Academics Misfire In Trying To Overcome Supposed “NIMBYism”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published on Brian Graff’s Substack: https://briangraff.substack.com/

Urban planning and housing affordability have risen near the top of domestic political issues in the last few years in both Canada and the US. There has been a corresponding rise in neoliberal YIMBYism and calls for liberalizing zoning and other regulation related to housing supply, and the demonization of NIMBYs as being the cause of barriers to increased supply.

These issues are in the mainstream media, and all sorts of other outlets available on the internet. One that I sometimes check is the Canadian Policy Options website, which is the digital magazine of the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

They just published an article titled “Combat NIMBYism with transparency to help resolve Canada’s housing crisis”with the subtitle “Some homeowners who don’t want new housing in their backyard are trying to protect investments. But it’s not all about money.”

Here is a sample of their approach:

“In short, Canada has a housing crisis… Canada does not have enough housing supply. Recent estimates suggest that by 2030, the Canadian housing shortage will reach 3.5 million units.

Yet there exists opposition to increasing the supply of new housing in Canada. Scotiabank’s chief economist recently argued that local opposition to housing development remains a considerable barrier to reducing home prices.

Anecdotally, the root cause of this is opposition from so-called NIMBYs. There is, to be sure, ample evidence to support this. Notable Canadians including Margaret Atwood and Galen Weston have voiced opposition to local housing developments.”

It concludes with this:

“Our research offers three policy prescriptions to overcome NIMBYism.

First, governments should move to reduce or eliminate local consultation over housing developments, which only serve to derail housing initiatives… We cannot let a vocal, privileged minority routinely game the system to prevail over the silent majority.

Second, Canadians are much more opposed to high-rise developments than other forms of housing. Policymakers should prioritize the legalization of “missing middle” housing – the development of which has a much wider appeal in the public, while being less likely to trigger NIMBY backlash…

NIMBYism is undoubtedly a challenge, but we have avenues at our disposal to limit their influence and to change minds. In doing so, we will be better placed to tackle one of the most pressing challenges of our time.”

Well, NIMBY is an insult that should not be used without actually having evidence as to why people oppose something. As someone who has been an activist opposing certain local developments or planning policies, I have found that money or fear of loss in property values is rarely a motivation for people to express opposition to zoning or other changes.

The article was written by three academics, namely Alex B. Rivard, Eric Merkley, and Dominik Stecuła, as a follow up to their May 2023 report “Housing for Me, but not for Thee: Values-Based Motivations of NIMBYism in Canada”.

It is an interesting idea to try to link the views of people opposing real estate development to broader cultural social or political trends, but this effort falls short on a number of fronts, starting with the use of the word NIMBY in the title.

I sent a variation of the following lengthy critique to them regarding their report, but have yet to get a reply. The examples I cite relate mainly to Ontario and Toronto, but no doubt other ones in other parts of Canada mirror these.

The meaning and use of NIMBY

NIMBY is an insulting acronym for “Not In My Back Yard” that unfortunately has become a standard term used in the media. Essentially, the term was coined to indicate hypocrisy in certain groups opposing local changes.

Any change will have winners and losers; the winners are usually the people proposing the change. If there are economic externalities to a proposed change, people in a democracy are free to campaign for change. Rarely are losers compensated when there are externalities.

Example of early types of projects where NIMBY was or is applied somewhat appropriately include:

• Garbage dumps/landfills
• Group homes for people with disabilities
• Halfway homes for parolees
• Nuclear power plants
• Incinerators for garbage or other materials
• Industries that pollute or cause noise
• Highways through existing neighbourhoods
• Dams or other infrastructure projects
• Prisons
• Windmills or power transmission corridors

No doubt there are others, but all of these involve one or both of the following:

• These are specific projects – often by government, industry or utilities
• There is more than one place they could be located
• The decision where to locate them is often subjective and often not transparent

There are several possible outcomes people object to:

• Eviction or expropriations
• Loss of property values because of the presence of new neighbours  with some sort of “stigma”
• Noise, smells, vibrations, shadows, or major visual impacts
• Invisible potential health risks such as radioactivity, electromagnetic fields, pollution, etc.

These are not usually a general opposition to growth or development, or to protect something that will be lost of compromised.

