Exclusionary zoning regulations that severely limit housing construction A major cause of the housing crisis that has hit most of the United States. The standard explanation for why these rules persist is that NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) homeowners are self-interested in voting and lobbying to keep their home prices high in order to protect their property values. But the evidence is increasingly clear that much of the political support for exclusionary zoning actually comes from people (renters and homeowners alike) who don’t understand basic economics, and thus don’t realize that increasing housing construction can potentially reduce housing costs. These people tend to be suspicious of developers and assume that additional construction will only benefit them or other wealthy individuals.
~ inside Just published articleLegal scholar Chris Elmendorf and political scientists Clayton Null and Stan Oklopjija (ENO) provide valuable evidence of the extent to which this kind of public ignorance can be overcome by providing “housing skeptics” with counter-evidence. ENO is also the author of two important previous studies of public opinion on housing issues, which I have considered here and here. Below is an abstract of their latest article.
Recent research suggests that most people want to lower housing prices, but contrary to expert consensus, they do not believe that increased supply will lower prices. This study tests the effects of four information interventions on Americans’ beliefs about the housing market, related policy preferences, and political action (letters to state legislators). Several interventions had significant, positive effects on economic understanding and support for land-use liberalization, with standardized effect sizes ranging from 0.15 to 0.3. The most influential treatment (educational videos from advocacy groups) had an effect 2 to 3 times larger than the general economic information or political message treatments. Learning about the housing market increased support for development among homeowners and renters, contrary to the “housing voter hypothesis.” The treatments did not significantly affect the likelihood of writing letters to legislators, but preplanned analyses showed that the advocacy videos increased the number of messages calling for more market-rate housing.
The new ENO study has several important findings. The most obvious is that new information can have a big impact on changing the minds of supply-side skeptics about deregulation of housing. When shown a short educational video explaining how deregulation could lower house prices, many people are much more likely to support reducing zoning restrictions. As ENO explains, this puts housing policy at odds with issues that voters have more deeply held attitudes about, and so are more likely to ignore or dismiss contrary evidence.
It is also noteworthy that homeowners were just as likely (if not more so) to change their minds in response to the video as renters. This further weakens the argument that opposition to zoning reform is largely due to the narrow self-interest of NIMBYs. If the self-interest argument were valid, homeowners who realized that liberalization would lower house prices should actually be more opposed to liberalization. However, ENO found the opposite effect.
So far, the ENO results look very optimistic. We can spread the gospel of YIMBYism just by showing people a simple video! But I want to add a few caveats.
First, as a practical matter, most voters are unlikely to have time to watch even a short video on a policy issue of relative interest. Most people“Reasonably ignorant” of politics and public policyy, and you only have a very limited amount of time to learn about the problem. Second, even if you watch a video, you won’t pay as much attention in the real world as you would in an experimental setting.
Finally, while ENO has provided a valuable service by showing that most opposition to deregulation of zoning stems from ignorance rather than narrow self-interest, we should not entirely dismiss self-interested NIMBYism. Such people certainly exist, and often have a disproportionate influence on local politics. For example, they are the most likely to show up at zoning committee meetings.
Overall, I think YIMBYism could make better progress by relying on compelling rhetoric rather than expecting a lot of people to watch videos or study other educational materials. Past research, including some of ENO’s previous research, has shown that people are more favorable toward YIMBYism when it is described as giving property owners the freedom to use their land as they wish, than when it mentions developers and business interests. It also helps to emphasize that reforms can lower prices and allow people to live closer to offices, stores, and other places they want to be easily accessible. Of course, research has shown that the NIMBY side has effective rhetorical tactics as well, typically focusing on the role of business interests and claiming that only the wealthy will benefit from liberalization.
Ultimately, YIMBYs must pursue a strategy that combines political action. Constitutional litigation. Josh Braver and I Created an incident Most exclusionary zone designations violate the acceptance clause on both originalism and living constitutional grounds. Past successful constitutional reform movements have generally pursued two strategies rather than relying on just one method.
In short, the new ENO paper is a great contribution to the literature and should give YIMBYs some hope. But changing minds in the real world is likely to be much harder than in a lab setting.
