You’ve probably heard the term NIMBY before — it stands for “Not in My Backyard.” Its mascot is the older, white homeowner with too much equity and free time. This breed of NIMBY is very concerned about preserving property values and “neighborhood character” (often code for fear of new Black and Brown neighbors).

These NIMBYs, they might even stress that they are very liberal and sincerely want to end homelessness … but does it have to happen in their neighborhood? They often have the time and patience to sit through government meetings to make their concerns heard, thereby acting as a vocal minority. They might have valid criticisms of a project — although for a homeowner to oppose new housing due to aesthetics or parking seems a bit gauche, when there are unhoused people in the community. (It’s worth noting that, due to our lack of social safety nets, homeowners tend to rely heavily on home equity to secure a stable elderhood.)

The NIMBY label has also been used to describe another group, more often comprised of folks marginalized by race and class, who are concerned with new housing leading to gentrification and displacement of current residents. (I must note that preventing development is not a great way to stave off gentrification; see San Francisco, California and Kingston, New York.)

Often, new apartments are criticized for failing to supply adequate numbers of affordable units, even while they receive taxpayer subsidies. This is by design; there are simply not enough affordable housing units required by law to meet community needs. Consider that 61 percent of the population does not make a living wage. Meanwhile, even with Kingston’s relatively progressive housing regulations, only 10-20 percent of new units are required to be affordable. And even those affordable units are based on 80-120 percent of area median income, and are therefore not accessible to those who are in most desperate need of housing.

Although this type of NIMBYism may prevent imminent harm, it does not address the systemic causes of displacement and inequity, and in some cases could prevent much-needed affordable housing from being built.

As a response to the NIMBYs, come the YIMBYs … you guessed it — “Yes in My Backyard.” These pro-developer superheroes have a plan to solve housing affordability, bolster local government financial solvency, make cities amazing places to live, and end homelessness, all by doing one simple thing: Build More Housing.

There’s just one little detail. There can be no tenant protections or rent control — that would only serve to discourage developers from building enough housing to (eventually) result in reduction of rent levels. (Just coincidentally, rent control and tenant protections would disrupt the ability for owners to extract the maximum profits from their rents.)

Oh, one other little thing — there’s no democratic control in a privatized housing market. The “invisible hand” of The Market is supposed to magically meet the needs of the community through the laws of supply and demand. (In reality, privatized housing is configured to maximize profits for developers, not to meet the needs of the community.)

There is ardent debate over whether construction of new market-rate housing has the effect of lowering overall market-rate housing prices, although a growing amount of research has found that new market-rate construction at least slows the rate of increase of prices and potentially could lower them. But that does not mean that housing becomes affordable for all who need it.

YIMBYs blame our current housing crisis on our late 20th century obsession with restrictive zoning, which calcified communities by banning multi-family buildings, and sterilized them by preventing corner stores and cafes from opening in residential neighborhoods. The logic goes, if only these archaic regulations were removed, we could have the affordable, liveable communities of our dreams. (And by the way, investors in those new properties would make huge amounts of money, while we hand the fate of our cities over to private interests.)

The NIMBYs and the YIMBYs all have valid points to make. Aesthetics and safety are important. Displacement and gentrification are an existential threat for many individuals and communities. Zoning has proliferated segregation and has stood in the way of building adequate housing supply. And strong tenant protections and rent control may very well discourage willy-nilly private housing development.

The question is, are any of these strategies taking us where we truly want to go?

And where do we want to go?

Most people I know want affordable housing for all, and vibrant, peaceful, inclusive communities.

What if we, as a community, decided what we need, and then used our collective resources to finance and build those things?

It is possible. Other countries have had success with building social housing — that means housing that is permanently affordable, community controlled and, usually, publicly financed.

Social housing might just be our best bet to meet housing needs at the scale needed. According to People's Policy Project, “If we assume a capital cost per unit of $300,000 and that the federal government absorbs 20 percent of this capital cost in losses (an immensely pessimistic estimate), 10 million houses could be financed through less than half the revenue which would be raised simply by restoring the corporate tax rate to its pre-TCJA [Tax Cut and Jobs Act of the Trump administration] level.”

Think about it. If developers can make a profit on housing, then surely governments can at the very least, cover a majority of the costs while charging an affordable rent.

There are already a variety of existing models in New York for non-market housing, each of which provide affordability, social equity and democratic resident control to varying degrees. To greatly augment these programs, our Assemblywoman Sarahana Shrestha has co-sponsored a bill to jump-start a Social Housing Development Authority. (Sarahana is the only candidate in our district to present a viable and holistic plan to achieve housing for all. The other candidate is funded by powerful real estate interests.)

Locally, the Kingston Land Trust is in the process of developing Taproot Community Land Trust, which would provide permanently affordable, democratically controlled housing.

Instead of coddling private developers by offering tax breaks and denying tenant protections, we should just create plenty of quality social housing. In turn, having adequate social housing, plus strong tenant protections, will prevent gentrification and displacement.

This concept of community-driven development, aimed at addressing the authentic needs of people, is known as “The Right to City.” And perhaps it is the secret, third thing that we need right now.

We, the people, could take control of our collective destiny and chart a way forward.

But first, we have to have a vision of where we want to go.

For more of Sweeten the Streets, visit Ella Kondrat's Substack here.