The Wynne Liberal government faced opposition from “NIMBYs” to natural gas powered electrical power plants which were to be located in urban areas like Mississauga. Finding storage for spent nuclear fuel from power plants has been another big issue of this type.

In some cases, opposition could have been quelled if opponents were offered financial conservation or buyouts at fair market value – often expropriations are well below this level.

The classic NIMBY cause in Toronto was the “Stop the Spadina Expressway” movement in the early ‘70s, which succeeded when the provincial government intervened. The movement included neighbourhoods along the expressway route, but other expressways were planned as part of a larger network. As such, the opposition ultimately included not just those immediately impacted, but was a much broader effort.

In the early 1970s, there were other groups opposing plans for public housing projects or private sector apartment complexes. This resulted in broader reforms and a temporary 45 foot holding bylaw. These are well described in the book “The Shape of the City” by John Sewell.

Let’s call these instances “Classic NIMBY” opposition. While self-interest was certainly a major factor, the term still implies hypocrisy without providing proof that the people involved are not being rational.

Then, there are two or more types of non-NIMBY movements where broader principles might apply to stop or change property development:

• Environmentalism (including farmland protection)
• Architectural, cultural heritage or archeological preservation (including indigenous)
• Indigenous land disputes (e.g. Caledonia)
• Architectural/heritage conservation
• Anti-gentrification (protecting low income or ethnic communities)

In Toronto, there were movements in the 1960s to protect Union Station and Old City Hall from demolition. There was also the movement to stop the Pickering Airport, which included some people in Pickering but was in effect a region wide movement focused on land use and urban sprawl.

Today, there is the movement to stop Highway 413 near Brampton, and another movement related to Ford’s plans for Ontario Place. There may be some political partisanship against Ford at play in these movements, but they are largely just based on a difference in vision or philosophy – not narrow self-interest.

Rather than NIMBY, these are really “Altruistic Opposition” or “Public Interest Development Opponents” movements.

Part of this might just be a general opposition to change – people often oppose change when they see no clear benefits, or the perceived losses outweigh any gains. These people I will call “Status-Quo Development Opponents”. These are similar to old style conservatives, or the type of people who might vote against growth. One situation where this occurs is when New England Town Hall meetings reject Walmart or sprawl because people like things as they are and oppose changes going on in other communities.

The study also includes this:

“This neighbourhood-led opposition to new housing construction often leads to the proponents of housing developments to label opponents as NIMBYs, an acronym for ‘not in my backyard’, or BANANA, ‘build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything/anyone’.”

BANANAs are not just people stopping local projects out of self interest or to keep the status quo. This pejorative term applies more to environmental or other groups opposing growth, expanding roads, sprawl, and so on. Also, it is inevitable that there will be at least one person complaining about any project.

Where the study uses NIMBYism, it would seem more fitting to use BANANAism, given that it seems to measure broad anti-development or anti-growth biases as opposed to situation specific issues.

Canada is not the US or Europe

Many of the other studies cited in the references, if not most, are from outside Canada. Canada itself is diverse, with Quebec differing in terms of not just language, culture and laws, but in population growth and immigration policy.

Canada’s population is highly urbanized, but overall population growth has long been much higher than the US or Europe, particularly since 1990. Then since 2015, the current Liberal government policy has been for even higher growth.

Then, with the pandemic, Canada saw immigration dip in 2020, leading to even higher levels post-pandemic 2020. So, 2022 and 2023, when the survey and paper were done, are atypical, something we will return to later.

But the importance is that Canada has higher immigration and population growth than the US – 23% foreign born compared to around 15% in the US. Other than Switzerland, large European countries are at or below the US.

Toronto and Vancouver are particularly diverse – in the US, only Miami at 56% has a higher foreign-born percentage than Toronto, which is 51% foreign born and 51% visible minority. The Toronto region is also 51% visible minority, and 46% foreign born.

Canadian media talk about an “immigration consensus” in Canada. Until late 2023, rarely did the major newspapers or magazines publish anything not in support of high immigration. Only the fringe People’s Party (under 5% support) has a policy to cut immigration.

