Exclusionary zoning and other regulatory barriers that curb housing construction are critical to lowering housing costs, allowing more people to vote with their feet and “move to opportunity,” increase economic productivity, and protect property rights. The bipartisan, cross-ideological “YIMBY” (“Yes, In My Backyard”) movement has emerged to push for housing deregulation.
YIMBY policies have broad support from economists and land use experts across the political spectrum. But how popular are these ideas with the public? Two recent studies give different answers to this question. A September 2023 survey by the Pew Charitable Trusts found widespread support for many of YIMBY’s policies, cutting across party lines. By comparison, a recent study by legal scholar Chris Elmendorf and political scientists Clayton Nall and Stan Oklobdzija (ENO) is more equivocal, finding much less support for housing deregulation.
Which one is right? I suspect the truth lies somewhere in between. It’s likely that many voters don’t know much about these issues and don’t have strong opinions, so their views (and answers to survey questions) are likely to vary widely depending on context and framing.
The Pew survey found that majorities support many different deregulatory housing policies.
Note that each of these policies, with the exception of allowing homes to be built closer together and smaller yards, is supported by a wide majority of the population, with varying proportions of respondents (49% support, 50% oppose ). Most importantly, a strong majority (58%) supports allowing multifamily housing in any residential zone. This would eliminate single-family-only zoning, which is the most widespread and harmful type of exclusionary zoning. It’s also worth noting that Democrats and independents tend to be more supportive of YIMBY reforms than Republicans, even though the latter are known to be more supportive of property rights.
The Pew study also found that most people support housing policy reform for a broad range of reasons, including “allowing people to live closer to offices, shops, restaurants, or public transportation” (77% said this was “very good” or “good “) Reasons for policy changes), “Making housing more affordable” (82%), “By helping business owners have more potential employees and
nearby customers” (76%). Most impressively, 65% of respondents said it would be good if housing policies were adopted that “give people more freedom to do with their property.”
In comparison, ENO research is much pessimistic about public support for YIMBYism. Here’s a summary summarizing their findings:
To what extent has growing political concern about housing affordability translated into support for market-rate housing development? A preconceived assumption of YIMBY (“Yes In My Backyard”) activists is that greater public attention to housing affordability will generate more support for their policy agenda of removing regulatory barriers to dense market-rate housing. Yet recent research has found that the public does not believe that more housing supply will improve affordability, which in turn raises questions about the level of public support for supply-side policies as opposed to price controls, demand subsidies or “Wall Street” constraints. . In a national survey of 5,000 urban and suburban voters, we elicited perceptions of the effectiveness of a range of potential state policies to help people obtain housing they can afford. We also asked respondents whether they supported various housing and nonhousing policies. Finally, as a way of estimating the salient importance of housing policy preferences relative to more traditional national politics, we elicit preferences for a randomized three-policy platform. In a set of results reminiscent of the politics of the inflation-ridden 1970s, we find that homeowners and renters alike support price controls, demand subsidies, restrictions on Wall Street buyers, and subsidized affordable housing. Contrary to our expectations, the revealed preference results further suggest that price controls and anti-“Wall Street” restrictions are important to voters. Contrary to the advice of housing economists and other experts, allowing more market-rate housing is considered ineffective and has only moderate public support. Opponents of market-rate housing development are also more concerned about the issue than supporters. Finally, we show that those who say housing is very important to them do not have unique housing policy preferences.
The main difference between the Pew survey and the ENO study is that the latter asked more complex and detailed questions, and they combined questions about YIMBY policies with questions about pro-regulatory policies such as rent control and restrictions on developers Interspersed together, these issues receive the most attention. ENO also leaves more room for uncertainty and ambiguity (including allowing for “don’t know” answers), while Pew questions are in a “forced choice” format with no “don’t know” or “not sure” options. The latter approach is likely to attract more people with vulnerable views than the former approach.
I also think that the wording of Pew’s questions is relatively more favorable to YIMBY policies (sometimes implicitly suggesting that they may increase supply), while the wording of ENO’s questions tends to do the opposite. ENO also includes issues involving business and developer interests, which may trigger “anti-market bias” and “supply skepticism”. An earlier ENO study found that many people did not understand the basic economics of housing and did not believe that increased supply might lower prices, instead suspecting that it would only benefit nefarious financiers and developers.
Interestingly, while Pew found that Democrats were more supportive of deregulatory YIMBY policies than Republicans, ENO found the opposite. I think this is also an effect of the wording of the question. ENO’s problems often involve developers and companies, raising left-wing suspicion of capitalist interests.
Activists and politicians like to tout poll results that show their positions are popular while discrediting those that suggest the opposite. I’m a big supporter of YIMBYism, so hopefully I can say that the Pew survey is right and ENO is wrong. But the truth is more complicated than that. If anything, ENO research is the broader and more complex of the two. As a long-time scholar of voter ignorance, I know that many bad policies are popular, and I have many unpopular views myself.
The two studies combined show that public perceptions of housing policy are significantly influenced by framing and question wording. If you ask about YIMBY policies individually and suggest that they might increase housing supply and reduce costs, you’ll get strong support from the majority. If you word your question less favorably, mention capitalist interests, and include questions about increased regulation, you’ll get more negative results.
Likewise, if you define deregulation as “giving[ing] People have more freedom to do what they want with their property” which will get more support than if you frame it as letting developers and other business interests do what they want them Want – even though the two are often the exact same thing! After all, business interests are owners too, and ordinary property owners may want “freedom” to do with their land, one of which is to sell it to developers to build new housing that can accommodate more people.
Both sellers and developers may be motivated by profit rather than a noble desire to increase affordable housing. But, to paraphrase Adam Smith’s famous statement about the butcher, the brewer, and the baker: “We desire housing, not from the benevolence of builders and developers, but from their consideration of their own interests.”
While ENO uses more sophisticated methods, it is unclear whether their approach better captures voter responses to real-world political campaigns. In the real world, voters rarely carefully compare a variety of subtly worded policy options. They often see or hear only one or two ideas at a time. So I still think liberals and YIMBYs would be better off using referendums to push their policies in states where it’s relatively easy to put issues on the ballot. Referendum questions focus on one policy at a time and can be worded in a way that creates a favorable framework. An effective framework may also facilitate the passage of traditional legislative proposals.
Still, ENO is right to warn: more public attention to housing issues does not necessarily lead to better policy. Even if more YIMBY reforms are adopted, they may be undermined by populist policies that actually make home building more difficult:
Our results suggest that as public attention increases, populist candidates demand tighter rent controls, tighter limits on corporate home ownership, and increasingly stringent standards for deed restrictions, thereby undermining the desired balance. The more likely it is. Some relaxation of zoning restrictions may be achieved, but its effect may be diluted by a host of other requirements that make building new housing economically unfeasible.
This warning was fully heeded. But that doesn’t mean YIMBYs should shy away from political action entirely, or even that they should always avoid calling more attention to housing issues. Far away. But the threat of ignorance-driven populism should prompt some caution. It also draws on the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause and various state constitutional provisions to strengthen the case for combining political action with strategic litigation. This combination of strategies has worked well in many previous reform movements, and it applies to this one as well.
