positioning.. or something more like Abundant Housing. Obviously, the movement kept the more vocal, bold position.
It's hard to debate alternative histories, but I would push back on this question in that.. YIMBY movement has been so successful, and it's prominence and impact keeps snowballing: in local, state, and national politics. I think the vocal, bold positioning has been a key element of success.
Fundamentally, it is really hard to go against the home-voter. Ultimately we need to get a coalition of the willing, and so the brand will have to soften some. But we're still in early/mid stage of building the coalitional power required to achieve the movements goals of building millions of homes. So I expect YIMBY will keep doing what it's doing, because it's working.
I feel like my point on this gets translated in odd ways, so let me draw a very clear line.
YIMBY is not a bold assertion. We should all be ready to say yes to more growth in all our neighborhoods. Historically, this is the norm. Today, it is imperative to the health of our cities. Strong Towns has made this assertion since our earliest days. To the extent that YIMBY is about saying "yes" to new housing in all neighborhoods, we are 100% YIMBY.
The particular strain of YIMBY in California, specifically the organization CA YIMBY, has a style and approach that has made me and Strong Towns put distance ourselves from the YIMBY brand. We're not looking to wage war against NIMBYs, we're not out to ridicule public officials (and others) that raise reasonable questions on housing proposals, and we're not ready to embrace increased financialization as a way to build more housing. In that, we seem to have the opposite vision and approach of CA YIMBY.
So be bold, absolutely, but recognize it's easy to suggest "it's working" when victories are measured in elections won (marketing, as you wrote). I think a more meaningful version of "working" will be getting people into housing that is broadly affordable (which I think you'd call governing). Obviously, the jury is still way out on that.
My contention is that the CA YIMBY approach might be a seductive short term strategy to mobilize people, but it's a bad long term strategy to get meaningful amounts of housing built. I hope that other YIMBY organizations around the country keep the name and the ethic of "yes" but choose a more empathetic and collaborative approach.
Charles, I'm a huge fan of Strong Towns and the incredible work to spark a movement to revitalize our cities.
That being said, I have to disagree with distancing oneself from CA YIMBY because of "style and approach".
Land use decisions are often zero sum for existing residents, especially in the short term. Construction sucks. Traffic sucks. And change can be difficult. Those feelings are all valid. But what we shouldn't do as a society is solely weigh policy with a narrow view. Let's zoom out. Let's step away from the typical public hearing and look at the bigger picture. Policy is messy. Land use is messy. Cities are messy. And, yes, there are tradeoffs to every decision.
But we shouldn't let vibes dictate the merit of a movement. And you cannot easily divorce a movement from its organizers. Let's remember that MLK, Jr. was an incredibly polarizing figure. In a 1966 Gallup poll, Americans had a 63% unfavorable view of the reverend.
In fact, there were many that supported civil rights, but objected to MLK's choice of advocacy. In the public letter "A Call for Unity" by a group of eight white Alabama clergymen in 1963, a portion reads:
"We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets."
While I appreciate Zack's marketing/product analogy and much rings true, let's not give campaigns short shrift. They're also about power, however brief. And to continue the theme, anyone in a startup will tell you the power of getting a customer to spend that first dollar. I, for one, hope this is just the beginning.
Excited to see where this goes
Thank you, Armand!
Big picture, agree that there is a difference between campaigns and governing, between marketing and the product. In reality, if the product doesn't reflect the marketing, then it's not going to be viable. Related, the marketing sets the stage for how we interpret the product.
I've made no secrets about my distaste for the marketing approach of CA YIMBY, the organization (not YIMBY ideas, in general). I find their approach, especially the marketing on social media, to be too often caustic and unnecessarily divisive. NIMBYs are the enemies to defeat, not people whose hearts/minds need to be changed, some of which do have legitimate concerns that can reasonably be addressed. I get how this makes for good campaigning (marketing), but I'm skeptical that this sets the stage for good governance (the product).
Skeptical, but hopeful. I'm also hopeful that as more housing advocacy around North America finds its own local voice, that the YIMBY movement takes their cues from places other than our most broadly dysfunctional state.