The issue in the US of illegal immigration, mainly across the Southern Border, is a major political and cultural debate, unlike Canada. The US likely has at least 12 to 15 million illegal or “undocumented” immigrants. The issue is almost never discussed in Canada, though it does appear that the government has been undercounting people who overstayed their visa.

The US has long had large identifiable minorities of Blacks and Hispanics, though Hispanics are sometimes defined as Latinos or Latinx; Hispanic also includes many white people and is not purely racial. Canada has never had a Hispanic presence. Blacks are around 14% in the US, but only around 4% in Canada.

Instead, Canada has Francophones as the main minority group, who are concentrated in Quebec and parts of New Brunswick – unlike the more dispersed geographical patterns of Blacks and Hispanics.

Quebec has had lower immigration than the other large provinces, as its culture is less amenable to diversity and immigrants are expected to learn French and assimilate. Diversity is more of an English Canadian policy, and is a less dominant or accepted idea in the US. 

Both countries have indigenous people, roughly under 5% in both.

Canada lacks the American history of urban racial ghettos and redlining. The US is sometimes criticized as being even more racially segregated today than in the 1960s.

In Canada, about half of all housing starts are in just 3 metropolitan areas – Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. All are diverse and have levels of new construction, immigration, and population growth.

The political and cultural landscape of Canada is quite different from the US. Canada’s politics are also quite different, in part because of the differences in culture and demographics/composition, and history. Additionally, the US has a 2-party system while Canada is far less polarized.

This graphic makes the point.

So, any analysis of values related to “NIMBYism” in Canada is likely completely different than the US.

Proximity to development and the 4KM distance

The poll done as part of the study asks a question about development within 4 km.

Here is an example of what 4 km means in Toronto using a 4km radius from Yonge & Bloor:

At the top of the circle is Yonge & Eglinton, an area with many new high-rise condo towers built or planned. People there are unlikely to have much concern over towers planned for Yonge & Bloor.

The same is true for the entire waterfront – near the CNE grounds in the West to the currently under construction Portland in the East.

Similarly, someone living at Yonge & Bloor is unlikely to oppose redevelopment for any reason within the yellow circle. Their concerns are likely to be HOW it is developed – impacts on amenities that serve the city such as if the parks are well designed and public access along the water’s edge, or convenient access to the Island Airport.

The study and poll didn’t ask respondents how much development they were currently experiencing or might experience, on their “block” (an ill-defined term) or within 4km.

Canada has higher population growth than the US, and thus needs more housing built. Here is a graph:

The US is still building housing at levels well below the 2006 housing bubble peak, while Canada is experiencing 40 years highs in starts:

Housing in Canada has shifted more towards high-rises and multiple units since the 1970s, which take longer to build, so housing under construction is actually at all time highs.

Roughly 2.8 million people live in the City of Toronto (the 416) – about 7% of Canada’s population. But no corner of Toronto is not within 4km of a housing development.

We can see this in City of Toronto documents. The 2002 Toronto “Pipeline Bulletin” shows the current applications as well as activity in the last 5 years.

This is the map for the Toronto area and the Greenbelt around it:

Which means that any questions should have divided respondents into different zones:

1. Inner cities or where redevelopment is certainly happening nearby (brownfield)
2. Stable older neighbourhoods and fully built out neighbourhoods
3. Urban edges – where greenfield sites still exist, or sprawl is starting
4. Ex-urban and rural areas

NIMBYs relating to new housing projects will likely be found in Zone 2.

In Zone 1, there is likely lots of housing redevelopment and gentrification taking place, if it has not already happened. It would be absurd to object to ALL housing. The questions are ones of heritage protection, height, and whether infrastructure can cope. There are questions of context, quality and ensuring development doesn’t create problems. There is also the issue of housing affordability where gentrification or redevelopment impacts low-income tenants or communities.

In Zone 3, residents likely own or rent in a building built in the last 20 years and demolition of new buildings is unlikely. Housing will be on greenfield sites zoned for it. There might be concern if developers are unhappy with the existing rules and want more density or other changes. There might be opposition to expanding the city into the farmland or countryside, but this is not the typical “NIMBYs”.

Zone 4 is rural areas and again, there might be concern about loss of farmland or introducing uses incompatible with farming.

