The housing crisis in America is a complex issue, and one of the key challenges is overcoming the resistance of NIMBYs (Not In My Backyard) who oppose new development. Traditional approaches have failed to make a significant impact, so it's time to think outside the box. A novel idea gaining traction is the concept of paying NIMBYs, a strategy that could potentially revolutionize the way we approach housing development.
The idea is simple: instead of trying to convince NIMBYs of the benefits of new housing, we offer them financial incentives. If a local community approves enough new homes, each resident receives a substantial cash payment from the federal government. This approach aims to soften the opposition of NIMBYs and potentially turn them into advocates for development.
A recent study by political scientist Michael Hankinson and economists Edward Glaeser, Joseph Gyourko, and Morris Davis provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of this strategy. The researchers surveyed over 1,700 residents in expensive areas, offering them hypothetical cash payments alongside various housing proposals. The results were eye-opening.
The study revealed that a significant portion of residents (over 80%) were willing to support new development if offered a substantial cash payment. However, the amount required varied depending on the density of the neighborhood. In densely populated areas, residents were more accepting of new development with lower payment amounts, while in less dense suburbs, higher payments were necessary.
This finding highlights the importance of context. The same policy will yield different results in different locations. For instance, a flat payment of $1,000 might be sufficient in dense urban areas, but it may not be enough in wealthier suburbs. The key is to tailor the incentives to the specific needs and preferences of each community.
The study also emphasized the impact of the type of project proposed. Residents were more willing to support market-rate developments that blended in with their existing neighborhood. However, when the new project was significantly denser or exclusively for low-income residents, the required payment increased substantially.
This approach challenges the traditional NIMBY resistance by working with residents' existing aesthetic and spatial preferences. It addresses the deep-rooted status-quo bias that often drives NIMBYism. By offering financial incentives, we can potentially transform NIMBYs into supporters, making housing development more palatable to the community.
Comparing this strategy to the current approach of offering financial incentives to local governments is enlightening. The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, for example, provides funding for cities that meet housing targets, which they can use for various projects. However, the study found that residents required significantly higher payments when compensation was in the form of a parks-and-streets fund compared to cash payments.
Housing advocates have been tirelessly fighting NIMBYism, but their efforts have not yielded significant results. It's time to shift the focus. By making housing development financially rewarding for NIMBYs, we can potentially break the deadlock and create a more supportive environment for new construction.
In conclusion, paying NIMBYs is a creative and potentially effective strategy to address the housing crisis. It challenges the traditional approach of convincing NIMBYs and instead offers them a financial incentive. With careful consideration of the context and preferences of each community, this strategy could be a game-changer in the fight against America's housing shortage.
