The False Narrative of YIMBY/NIMBY
The YIMBY/NIMBY divide in terms of State Senator Scott Weiner and Supervisor Connie Chan, both running for Congress to replace Nancy Pelosi, is an entirely made-up rhetorical device. Looking at the records of the two candidates, they are both “YIMBYs,” but coming from different positions. The difference between the Weiner YIMBYism and Chan’s YIMBYism, is that the former is primarily shaped by an ideological deregulatory position meant to “unlock the market” in a long horizon, while the latter takes a pragmatic approach based on site-specific community planning and housing finance calculated to produce results in the near term.
Connie Chan is a YIMBY in the best sense, and even this SF Chronicle article shows how she has led the way in protecting, preserving, and producing the housing we really need. Supporting community demands for affordable housing in low-income areas is as YIMBY as you can get, and pushing for responsible planning linked to funding is the way we actually get real housing construction. Chan was very YIMBY when she voted to upzone (yes, upzone!) mixed-income sites like the Alexandria Theater, 98 Franklin, 30 Van Ness, or One Oak, or when she voted to establish Infrastructure Finance Districts or tax incentives for majority market-rate housing projects like Stonestown, the Potrero Power Station, the Presidio Highlands (3333 California), and 1101–1123 Sutter. While Scott Wiener was hidden away from public view in Sacramento, Connie Chan was doing the hard work of steering unanimous city budgets that protected tenants and funded actual 100% affordable and middle-income housing like Shirley Chisholm Village. These are all pro-housing votes that Chan has taken during her tenure on the Board of Supervisors.
Get Fernando Martí’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Scott Wiener, on the other hand, in his flood of state preemption upzoning and streamlining, is a YIMBY primarily for land speculators. It’s not simply that development will take time to come to fruition: by increasing land values, his legislation has made it harder for both nonprofits and smaller developers to buy land, and by increasing heights above wood-frame construction costs, he has made it more expensive to build and may have actually delayed housing construction. The only ones who benefit are developers who already bought land. Housing legislation should not be led by ideological narrowness, but by understanding the economics of construction. Laws don’t build housing. As Bill Clinton famously said (well, his speechwriter), “It’s the Economy Stupid.” As the Chronicle points out, Wiener’s laws have resulted in few actual homes. In fact, less homes have been built each year since Wiener was elected to the State Senate. Not his fault, or Chan’s: it’s COVID, it’s construction costs, it’s interest rates, it’s rents… and no amount of waving the magic Reagan trickle-down wand is gonna change that. That’s up to Wall Street and their infinite wisdom in 21 percent mezzanine financing and 16 percent Internal Rates of Return and their trust in the AI boom. That’s been the story of San Francisco boomtown development — and then the YIMBYs shake their heads when they don’t understand why “the market” snake oil doesn’t work to bring prices down.
Not only have Wiener’s efforts not resulted in real housing, but when faced with real world questions, he has often taken a decidedly NIMBY approach to protecting tenants, preserving housing, or even building new affordable housing. As Supervisor, in 2013, he tried to cannibalize thousands of rent-controlled units into luxury condos. In 2016 he supported a ballot measure to criminalize homelessness on the streets. He opposed ballot measures to rein in AirBnB and to guarantee legal counsel for tenants. Wiener stood by real estate interests on two statewide efforts to expand rent control. And in 2018 he opposed Prop. C, a comprehensive approach to addressing homelessness through emergency rent subsidies, housing first, and mental health and addiction support. When San Francisco voters passed a surplus property ballot measure, Wiener caved in to NIMBY pressure by transferring a city-owned property planned for homeless housing into a gated community garden. And when NIMBYs came out to fight a planned Transitional Age Youth home in the Castro, Wiener hid in silence. Just this year, he was a supporter of AB736, which would have done away with one of SF’s only direct sources of funding for affordable housing. That’s Scott Wiener: NIMBY all the way when it comes to housing for poor, working class and middle-class folks. Rather than spending his political capital and supposed “housing leadership” addressing the real questions, Scott Wiener spent ten years wasting our time with worn out Reaganomics-era solutions. Connie Chan, on the other hand, was doing the hard work of protecting tenants and funding housing construction right here at home.
The one thing legislators can do to guarantee that housing gets built is to ensure there is public investment to build housing. That is what Connie Chan has done as budget chair of the Board of Supervisors. Even as Wall Street ran from investing in housing to investing in more lucrative data centers, San Francisco continued to invest in housing. Last year we built (not “announced” or “approved” or whatever Wiener claims as a victory) an astounding 66% affordable units. The number of affordable units completed in San Francisco has averaged about 1,100 new homes per year for the last eight years, due to local bond measures (which both candidates supported), Prop C funds (which Wiener opposed), Prop I funds (which Chan championed as budget chair), and inclusionary fees (which Chan fought to keep). Not to mention those so-called “NIMBY” community fights to keep sites affordable. One the other hand, market-rate construction fluctuates wildly depending on the whims of Wall Street investors, and no amount of Wiener “race to the bottom” giveaways changes that. The federal budget is where we can actually take a social housing agenda to scale. In Washington, a primary role of Congress is to shape the national budget. We need a legislator who understands that a budget is a moral document — and has the skills to get that budget to the finish line. Do we want a Representative whose approach is giveaways to corporate developers, or one who will fight for a budget to build the housing we need?
Back to the Chronicle headline: the labels NIMBY and YIMBY become irrelevant when you look at the voting records of the two candidates. Chan consistently voted pro-housing where it really mattered, and calling her a NIMBY is a lie. And there are numerous instances where Wiener took anti-housing “NIMBY” positions. The real questions should be: did these candidates take housing positions that directly benefited real working people, or positions that primarily benefited land speculators with an aspirational hope that deregulation would trickle down?
Connie Chan is the real pro-housing candidate.
