logo
Explained: YIMBY vs NIMBY - Why Barack Obama is calling out liberals on housing hypocrisy

Explained: YIMBY vs NIMBY - Why Barack Obama is calling out liberals on housing hypocrisy

Time of India15-07-2025
AI generated image
TL;DR
Obama goes YIMBY: The former US president has embraced the 'Yes In My Backyard' movement, urging more housing construction and zoning reform.
Liberal hypocrisy under fire: He's criticising wealthy, progressive communities that oppose new housing—especially affordable and mixed-income units.
DNC 2024 spotlight: Obama's push for YIMBYism is now central to the Democratic Party's housing agenda heading into 2025.
What's this all about?
The US is in the midst of a housing crisis. Sky-high rents, unaffordable homes, and crippling shortages have become daily realities for millions of Americans. Enter: the YIMBY vs NIMBY debate.
YIMBY stands for 'Yes In My Backyard'—a movement that wants to relax zoning laws, allow more housing (especially in urban areas), and build up supply. NIMBY, or 'Not In My Backyard,' represents resistance to new development, often from affluent or suburban homeowners who fear property devaluation, increased density, or social change.
What makes this a big deal now? Barack Obama—once the patron saint of the liberal elite—has come out swinging against the NIMBY mindset.
And he's not pulling punches.
Obama's YIMBY Turn: A Long Time Coming
Obama's alignment with the YIMBY movement didn't come out of nowhere. In fact, it began during his second term. In 2016, the Obama White House released a little-noticed but now prophetic document: the Housing Development Toolkit. It recommended local governments roll back exclusionary zoning, eliminate parking minimums, and legalise denser housing types like duplexes and apartments.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
發現這個之後我就不再玩其他遊戲了! ——大多數遊戲玩家都不知道…
突襲暗影傳奇
立即安裝
Undo
At the time, few noticed.
But with today's crisis-level housing prices, that document reads like a warning unheeded.
What did Obama say?
At a closed-door Democratic fundraiser and later during a major speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention, Obama made his most direct case yet: 'We have to get serious about housing. That means more construction. And yes, that means zoning reform—even when it's politically hard.'
He called out 'progressive neighbourhoods' that support liberal causes in theory but block low-income housing projects in practice.
In other words: they're pro-diversity, until it moves in next door.
Why is this a shot at fellow Democrats?
Because many of the most restrictive housing regulations in the US are in deep blue cities—places like San Francisco, New York, and parts of Los Angeles.
Obama is essentially saying: you can't claim to care about inequality, climate change, and racial justice while blocking housing near public transit or good schools. YIMBY advocates have long pointed out that opposition to dense, affordable housing often comes cloaked in environmental or aesthetic language—but in practice reinforces segregation and skyrocketing rents.
This puts him at odds with parts of the Democratic base: wealthy suburban liberals who vote blue but don't want their single-family neighbourhoods to change.
Why now?
A few reasons:
The youth crisis:
Young Americans can't afford to buy homes. Many are drowning in rent or forced to move far from job centres. Housing affordability is a top issue for voters under 40—a key Democratic constituency.
Climate and equity
: Denser housing near jobs and transit cuts emissions.
It also integrates neighbourhoods.
Political urgency:
With Trump back in power, Democrats are trying to show they offer practical solutions. Housing is now seen as a tangible, winnable fight.
How is YIMBYism changing Democratic politics?
The Democratic Party is undergoing a housing policy transformation, and Obama's backing gives YIMBYism establishment credibility. Key moments:
Kamala Harris' 2024 campaign made YIMBYism a core part of her agenda, pledging federal incentives for cities that reform zoning.
Mayors like Karen Bass (LA) and Brandon Johnson (Chicago) are testing pro-housing reforms at the local level.
Younger lawmakers, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and
Ro Khanna
, have expressed cautious support for YIMBY goals—if paired with tenant protections.
There's even talk of conditioning federal infrastructure and transit funds on whether cities allow more housing—a stick-and-carrot approach Obama helped pioneer.
So who's still saying 'Not In My Backyard'?
NIMBYism isn't gone. In fact, it's alive and well in blue and red states alike. Common arguments include:
'Character of the neighbourhood': A vague but often racially coded argument against multifamily housing.
'Traffic and parking': A perennial excuse to halt development.
'Environmental concerns': Sometimes legitimate—but often used to delay or kill projects.
Ironically, some NIMBYs are now rebranding as 'PHIMBYs' (Public Housing In My Backyard), arguing for 100% government-built units only. Critics say this is a clever way to block private development without looking regressive.
Bottom line
Barack Obama siding with YIMBYs marks a turning point in America's housing debate. It pits him—and now much of the Democratic establishment—against wealthy liberals who've long avoided scrutiny for their role in fuelling inequality.
He's not just talking policy. He's talking values. And asking a tough question:
Are we serious about justice? Or only when it doesn't mess with our property values?
FAQ
Q: What's YIMBYism in simple terms?
A: It's the belief that we need to build more housing—everywhere—to tackle affordability, segregation, and climate change.
Q: What's Obama's stance?
A: Strongly pro-YIMBY. He's called for zoning reform, denser housing, and ending liberal double standards on development.
Q: Is this a partisan issue?
A: Not entirely. There are YIMBYs and NIMBYs in both parties, though Democratic cities tend to face sharper contradictions between rhetoric and reality.
Q: Will this fix the housing crisis?
A: Not alone. But most economists agree more supply is essential—especially near jobs, transit, and good schools.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Most Americans still support legal abortion 3 years after Roe overturned, poll shows
Most Americans still support legal abortion 3 years after Roe overturned, poll shows

