Maybe you could go local into people's backyards to find the NIMBY defenders to debate. Perhaps some San Francisco local NGO or city coucillor would do one.
I designed and built homes in Colorado for 44 years. The increase in costs caused by constant code "upgrading" is huge, not to mention other regulation, e.g. labor and environmental laws. Formerly, (in the 70's through 90's) our county was run by true "live and let live" conservatives and the codes changed little. But, as blue state political refugees have fled into Colorado, extensive code changes have driven up building costs hugely. Amazingly, the local politicians wring their hands over exorbitant home prices and yet continue to increase regulation. A prime example of government being the problem, not the solution.
In 2000, Colorado was one of the 2 freest states in the USA. Today, it has slipped to the 6th most regulated. Honestly, I am anti-immigrant but not against those from other countries. I wish we'd built a wall to keep the blue state political refugees out of this former utopia.
Caplan highlights the pervasive and decentralized nature of NIMBYism, but the critique overlooks how much the high cost of housing stems from larger systemic issues that extend beyond local activism. While "death by a thousand cuts" at the local level is certainly significant, it seems to me that the deeper problem lies in the broader land use and regulatory frameworks that severely constrain housing supply.
First, vast amounts of land adjacent to urban areas are effectively off-limits due to restrictive land use policies, such as greenbelts, urban growth boundaries, and other zoning restrictions. These policies, often justified as environmental protections or means to prevent sprawl, artificially limit the space available for development and drive up prices within existing urban boundaries.
Second, the constant evolution and proliferation of building codes and regulations add significant costs to construction. While some changes are necessary for safety and sustainability, many are overly complex or poorly justified, increasing delays and costs without commensurate benefits. For example, some jurisdictions still require fluorescent lighting in residential construction, even though LED lighting has surpassed fluorescents in efficiency, lifespan, and cost-effectiveness. These outdated regulations not only add unnecessary costs but also discourage developers from adopting superior technologies that benefit both residents and the environment.
Third, the bureaucratic inertia of local planning and permitting offices compounds these issues. Bureaucrats face no real incentives to expedite approvals or streamline processes. In fact, many benefit professionally from maintaining slow and convoluted systems. The lack of urgency from these offices creates additional hurdles, delaying projects for years and deterring innovation.
While local NIMBYism is visible and often frustrating, I believe that it’s the larger framework of land use restrictions, bureaucratic inefficiency, and regulatory overreach that does the most damage. Addressing these barriers would yield much greater improvements in housing affordability than focusing solely on combating NIMBY sentiments.
By broadening the lens, we see that the true “death by a thousand cuts” isn’t just local complaints but a web of bureaucratic policies and systems that prevent the housing market from functioning efficiently. Fixing this requires fundamentally rethinking land use policies, streamlining regulations, and incentivizing fast-tracking approvals. Eliminating outdated requirements—such as those mandating fluorescent lights over LEDs—would be a good start to ensuring regulations reflect current technology and foster housing affordability. These reforms would do far more to reduce housing costs than fighting NIMBYism alone.
This one is very on the nose. Currently Seattle is in the process of attempting a city wide rezoning plan. Our neighborhood is on the edge of one area selected for significant up-zoning and my neighbors are all in full blown panic mode. There's some upcoming meetings city council committee meetings scheduled, if you'd like to come out there will be plenty of folks hot to debate you!
This petition is for our neighborhood, but I would guess there are many like it all over the city.
Bryan, you can always just send them each a copy of your book. Clarence Thomas is a great friend of Thomas Sowell and I would think he would be very receptive of your free market ideas. Be bold and take the fight to SCOTUS.
I live in Melbourne Beach and we have had some purchases of property that were turned into short term rentals. If you have ever had one next door you know that not all short term renters are respectful of the peace and quiet and party into the night parking all over the street. Maybe the NIMBYism comes from a fear of the behavior of strangers that will be gone in a couple of days.
This is no different from regulation, say, of doctors. They are "regulated" (by themselves) EVERYWHERE. NO exceptions. "Education" of children is mandatory EVERYWHERE. NO exceptions.
And so on and so on. Some things (a LOT of things) are UNIVERSAL, like NIMBY.
Maybe you could go local into people's backyards to find the NIMBY defenders to debate. Perhaps some San Francisco local NGO or city coucillor would do one.