Zones 3 and 4 likely have the issues of opposition to highways, preserving wetlands or rare species, opposition to projects like transmission corridors, landfills and so on, but likely housing will be welcomed.

In Ontario, very little exurban “residential estate development” occurs due to land use laws – these are found in the US and are essentially extremely large lots (over 100 feet in width) with large homes, often on septic systems and well water. But Ontario cities tend to have provincial government determined urban boundaries. This map shows the difference, with denser clear edges – unlike Michigan or New York, which have more of a shotgun pattern:

In 2023, the Ontario Conservative government under Doug Ford got into trouble when it proposed a combination of actions supposedly intended to increase the supply of land available for housing. Land was to be removed from the greenbelt for housing, but the land was snapped up by developers who likely had prior information on which parcels were going to be removed – leading to windfall profits that were seen as unpopular or corrupt. These were reversed.

However, the Ford government has also been expanding Urban Boundaries and issuing Minister’s Zoning Order’s (MZOs) that circumvent the usual planning processes to expand boundaries or approve specific housing projects. These have also faced opposition. This is not usually from immediate neighbours acting out of self-interest, but rather broader opposition over urban sprawl, lack of public consultation, loss of heritage buildings, or lack of proper environmental assessments and protections.

Nativism, Democracy, or “Populism”

The study includes this passage:

“We identify four core value dimensions that are likely relevant in the domain of housing: nativism, traditionalism, egalitarianism, and free-market orientations. We conduct a pre-registered study on a representative sample of adult Canadian citizens that evaluates how these value dimensions correlate with a variety of housing-related attitudes like NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard), what we label “housing populism”, pro-housing policies, and levels of opposition to a hypothetical housing development nearby. We find that nativism and traditionalism are important drivers of development opposition, while the former relates to NIMBYism and populism and the latter is linked to opposition to pro-housing policy…

We measure a concept we call “housing populism” as well. This variable evaluates the degree to which people perceive a common identity among homeowners in their neighbourhood that stands opposed to outgroups like renters and real estate developers. We ask respondents “To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statements?” (Strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree, don’t know)

1. Local politicians should pay more attention to home owners than people who rent

2. When new housing gets built in an area, the only people who benefit are real estate developers

3. Homeowners should be able to veto new housing development in their neighborhood

4. Homeowners’ voices are more important than renters’

5. People who have been in an area longer should have more say about new housing development than people who more recently moved in

6. The neighborhood I live in is an important part of my identity”

Rather than “populism”, this seems to be a desire for local democracy. The residents described in this list want politicians to do what their voters want – instead of what developers, political donors, or city staff recommend. These recommendations are often based on reports written by planners or city staff – or worse, by planners hired by developers.

This is better called a “Local Democracy” value.

Similarly, nativism or traditionalism are tainted terms. The summary says “We find that nativism and traditionalism are generally associated with opposition to housing development.”

Nativism might not exclude immigrants, only new immigrants or migrant workers, or potential immigrants, while including anyone who is already established and has legal status to live in the country.

This is from a 2023 poll showing that 67% of Canadians felt that immigration had become too high:

At the same time, polls show that Canadians think immigration is generally positive, but express concerns over impacts on housing, congestion, and healthcare.

The study includes these criteria:

“We focus on four value dimensions in this paper: nativism, traditionalism, egalitarianism, and free-market attitudes. Respondents are asked to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with a variety of statements. Statements for nativism were taken from the Canadian Election Study (CES):

• Minorities should adapt to the customs and traditions of Canada
• The will of the majority should always prevail, even over the rights of minorities
• Immigrants are generally good for Canada’s economy (reverse coded)
• Canada’s culture is generally harmed by immigrants
• Immigrants increase crime rates in Canada

Statements for traditionalism were taken from the American National Election Study (ANES):

• The new lifestyles are contributing to the breakdown of our society
• The world is always changing and we should adjust our view of moral behavior to those changes (reverse coded)
• This country would have many fewer problems if there were more emphasis on traditional family ties
• We should be more tolerant of people who choose to live according to their own moral standards, even if they are very different from our own (reverse coded)”

Quebec would tend to be far more nativist than the rest of the country. On traditionalism, certainly these are questions that would identify social conservatives and those on the far-left who prioritize identity politics and acceptance of diversity. But these have also been part of a broader political division.