Charles, first I want to say, I am a huge fan of Strong Towns. The insights you and your team are bringing to the surface are so important, and rarely published. Would love to collaborate on your intersection design briefings project. Super smart.
I would be happy to introspect the tradeoffs in approach California YIMBY and the YIMBY movement broadly. Your comments take me back the earliest days of YIMBY where Laura, Sonja, and Brian were debating calling it YIMBY which was a pretty combative positioning.. or something more like Abundant Housing. Obviously, the movement kept the more vocal, bold position.
It's hard to debate alternative histories, but I would push back on this question in that.. YIMBY movement has been so successful, and it's prominence and impact keeps snowballing: in local, state, and national politics. I think the vocal, bold positioning has been a key element of success.
Fundamentally, it is really hard to go against the home-voter. Ultimately we need to get a coalition of the willing, and so the brand will have to soften some. But we're still in early/mid stage of building the coalitional power required to achieve the movements goals of building millions of homes. So I expect YIMBY will keep doing what it's doing, because it's working.
I feel like my point on this gets translated in odd ways, so let me draw a very clear line.
YIMBY is not a bold assertion. We should all be ready to say yes to more growth in all our neighborhoods. Historically, this is the norm. Today, it is imperative to the health of our cities. Strong Towns has made this assertion since our earliest days. To the extent that YIMBY is about saying "yes" to new housing in all neighborhoods, we are 100% YIMBY.
The particular strain of YIMBY in California, specifically the organization CA YIMBY, has a style and approach that has made me and Strong Towns put distance ourselves from the YIMBY brand. We're not looking to wage war against NIMBYs, we're not out to ridicule public officials (and others) that raise reasonable questions on housing proposals, and we're not ready to embrace increased financialization as a way to build more housing. In that, we seem to have the opposite vision and approach of CA YIMBY.
So be bold, absolutely, but recognize it's easy to suggest "it's working" when victories are measured in elections won (marketing, as you wrote). I think a more meaningful version of "working" will be getting people into housing that is broadly affordable (which I think you'd call governing). Obviously, the jury is still way out on that.
My contention is that the CA YIMBY approach might be a seductive short term strategy to mobilize people, but it's a bad long term strategy to get meaningful amounts of housing built. I hope that other YIMBY organizations around the country keep the name and the ethic of "yes" but choose a more empathetic and collaborative approach.
Charles, I'm a huge fan of Strong Towns and the incredible work to spark a movement to revitalize our cities.
That being said, I have to disagree with distancing oneself from CA YIMBY because of "style and approach".
Land use decisions are often zero sum for existing residents, especially in the short term. Construction sucks. Traffic sucks. And change can be difficult. Those feelings are all valid. But what we shouldn't do as a society is solely weigh policy with a narrow view. Let's zoom out. Let's step away from the typical public hearing and look at the bigger picture. Policy is messy. Land use is messy. Cities are messy. And, yes, there are tradeoffs to every decision.
But we shouldn't let vibes dictate the merit of a movement. And you cannot easily divorce a movement from its organizers. Let's remember that MLK, Jr. was an incredibly polarizing figure. In a 1966 Gallup poll, Americans had a 63% unfavorable view of the reverend.
In fact, there were many that supported civil rights, but objected to MLK's choice of advocacy. In the public letter "A Call for Unity" by a group of eight white Alabama clergymen in 1963, a portion reads:
"We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. When rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets."
While I appreciate Zack's marketing/product analogy and much rings true, let's not give campaigns short shrift. They're also about power, however brief. And to continue the theme, anyone in a startup will tell you the power of getting a customer to spend that first dollar. I, for one, hope this is just the beginning.
Let's be clear -- CA YIMBY (the org) does not = YIMBY (the movement).
To the extent that you are talking about the former, count me out.
To the extent that you are talking about the latter, count me in.
It seemed like you started with the former and morphed into the latter, but perhaps I'm not understanding you.
Charles, let's find an excuse to meet in person in 2025 to discuss. My email is zack at pantheon dot io.