Can the movement we’ve come to know as the YIMBY (Yes-In-My-Back-Yard) movement level up to address our nation’s inability to get things done? There are a growing number of people who believe so. But just as I have reservations about YIMBYism, I’m concerned about how implementing its principles on a national scale could work.
I haven’t yet read the new book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. I realize I owe it to the authors, and to my readers, honestly, to read the book in full and offer my thoughts. But I just don’t have the time to do that now, and I want to make a point even as the book seems to be spinning itself into a movement.
Here’s what I know – or believe to know – about the book. Klein and Thompson argue that for the last 50 years or so, America’s most liberal and progressive places have made it nearly impossible to think big and take on the daunting challenges before us. Whether it’s affordable housing, or infrastructure, or addressing climate change, the regulatory structure we’ve established since the 1970’s has so many checks and balances that the structure opens projects up to detailed scrutiny, substantially increases project costs, and ultimately disincentivizes builders to build. America hasn’t been able to get what it needs today because the regulatory environment from an earlier era expressly prevents it.
Again, I haven’t read the book, but I have viewed Klein’s video on its theme, posted in the New York Times. You can see that here:
As an example, Klein and Thompson explore the failed implementation of California’s proposed high-speed rail project, first supported by Governor Jerry Brown in 1982. The high-speed rail line would connect the cities on the California coast, from San Diego to San Francisco, and still northward to Sacramento, and do so in the same time as a flight. As Klein explains in the video, high-speed rail is nothing new; it’s been in much of Europe and in Japan for at least 60 years.
Forty-three years later, a much smaller version of high-speed rail is being constructed, in an area that serves none of the people originally targeted to benefit from it (the San Diego, LA and San Francisco metros), at a super-inflated cost. Why? In a word, process. The releasing of bids for construction. Contract negotiations. Environmental reviews. Lengthy public review and comment periods. Union considerations. Property acquisition for rail right-of-way.
All of this takes time, adds to the cost, and ultimately diminishes the scale of the project. According to Klein, the $33 billion cost estimate set for the San Diego-to-Sacramento high-speed rail line in 2008 is already at $110 billion now, at least. Because of process delays, the line has been reduced to a segment between Bakersfield and Merced, and the earliest that project could be completed would be somewhere between 2030-2033.
Read the rest of this piece at The Corner Side Yard.
Pete Saunders is a writer and researcher whose work focuses on urbanism and public policy. Pete has been the editor/publisher of the Corner Side Yard, an urbanist blog, since 2012. Pete is also an urban affairs contributor to Forbes Magazine's online platform. Pete's writings have been published widely in traditional and internet media outlets, including the feature article in the December 2018 issue of Planning Magazine. Pete has more than twenty years' experience in planning, economic development, and community development, with stops in the public, private and non-profit sectors. He lives in Chicago.
Photo: courtesy of The Corner Side Yard.
Email this Story