There have been a number of writers who have identified values or qualities that help to explain political polarization. The irony in Canada is that the highly educated and skilled immigrants coming in under the points system are often religious, pro business and politically on the right. This is because they come from the upper classes of the countries which they left. And in Canada, as with the US, immigrants and educated people tend to live in large cities – while the rural areas are less diverse and vote conservative. This is the case even though the rural areas have the least new housing, or NIMBYism. In fact, it is in the stable neighbourhoods in cities where housing development that is NOT on a greenfield site is most likely to face opposition.

So, take this section:

“For nativists, housing developments bring with them the possibility of an influx of new residents many of whom are likely to be immigrants themselves or the offspring of recent immigrants, given the rapidly escalating flow of immigration into Canada in the past decade. Larger housing developments like apartment buildings, in particular, are likely to trigger concerns over the ‘type of people’ moving into the neighbourhood. For nativists, their neighbourhood’s homogeneity is threatened by the possible influx of immigrant residents—those vulnerable to the housing market and often squeezed out by high entry barriers into detached home ownership.”

Toronto is half immigrant and half visible minority. Nearly all new housing is market, subsidized, or only for low-income people. Recent immigrants tend to be above average income, or else end up with low incomes and live in the 40-70 year old apartment neighbourhoods like Thorncliffe Park, Flemington Park or Crescent Town. Foreign buyers are discouraged, but would mostly be rich people and likely from Asia. Some condos are marketed to empty nesters, and new neighbourhoods of high-rise condos, like City Place or Liberty Village, are very diverse. Plus, surrounding Toronto are cities where one immigrant/ethnic community dominates – Chinese in Markham and Agincourt (or Yonge & Finch, etc.), South Asian in Brampton. New housing developments are likely to be people who are immigrants from the same countries as the existing owners of homes or condos.

This brings us to a bigger problem with the study.

Is NIMBYism actually a problem?

The Discussion section includes this (highlighting added):

“Solving Canada’s housing crisis is an urgent policy issue. One of the key stumbling blocks has been locally-organized opposition to development – the NIMBYs. Understanding the drivers of this phenomenon is thus vitally important, so interventions can be crafted to bridge the divide and bolster support for housing and related public policy. While most existing research has focused on the homeowner vs. renter divide, or how the particulars of a development can instigate or mitigate opposition, we focus on the role of core values.”

Nowhere does this report provide any evidence that NIMBYism is a “stumbling block” in Canada. YIMBYism supposedly started in Sweden, then took root in California around 2015. Like other planning fads both good and bad, Canadian planners and activists pick up on US trends or fads – even if they have little relevance to Canadian economy, culture, politics, or news.

Ontario is almost 40% of Canada’s population (even greater if we take Quebec’s 23% out for separate analysis, given its different level of growth, news media, culture, laws and so on).

Ontario is unique in North America in having the pro-development Ontario Municipal Board for decades – which heard appeals of local planning decisions “de novo”. This was briefly changed to LPAT with different rules. Then, the rules and names changed back to be even more pro-developer today (after Bill 23) under the Ford government – with the current name of Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT).

The result is that Ontario is the total opposite of California. Toronto has the highest number of cranes/high rises under construction than any country – save possibly China.

A report in Hamilton suggested that the OLT approves development appeals 97% of the time. Another academic study of councillor votes in Toronto indicated that 91% of individual votes by councillors are pro-development.

The “Housing for Me, but not for Thee” paper never shows that housing development in Ontario – yet alone any other province – is likely to be stopped or significantly delayed or reduced in size by citizen opposition.

This is borne out by Toronto’s Housing Pipeline Bulletin, which is full of numbers mainly relating to the last 5 years. The City of Toronto has about 45% of housing starts in the GTA, up from around 25% in the 1990s.

There are on average 16,000 housing starts a year in Toronto (416). Toronto had about 200,000 units rezoned and unbuilt as of 2022, and another 400,000 units in applications. Most of these will eventually be approved – and any rejections or delays mean that the developer can go to the pro-development OLT. Rezonings made more than 5 years ago are ignored unless a building permit or change is made – so there is other unbuilt density not tracked in the report.

