NIMBYs aren't just shutting down housing

Terminology and “whose backyard?”

• Several commenters argue the article’s work is really “YIYBY” (Yes In Your Backyard): outsiders lobbying other towns to upzone.
• Others say “backyard” is idiomatic for neighborhood/region, so YIMBY/YIMBY Law advocacy across cities is normal political organizing, not intrusion.
• A forest-turned-apartments thought experiment is used to define YIYBY as activists pushing change in places they don’t live; critics respond that lobbying is free speech and cities must still follow state law.
• There is disagreement over whether local residents or state governments should have primacy over land-use decisions.

Motivations behind NIMBYism

• One camp frames NIMBYs as defending the biggest investment of their lives and local quality of life (noise, traffic, crime, “character”), not just ROI.
• Others see NIMBYism as primarily about protecting housing-as-asset and artificially scarce land; proposed remedies include land value taxes and ending exclusionary zoning.
• Some note that in many regions infill and upzoning have raised land values, challenging the claim that density inevitably harms homeowners financially.
• “Neighborhood character” is criticized as a vague, selective justification used to block only changes people personally dislike.

State law, local control, and legitimacy of activism

• California’s statewide upzoning mandates are defended as democratically enacted and binding; reminding cities of their obligations is compared to enforcing civil-rights laws.
• Opponents see state override of local zoning (e.g., in Rancho Palos Verdes) as overreach that erodes residents’ ability to shape their community, even when they accept that the law is currently binding.
• There is friction between “regional housing crisis” arguments and locals who point out that people have no right to live in any specific high-demand area.

Free speech, licensing, and legal intimidation

• The bar complaint accusing the YIMBY organizer of unlicensed practice of law is widely seen as an abusive, chilling tactic; commenters say offering “legal analysis” as a non-lawyer is protected speech if not sold as representation.
• Analogous cases are cited where licensing rules (law, engineering) were weaponized to punish critics; some call this protectionism and “the licensing racket.”
• A few note that using “Law” in an organization’s name can trigger extra scrutiny, but does not grant lawyers ownership over the word or over public discussion of law.

Urban density, infrastructure, and lived experience

• Pro-density participants emphasize walkability, corner shops, and transit, arguing that current car-centric sprawl imposes hidden costs (time, cars, public budgets, emissions).
• Many self-described or implicit NIMBYs counter with stories of overloaded roads, crowded schools, noise, and problematic nearby businesses or encampments, arguing housing is being added without matching infrastructure.
• Some try to carve a middle ground: allow “good” small-scale, mixed-use infill while blocking large disruptive projects, but admit it’s hard to design rules that distinguish the two.

Online vs offline dynamics and politics

• Commenters observe that opinion polling and online discourse skew YIMBY, while in-person hearings and local groups skew NIMBY due to motivated, longstanding activists.
• NIMBY/YIMBY is seen as largely orthogonal to left–right politics, even though participants sometimes map it onto broader culture-war narratives or free-speech debates.