I’ve called myself a YIMBY for over a decade now. During that time, I’ve seen the movement grow, mature, and serve as a political success story amidst all the chaos of the present-day.
As YIMBYism has garnered more attention, folks have begun asking deeper questions about what YIMBYs believe and how we approach the process of political reform. I’ve also seen incurious commentators take whatever the last thing they saw on Twitter X-The Everything App as representative answers.
Suffice it to say, they should not.
So, to set the record straight, I cashed in a favor and got Laura Foote, Executive Director at YIMBY Action, to help us set the record straight. The conversation is wide ranging and covers everything from ideology, policy, political strategy, and even the societal stakes as (at least some) YIMBYs see them. Enjoy.
All Roads Lead to YIMBY
[00:02 – 00:05]
Laura articulates the foundational framework of YIMBYism through what she calls “the three E’s”: equity, environment, and economy. She explains that good ideas have multiple moral justifications, and housing abundance is one such idea.
Environmentalists arrive at pro-housing positions by recognizing that housing shortages drive mega-commuting and sprawl, undermining climate goals. Dense, walkable communities reduce environmental impact.
Economic advocates see housing constraints limiting labor mobility, restricting firm growth, and dampening economic vitality. A vibrant economy requires housing abundance to support competition and value creation.
Equity advocates (where Laura primarily situates herself) focus on how housing shortages drive poverty, increase homelessness, and deepen segregation. Laura shares her personal background attending one of the first integrated schools in the DC area—integrated by race but not by class. This experience shaped her conviction that class segregation driven by housing costs makes society “less empathetic, less understanding, and creates a less stable society over the long term.”
The YIMBY tent thus includes everyone from libertarian capitalists to social justice advocates, all agreeing on the primacy of housing abundance while maintaining different ultimate values. As Laura notes, it’s an awkward coalition where participants must “keep your vibes at home for the next five minutes.”
Debunking Misconceptions About YIMBYs
[00:06 – 00:10]
Jeff poses several “quick hit” questions to address common misunderstandings about YIMBY beliefs:
On regulatory reform as a silver bullet: Laura firmly rejects the notion that changing zoning automatically produces housing “like mushrooms after rain.” Instead, she describes regulations as “a net holding back housing production.” Where economic growth would naturally generate housing demand, regulations prevent supply from responding. Removing the net allows housing to emerge in some places but not others—you “never know when economic growth is going to say we need to build housing here,” so the net should be removed everywhere.
This doesn’t mean regulatory reform is the only tool needed. Laura acknowledges additional challenges exist, particularly around financing for new housing types. She cites the example of ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) financing in California: initially, no financing industry existed, but after legalization, capital markets developed creative solutions. Similarly, she describes how board member Anthony’s ADU development company had to proactively find lending partners. The market can figure things out, but this takes time and entrepreneurial problem-solving.
Internal YIMBY Debates: Sprawl and Rent Control
[00:15 – 00:19]
Laura addresses two contentious policy areas within the YIMBY movement.
On sprawl: The tension primarily exists between environmentalists (who believe the housing crisis can be solved without greenfield development) and equity advocates. The equity camp splits between those who argue we simply won’t solve the crisis without some sprawl, and pragmatists who say that under current conditions, the crisis is so acute that sprawl development is necessary while simultaneously fighting for infill.
Laura notes all three perspectives have validity, but highlights a deeper issue: we lack vocabulary for distinguishing types of expansion. “Regional development is not the same as building a new city in the Grand Canyon.” Building the next suburb along an existing highway isn’t equivalent to pristine land development, yet we use the same word—”sprawl”—for both. This linguistic imprecision obscures meaningful debate.
On rent control: YIMBYs hold “hardcore” positions on both sides. Some view strong rent control as fundamental tenant protection; others see it as stifling production and causing long-term harm. Most YIMBY groups have adopted a compromise position: rent control is bad when applied to new construction but groups often won’t oppose it on older buildings.