At 200,000 units, that is 13-years worth of housing rezoned and ready to develop (subject to a building permit and site plan agreement). The total of 600,000 units is 37 years worth of housing identified – but even if construction could be doubled, that is still 18 years worth.

Even if NIMBYs could stop half of the 200,000 units in applications, it would have little or no impact on housing supply.

But while Toronto might not be typical of the entire country, the shift in other parts of Ontario and particularly in BC has been towards neoliberal YIMBY policies. These policies are designed to increase housing supply by upzoning – ending exclusionary zoning and allowing multiplexes is a main initiative for this movement.

Even the federal government is requiring zoning changes in order for cities to get federal money or loans for housing.

Are property values actually a factor?

The report includes this section:

“From an economic perspective, neighbourhood opposition to the development of new housing is logical. Sensing that new developments threaten property values, and because homeownership is risky, homeowners act as an economic cartel to limit competition in their neighbourhood and ensure a return on their investment (Fennell, 2006; Fischel, 2002). Indeed, Coelho et al. (2017) find that opposition to new development is expressed in greater numbers among homeowners and that housing supply grew significantly less in local municipalities with higher proportions of homeowners. Yet homeowners are not the only group that can organize to oppose new development. While Hankinson (2018) broadly finds that NIMBY values are common, he also finds that in high-rent cities, new developments trigger gentrification concerns that induce renters to exhibit levels of NIMBYism on par with homeowners…

From a rational choice perspective, the implications are clear: opposition stems from property owners’ desire to increase the return on their investment (i.e., homeownership) and to so do entails erecting barriers to entry—in this context, homeownership. The marginal costs associated with new developments are significantly higher than the financial benefits it brings for the homeowner.”

This is nuts. The assumption seems to be that:

1. Adding housing supply in general (quantity) will suppress property values
2. Homeowners expect to make greater capital gains as their main objective
3. Homeowners want high barriers to entry
4. Supply is growing less where higher percentages of homes are owned, not rented.
5. Implicit is that this has some impact on actual development (housing starts)

My own personal experience has been quite different. I lived in Don Mills in the 1990s, and in The Beach today, and homeowners often are in favour of redevelopment. The reason for this is that they can get a higher price for their own properties in the future (and thus they oppose heritage districts).

Homeowners will oppose home renovations or new homes on their street if they are concerned that the scale or character will diminish the streetscape, even if it means they likely could not expand their home in the same way if renovated of demolished.

Homeowners will oppose changes to the local main commercial street, even if it adds more housing, if they believe that architectural heritage will be threatened, or the quality of the main street will be negatively impacted.

In short, homeowners put the quality and character of the neighbourhood first – to protect the status quo, unless it seems that widespread increases in density are likely to mean they can likely sell at a much higher price to developers than if they try to maintain the status quo.

Here is another quote from the study:

“For our purposes, NIMBYism is focused on hostility towards housing development in their close proximity. We measure this by asking respondents: “To what degree do you agree or disagree with the following statements about new housing construction in your neighbourhood?” (Strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree, don’t know)

1. It will lead to more traffic congestion

2. It will make parking more difficult

3. It will harm neighbourhood character

4. It will cause gentrification

5. It will harm my quality of life

6. It will principally benefit big developers at the expense of local residents

7. It will increase the diversity and vibrancy of my neighbourhood (reverse coded)

8. It will strain local government and social services”

Toronto is already diverse, and gentrification my actually reduce diversity in the long run. Adding more people will likely increase diversity, much as inviting 8 people to a dinner party will be more diverse than inviting just 4 people – the chances of including people that are different from ones in the existing sample increase with the sample. Basic statistics.

Poll and report timing

A poll asking about attitudes towards housing should be taken with a grain of salt when housing has suddenly become a main issue. NIMBY views become controversial or unpopular, and media stories will temporarily skew public opinion.