I designed and built homes in Colorado for 44 years. The increase in costs caused by constant code "upgrading" is huge, not to mention other regulation, e.g. labor and environmental laws. Formerly, (in the 70's through 90's) our county was run by true "live and let live" conservatives and the codes changed little. But, as blue state political refugees have fled into Colorado, extensive code changes have driven up building costs hugely. Amazingly, the local politicians wring their hands over exorbitant home prices and yet continue to increase regulation. A prime example of government being the problem, not the solution.
In 2000, Colorado was one of the 2 freest states in the USA. Today, it has slipped to the 6th most regulated. Honestly, I am anti-immigrant but not against those from other countries. I wish we'd built a wall to keep the blue state political refugees out of this former utopia.
What has increased in cost faster, costs of building compliant structures and improvements, or land?
I'll debate you, if you like.
Caplan highlights the pervasive and decentralized nature of NIMBYism, but the critique overlooks how much the high cost of housing stems from larger systemic issues that extend beyond local activism. While "death by a thousand cuts" at the local level is certainly significant, it seems to me that the deeper problem lies in the broader land use and regulatory frameworks that severely constrain housing supply.
First, vast amounts of land adjacent to urban areas are effectively off-limits due to restrictive land use policies, such as greenbelts, urban growth boundaries, and other zoning restrictions. These policies, often justified as environmental protections or means to prevent sprawl, artificially limit the space available for development and drive up prices within existing urban boundaries.
Second, the constant evolution and proliferation of building codes and regulations add significant costs to construction. While some changes are necessary for safety and sustainability, many are overly complex or poorly justified, increasing delays and costs without commensurate benefits. For example, some jurisdictions still require fluorescent lighting in residential construction, even though LED lighting has surpassed fluorescents in efficiency, lifespan, and cost-effectiveness. These outdated regulations not only add unnecessary costs but also discourage developers from adopting superior technologies that benefit both residents and the environment.
Third, the bureaucratic inertia of local planning and permitting offices compounds these issues. Bureaucrats face no real incentives to expedite approvals or streamline processes. In fact, many benefit professionally from maintaining slow and convoluted systems. The lack of urgency from these offices creates additional hurdles, delaying projects for years and deterring innovation.
While local NIMBYism is visible and often frustrating, I believe that it’s the larger framework of land use restrictions, bureaucratic inefficiency, and regulatory overreach that does the most damage. Addressing these barriers would yield much greater improvements in housing affordability than focusing solely on combating NIMBY sentiments.
By broadening the lens, we see that the true “death by a thousand cuts” isn’t just local complaints but a web of bureaucratic policies and systems that prevent the housing market from functioning efficiently. Fixing this requires fundamentally rethinking land use policies, streamlining regulations, and incentivizing fast-tracking approvals. Eliminating outdated requirements—such as those mandating fluorescent lights over LEDs—would be a good start to ensuring regulations reflect current technology and foster housing affordability. These reforms would do far more to reduce housing costs than fighting NIMBYism alone.
I just saw you dropped a life video with Richard!
You don't do too much for subscribers: could we get the full video too?
This one is very on the nose. Currently Seattle is in the process of attempting a city wide rezoning plan. Our neighborhood is on the edge of one area selected for significant up-zoning and my neighbors are all in full blown panic mode. There's some upcoming meetings city council committee meetings scheduled, if you'd like to come out there will be plenty of folks hot to debate you!
This petition is for our neighborhood, but I would guess there are many like it all over the city.
https://www.change.org/p/remove-proposed-designation-of-maple-leaf-as-a-neighborhood-center
Bryan, you can always just send them each a copy of your book. Clarence Thomas is a great friend of Thomas Sowell and I would think he would be very receptive of your free market ideas. Be bold and take the fight to SCOTUS.
Bryan, you are prophet crying out in the wilderness "Make way for housing deregulation!"
Have you tried going on British television and arguing with some people? I think you’d have a strange mix of left and right wing talking points.
I live in Melbourne Beach and we have had some purchases of property that were turned into short term rentals. If you have ever had one next door you know that not all short term renters are respectful of the peace and quiet and party into the night parking all over the street. Maybe the NIMBYism comes from a fear of the behavior of strangers that will be gone in a couple of days.
This is no different from regulation, say, of doctors. They are "regulated" (by themselves) EVERYWHERE. NO exceptions. "Education" of children is mandatory EVERYWHERE. NO exceptions.
And so on and so on. Some things (a LOT of things) are UNIVERSAL, like NIMBY.