Laura emphasizes that YIMBYism is not a holistic ideology—it’s a single-issue movement focused on new housing production. She deliberately keeps YIMBY Action focused on this core mission rather than wading into debates about existing housing stock management, which could include rehabs, government acquisition of small buildings, and other interventions. “YIMBYs should cede that area of expertise to other people,” she argues, because the movement could “spend a lot of time arguing” about existing stock instead of building new homes.
How Much YIMBY is Too Much YIMBY?
[00:19 – 00:25]
Jeff raises the “paper football hypothesis”—the idea that there’s an optimal level of YIMBY aggressiveness, beyond which backlash undermines progress. Laura strongly challenges this framing.
Laura confesses deep skepticism: “Is the backlash real? Or do people just lash?” She distinguishes between actual backlash (where moderate opponents are radicalized by overreach) versus the baseline opposition that exists regardless of tactics. “People find things to be mad about,” she notes, suggesting we should “price in maximum NIMBYism all the time—they’re gonna be mad.”
She identifies three factors that justify confidence in aggressive tactics: (1) our issue is popular, (2) our cause is just, and (3) we’re in it for the long haul. When playing the long game, individual skirmishes contribute to a larger narrative shift in public consciousness. The goal is changing what people consider possible and acceptable, not winning every discrete battle.
Inside Game vs. Outside Game
[00:25 – 00:30]
Laura distinguishes between insider and outsider political strategies within the broader pro-housing coalition.
Inside game organizations focus on:
Building relationships with legislators and state capitol officials
Donating to campaigns strategically
Deploying lobbyists to walk the halls
Maintaining access through relationship cultivation
Outside game organizations (like YIMBY Action) focus on:
Building visible people power in legislative districts
Mobilizing constituents to contact representatives
Shifting the Overton window through public organizing
Creating grassroots pressure campaigns
Laura emphasizes these strategies work best in conjunction, forming a well-rounded coalition. Insiders can navigate legislative mechanics while outsiders demonstrate constituent demand. Both are valuable—insiders will often tell outsiders, “absolutely, yes, please get constituent emails in on this issue.”
However, insider strategies create inherent risk aversion. Organizations heavily invested in legislative relationships become reluctant to criticize incumbents or take controversial stances that might damage access. Laura cites the example: when YIMBY Law sued California Governor Newsom, some allies said “I’m so glad you’re doing that, and I would never” because it would damage the insider power they’ve accumulated.
The YIMBY Action Organizing Model
[00:30 – 00:34]
Laura describes YIMBY Action’s organizational structure: 83 chapters across 27 states, each run by local volunteer leads who operate within a broader framework.
The national organization provides:
Tools, guidance, and advice
Connections to other local YIMBYs
Project leads and coordination
Strategic direction
Local chapters follow the principle: “take the bite you can take when you can take it.” This means:
Project-by-project organizing: Supporting individual housing developments through the approval process
Local legislation: Pursuing reforms like single-stair building codes or missing middle zoning
State legislation: Coordinating on bigger policy campaigns (with heavier national direction)
Electoral organizing: Conducting candidate questionnaires, making endorsements, and mobilizing voters
The model centers on a core premise: constituent power is decisive. When pro-housing bills die, it’s typically because many constituents called their elected officials in opposition. YIMBYs need an equivalent army making pro-housing calls and emails. The federated structure creates “this little army” that takes locally-appropriate action while coordinating on state and federal campaigns when needed.
Trench Warfare for Housing
[00:34 – 00:37]
Laura addresses skepticism about whether project-by-project advocacy is “scalable.”
