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.
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.
The problem with government zoning is government, not zoning. Privately owned towns would certainly have land-use restrictions that resemble govt zoning. In fact, private communities right now have loads of restrictions, enforced by HOAs, that some people find more stifling than govt zoning -- but there's a demand for these rules. The solution to govt regulations isn't the absence of regulations; it's instead markets for private regulations.
My community just passed a tree ordinance with new requirements for tree replacements and landscaping. This is in a high desert climate. Irrigation is a must with new trees.
The ordinance led with justification like trees are wind breaks. It left out that trees drink a lot of water and water is scarce here. Let alone that this is just more paper cut’s.
Apart from regulators finding it expedient to cater to NIMBYs, zoning and building regulation also functions as a racket for shaking down developers and for redirecting land use towards maximization of tax revenues and minimization of the inconvenient governmental expenses associated with housing poor people. Part of the reason why NIMBYism is so pervasive is that politicians aren't incentivized otherwise to actually care about the ostensible purposes of zoning and building codes, namely to curb various negative externalities.
The private ownership alternatives to such regulation are (1) enforce tort liabilities against property owners who harm their neighbors and their property, (2) enforce contracts creating voluntary obligations among property owners (like HOA rules), and (3) allow insurance companies tie their rates to their own regulatory regime so they can actively prevent moral hazards.
One of the reasons why parts of California are burning up now is that property insurance came under strict state regulation in 1988. Not only do Californians now suffer the usual evils of price controls (where many homeowners in risky areas simply can't get fire insurance, and existing policies are canceled as risks go up), it became harder for insurance companies to engage in price discrimination against riskier communities.
The threat of higher insurance rates used to incentivize locals (both private and governmental) to improve fire protection services and water supplies, reduce fuel loads and other obvious threats (like electric lines and other potential ignition sources in close proximity to fuel) across the landscape, and to be more prudent about where and how to build (e.g. densely-packed flammable buildings with little defensible space around them located next to or within wildfire-prone landscapes is not a good idea). Without that incentive, politicians and developers alike now have little reason to care about what happens to homes after they've got their cut from their construction.
Not a debate idea… team up with chamber of commerce groups. I read that businesses are likely to move to places where there are lots of people and low cost housing.
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.
Bryan Caplan, this post is disingenuous. I have been asking over and over for a debate on housing and housing regulation.
You have fled this debate over and over. I have offered by far the most powerful criticism of your unlimited vertical building thesis on the entire interwebs. You want to debate on your terms against weak opponents.
My argument is of course that in the totally deregulated cities in Asia, you wind up with a sea of high rises that are very affordable but very antinatal, and this contributes to catastrophic fertility rates.
Do you dare face up to the real challenge? I am no slouch. I have a huge following on X, I am a fellow speaker at the natalism conference and offer a criticism 10 times more serious than any other. Will you face the most formidable criticism?
Please don't claim that nobody will debate you. That is dishonest!
I am not sure it would be beneficial for your cause, frankly. The left doesn't want to make developers richer, and the right isn't going to want density that makes the country (in both senses of the word) more city-like.
Arguably the green de-growth style institutions like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc, can be thought of as your primary form of institutionalized NIMBY resistance.
I’m happy to debate you Bryan. Maybe on my podcast? I think we could find some common ground but also really dig into the theoretical and evidential disagreements.
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.
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?
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.
The problem with government zoning is government, not zoning. Privately owned towns would certainly have land-use restrictions that resemble govt zoning. In fact, private communities right now have loads of restrictions, enforced by HOAs, that some people find more stifling than govt zoning -- but there's a demand for these rules. The solution to govt regulations isn't the absence of regulations; it's instead markets for private regulations.
I'll debate you, if you like.
My community just passed a tree ordinance with new requirements for tree replacements and landscaping. This is in a high desert climate. Irrigation is a must with new trees.
The ordinance led with justification like trees are wind breaks. It left out that trees drink a lot of water and water is scarce here. Let alone that this is just more paper cut’s.
At least Caplan now admits he uses “Open Borders” to get attention. It isn’t what he advocates for, but he’s now at least honest about the tactic.
Apart from regulators finding it expedient to cater to NIMBYs, zoning and building regulation also functions as a racket for shaking down developers and for redirecting land use towards maximization of tax revenues and minimization of the inconvenient governmental expenses associated with housing poor people. Part of the reason why NIMBYism is so pervasive is that politicians aren't incentivized otherwise to actually care about the ostensible purposes of zoning and building codes, namely to curb various negative externalities.
The private ownership alternatives to such regulation are (1) enforce tort liabilities against property owners who harm their neighbors and their property, (2) enforce contracts creating voluntary obligations among property owners (like HOA rules), and (3) allow insurance companies tie their rates to their own regulatory regime so they can actively prevent moral hazards.
One of the reasons why parts of California are burning up now is that property insurance came under strict state regulation in 1988. Not only do Californians now suffer the usual evils of price controls (where many homeowners in risky areas simply can't get fire insurance, and existing policies are canceled as risks go up), it became harder for insurance companies to engage in price discrimination against riskier communities.
The threat of higher insurance rates used to incentivize locals (both private and governmental) to improve fire protection services and water supplies, reduce fuel loads and other obvious threats (like electric lines and other potential ignition sources in close proximity to fuel) across the landscape, and to be more prudent about where and how to build (e.g. densely-packed flammable buildings with little defensible space around them located next to or within wildfire-prone landscapes is not a good idea). Without that incentive, politicians and developers alike now have little reason to care about what happens to homes after they've got their cut from their construction.
Not a debate idea… team up with chamber of commerce groups. I read that businesses are likely to move to places where there are lots of people and low cost housing.
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.
Bryan Caplan, this post is disingenuous. I have been asking over and over for a debate on housing and housing regulation.
You have fled this debate over and over. I have offered by far the most powerful criticism of your unlimited vertical building thesis on the entire interwebs. You want to debate on your terms against weak opponents.
My argument is of course that in the totally deregulated cities in Asia, you wind up with a sea of high rises that are very affordable but very antinatal, and this contributes to catastrophic fertility rates.
Do you dare face up to the real challenge? I am no slouch. I have a huge following on X, I am a fellow speaker at the natalism conference and offer a criticism 10 times more serious than any other. Will you face the most formidable criticism?
Please don't claim that nobody will debate you. That is dishonest!
- Daniel Hess
@MoreBirths on X
It's not a culture war issue. Yet.
I am not sure it would be beneficial for your cause, frankly. The left doesn't want to make developers richer, and the right isn't going to want density that makes the country (in both senses of the word) more city-like.
You're quite right that there are no self-identified NIMBYs, who would defend NIMBYism in the abstract.
But there are enough anti-YIMBYs now:
https://open.substack.com/pub/ieainsider/p/not-invented-here-6-housing?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=wylle
Arguably the green de-growth style institutions like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc, can be thought of as your primary form of institutionalized NIMBY resistance.
I’m happy to debate you Bryan. Maybe on my podcast? I think we could find some common ground but also really dig into the theoretical and evidential disagreements.
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