For example, I searched the website of the Toronto Star for stories or items with the term “housing crisis” included. Here are the results by 2-year periods:

2010-2011	60
2012-2013	71
2014-2015	50
2016-2017	145
2018-2019	396
2020-2021	395
2022-2023	1136

Here are the last 2 years broken down for “Housing shortage”:

2022	457
2023	679

For “labour shortage”, these were the numbers:

2019	235
2020	301
2021	694
2022	835
2023	509

Generally, the media and politicians blame housing on lack of supply or other factors, when immigration is clearly a major factor, if not THE major factor after 2015 – and particularly in 2022 and 2023. The role of foreign buyers and Air BnB also became cited issues on the demand side.

In late 2023 the focus shifted to the high number of foreign students and Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) as the high number of immigrants in 2022 (over 1.2 million) and high overall population growth were so extreme that they could no longer be ignored.

The poll results and newer polls

The report included this graphic:

The numbers above do not allow me to combine groups that might not perfectly overlap – people concerned about traffic is 75%, but how many of those are also worried about services? These are pragmatic concerns.

Property values are probably only a worry with specific stigmatized developments. Diversity might be good, bad, or totally irrelevant.

Quality of life and neighbourhood character are probably related – people who oppose development because they like the status quo likely have these reasons, and also the ones on traffic and services. Quality of life likely duplicates these, or could be more inclusive of issues like parking or the inconvenience of construction nearby.

In the above graph, it is hard to understand why 19% of people object to single family housing, unless they are BANANAs opposing loss of farmland, sprawl or for environmental reasons.

The Policy Options article published in 2024 contains the following:

“Canadians are far from being in lockstep with NIMBY talking points. Sixty-six per cent support relaxing laws and regulations to permit more housing and 62 per cent even favour the repeal of single-family zoning. Canadians are supportive of measures like foreign ownership bans (74 per cent), higher taxes on vacant homes and secondary residences (72 per cent) and building more affordable housing (87 per cent).

…Our conclusion is clear: NIMBYs are a small but vocal minority of Canadians. That said, who are they exactly?

Our research suggests NIMBYs are concentrated among some (but not all) segments of the political right. Nativists are more hostile to local housing development, likely out of a fear that such new housing will be populated by immigrants and racial minorities. Traditionalists and social conservatives are also more opposed to new housing and supportive policies, likely because they perceive densification to be a threat to their ideal community.”

Rather than supporting more housing in their community by relaxing regulations, 74% in Ontario want less housing or believe that the current policies provide for enough, and only 16% are YIMBYs.

But when it comes to other neighbourhoods than their own, 55% believe not enough housing is being built. This means that NIMBYs equal at least 39% of Ontarians – 55% minus 16%. That is not a small fringe.

Unfortunately, without a breakdown of rural, small town, small city and big city demographics, it is hard to know what people consider as a community. In a big city, development might not impact one’s immediate neighbourhood.

The four value groups and alternatives

I set out four types of opponents to development, and we will add a 5^th based on animosity to diversity in their community or on their block:

• Classic NIMBYs
• Public Interest Development Opponents
• Status Quo Development Opponents
• BANANAS
• Xenophobes/racists/people who dislike diversity

The report used 4 groups for values, namely:

• free marketers
• egalitarians
• nativists
• traditionalists

The report mentioned Jonathan Haidt, who I respect. However, there are other intellectuals researching values, and often they will come up with just 2 divisions instead of 4 (usually representing left and right to some degree, or populism).

The book Prius vs. Pickup broke up people based on 4 questions. The defined characteristics were “fluid” versus ”fixed”. The “fluids” tend to be more open to new experiences and diversity, and “fixed” tend to prefer the familiar or traditional – and are less open to change or diversity.

“The Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era”, by Gary Gerstle, examines broader economic and political trends. He argues that neoliberalism became the dominant political order on economic issues after 1980, with both the Republicans and Democrats accepting it in place of the New Deal. On other issues, he posits that there was a split between two “moral perspectives” which he labels Neo-Victorians and Cosmopolitans.

David Goodhart’s “The Road to Somewhere” divides more rural, less educated and more nationalistic “Somewheres” from the more educated, urban, and globalist “Anywheres” – who identify more with their professions or careers, and are more open to diversity.

Davis Leonhardt is the author of “Ours Was the Shining Future: The Story of the American Dream”, which I have only partly read, but he wrote an article in the October 2023 issue of the Atlantic.