If it’s the only strategy, it’s insufficient—you’d “move the needle a little bit” but not enough. However, project advocacy serves multiple critical functions beyond housing units:
Movement building benefits:
Visibility and media attention: Projects get covered in local press and generate social media moments
List growth: People find the organization through project controversies
Iconic moments: Great public comments become viral content, raising the profile of the movement
Member engagement: Volunteers “fall in love with projects” and stay motivated
Tangible victories: Attending ribbon cuttings for buildings you fought for makes advocacy feel concrete and meaningful
Strategic intelligence:
Better understanding of why projects actually die or get scaled back
Insight into where developers face “soft power” constraints beyond legal barriers
Information about what legislative fights to prioritize next
Organizational fit:
Overwhelming for staff-driven organizations
Galvanizing for volunteer-driven organizations like YIMBY Action
People power scales better with volunteer passion than paid staff capacity
Laura emphasizes that project work is “really critical for keeping people in it for the long haul,” which is necessary given the scale of the housing shortage.
Implementation (The Secret Third Thing)
[00:37 – 00:47]
Beyond (1) launching chapters and (2) passing state legislation, Laura identifies a frequently underappreciated third step: monitoring and enforcement of new law (i.e. implementation).
The implementation gap: Most laws get implemented “in ways that leave a lot to be desired.” Cities engage in malicious compliance—technically following the law while undermining its intent:
Requiring ADU setbacks that make construction functionally impossible on most lots
Processing applications so slowly (six months to a year) that projects become economically infeasible
Interpreting requirements in the most restrictive possible way
Laura describes this as “a lot of housing goes to die” in the gap between what’s written on the page and what happens in practice.
Tools for closing the gap:
Continuous pressure from grassroots: The army keeps “beating the drum” with trailing legislation and public advocacy, preventing elected officials from declaring victory and moving on
Lawsuits: When the legislative decision is clear but local governments deliberately ignore requirements, legal action provides the necessary “stick”
Demonstrating political will: Even when projects are legally entitled, if every public hearing speaker opposes development, officials will “find ways” to block it. YIMBYs must show up to demonstrate that pro-housing positions are popular
Local monitoring: State governments struggle to know when local governments are engaging in malicious compliance. The “air of reasonableness” around many obstructive policies (like setbacks that have existed for 50 years) requires local watchdogs to identify and flag problems
Laura acknowledges the difficulty of state governments truly forcing unwilling communities to change, drawing a comparison to federal integration of schools—which required outcomes-based measurement and real threats of lost revenue. Current housing policies are often “weak sauce” incentives to develop policies rather than hard requirements.
The long-term solution, in Laura’s view, will be policy based on outcomes: “If you produce X number of units, you get y benefit” or, conversely, consequences for jobs-housing imbalances that exceed certain thresholds. She notes that the U.S. historically required localities to adopt zoning by threatening to cut off access to federally subsidized mortgages—similar mechanisms could work in reverse. However, such policies face political resistance, making it YIMBYs’ job to “reduce that resistance over the next few years” until stronger interventions become politically viable.
What’s at Stake
[00:47 – 00:50]
Laura addresses the housing theory of everything—the idea that housing/land use dysfunction underlies many seemingly unrelated social problems.
She sees housing as central to political radicalization and social instability. When people lack opportunity, they become “deeply embittered”—not a radical observation but a lived reality of contemporary America. Embittered, angry populations become vulnerable to exploitation by various political movements. Laura cites Trump as “an example of taking advantage of the rage and embitteredness.”
The “only solution is to create a society where people have greater degree of opportunity.” While many interventions could increase opportunity, housing is the biggest lever. Access to education, jobs, and economic mobility all depend on where you can afford to live.
Laura’s stark diagnosis: “Most cities in America we’ve turned into country clubs. You’re either born into it or you have to buy your way in.” This creates a self-reinforcing cycle where opportunity becomes “more and more locked up,” which is “not just immoral but also dangerous.”
Postscript
As always, this was a fun conversation and I was happy to drill down into some of the intra-movement cleavages, disputes, and differences. Thanks to Stephanie Nakhleh, Laura Lane McKinnon, Greg Miller, Kevin Matthews, Max Clark, and many others for tuning watching live.
Tube in next week when we’ll be closing out this live stream series with Andrew Burleson, Board Chair at Strong Towns and author of the excellent substack Free Range City.