Leonhardt adopts a different bifurcation of people – “universalists” versus “communalists”. This division has a degree of similarity to Goodhart’s categories, with the communalists being the nationalist defenders of tradition.

You can almost align the “fixed Somewhere communalist cosmopolitan” types against their opposite pole –  the “fluid Anywhere universalist neo-Victorians”.

On housing issues, there are neoliberals (on the right) who want more housing by deregulation and letting the free market rule – the free-marketers. There are also the egalitarians on the left (progressives or socialists) who want more government intervention to provide housing to people with low incomes or members of groups the housing market doesn’t serve well.

Traditionalists are more like old style conservatives; nativists might be populists but also might be nationalists. They may not oppose immigrants or racial diversity as long as people integrate.

The Policy Options article conclusions

The conclusions on the Policy Options website are more specific:

“Our research offers three policy prescriptions to overcome NIMBYism.

First, governments should move to reduce or eliminate local consultation over housing developments, which only serve to derail housing initiatives. We know that those who attend local consultation meetings are more likely to oppose a housing project than to support it and that the demographic makeup of attendees does not match that of their community. We cannot let a vocal, privileged minority routinely game the system to prevail over the silent majority.”

They have failed to show that NIMBYism, as you define it, actually is a problem. Why reduce local democracy in favour of bureaucrats or those who stand to make huge profits?

In a democracy, people who are passionate will likely show up, particularly if public meetings are during working hours. People are free to make written submissions.

The study’s conclusions continue:

“Second, Canadians are much more opposed to high-rise developments than other forms of housing. Policymakers should prioritize the legalization of “missing middle” housing – the development of which has a much wider appeal in the public, while being less likely to trigger NIMBY backlash.”

Missing middle was already legal in most of Toronto prior to 2020 – mainly in pre-WW2 neighbourhoods better served by transit and closer to universities, and amenities along transit. It was post-war areas where missing middle was restricted.

Missing middle is a US fad – appropriate for cities like Detroit or Buffalo where there is ample land and vacant lots in older areas, and the middle is between apartment building and suburban single detached homes. Canadian cities never experienced the same urban blight as US cities where old neighbourhoods were the locations of arrival for blacks migrating from the south, who then faced discriminatory redlining, riots, fires and so on. Cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver have little vacant land left.

Toronto initiated the Avenues & Mid-Rise buildings policy in 2010. The US missing middle also include semi-detached, which has always been a common building type in Canada yet is not considered missing middle in the current fad.

The study’s conclusions go on:

“Finally, policymakers need to better explain the value of housing for people with diverse value commitments. Appealing to concerns about fairness and equity may be less effective in conservative constituencies than drawing attention to the tension between zoning regulation and property rights, or to the struggle young couples face to establish and raise their families when they can’t afford a home. This might also mean harnessing the power of trusted messengers for these skeptical audiences, by building a coalition of former politicians, business and non-profit leaders to signal cross-partisan consensus on the need for more housing.

NIMBYism is undoubtedly a challenge, but we have avenues at our disposal to limit their influence and to change minds. In doing so, we will be better placed to tackle one of the most pressing challenges of our time.”

Again, there is no proof that NIMBYism is a problem – this seems to be accepting US trends as also applying to Canada with no analysis. Canada’s problem is likely not a lack of zoned land, though greenbelts in Toronto and Vancouver and other policies to protect farmland or reduce sprawl might be factors pushing up land prices.

Canada has high population growth – the bottleneck is not zoning, but elsewhere.

Canada has a workforce where the number of workers keeps on increasing – there is likely no spare capacity in 2022, though by 2024 high interest rates have led to a reduction in starts.

This final graph shows how high housing prices increase with population growth – the imbalance between high demand and the ability to increase supply to the same level is a problem. There is nothing to indicate that NIMBYism or opposition to development is an issue.

The “Housing for me but not for thee” report does a disservice to Canadians by suggesting that NIMBYism is a problem, and that the solutions include less democracy and citizen involvement in decisions.  

Blaming NIMBYs is just lazy thinking based on a widely held piece of “conventional wisdom” that is not based on any research about Canadian municipal rules or processes, and instead seems to be based on narrow examples from California and a few other places in the US – examples that might not even be typical of the US as a whole.