India Today

time32 minutes ago

  • India Today

Most Americans still support legal abortion 3 years after Roe overturned, poll shows

Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most U.S. adults say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. LAWS AND OPINIONS CHANGED AFTER ROE WAS OVERTURNEDThe June 2022 Supreme Court ruling overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realise they're the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 US adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65 per cent in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57 per cent in June new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless.'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern.'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.'Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.'- EndsMust Watch

Supreme Court to hear Yashwant Varma's petition on Monday
Supreme Court to hear Yashwant Varma's petition on Monday

Time of India

time39 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Supreme Court to hear Yashwant Varma's petition on Monday

NEW DELHI: A Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta will hear on Monday Justice Yashwant Varma's petition challenging the in-house inquiry report accusing him of being complicit in sacks of cash found at his official residence and then CJI Sanjiv Khanna's decision to send the report to the President and the PM with the recommendation for his removal. Justice Varma will be represented by a battery of senior advocates - Kapil Sibal , Mukul Rohatgi, Rakesh Dwivedi, Siddharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal. Since most senior SC judges were part of the collegium and in some way or the other acquainted with the administrative proceedings relating to Justice Varma, who was repatriated to Allahabad HC from Delhi after the discovery of cash at his residence, CJI Gavai has assigned hearing of the petition to a bench led by Justice Datta. When then CJI Khanna was heading the collegium, Justices Gavai, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath were part of it. Justice Datta is 10th in seniority among Supreme Court judges. CJI Gavai had on Wednesday recused from hearing Justice Varma's petition on the ground that he was part of the administrative process relating to transfer of the judge from Delhi HC to his parent Allahabad HC. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had requested a bench led by CJI Gavai on Wednesday for an urgent hearing on Justice Varma's petition even as the Lok Sabha speaker commenced proceedings relating to a notice for removal of the judge signed by more than 150 MPs. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Sibal had told the CJI that Justice Varma's petition raised some important constitutional questions relating to the in-house report and the recommendation for his removal. In his petition, Justice Varma has questioned why Delhi Police and Delhi Fire Service personnel, who discovered the cash, did not seize it or prepare a 'panchnama' (statement of witnesses in writing corroborating the discovery of cash), which alone could have been admissible evidence.

'Secular' and 'socialist' will remain in Preamble: Government
'Secular' and 'socialist' will remain in Preamble: Government

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

'Secular' and 'socialist' will remain in Preamble: Government

'Secular' & 'socialist' will remain in Preamble: Government NEW DELHI: Taking a position different from that of the RSS , govt on Thursday said it does not intend to drop 'socialist' and 'secular' from the preamble of the Constitution 'The government has not formally initiated any legal or constitutional process to remove the words 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Preamble of the Constitution. While there may be discussions or debates in certain public or political circles, no formal decision or proposal has been announced by the government regarding amendments to these terms,' law minister Arjun Ram Meghwal told the Rajya Sabha in a written response. This runs contrary to the RSS's stand articulated by its secretary general Dattatreya Hosbole that the twin additions to the Preamble made during the Emergency and by a Lok Sabha whose tenure was over should be scrubbed. This was endorsed by former Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar who termed the two insertions as festering sores. 'Regarding the atmosphere created by office bearers of some social organisations, it is possible that certain groups are expressing opinions or advocating for reconsideration of these words. Such activities can create a public discourse or atmosphere around the issue, but this does not necessarily reflect the official stance or actions of the govt,' the minister said, in what could be seen as a reference to the RSS leader's stand. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Gold Is Surging in 2025 — Smart Traders Are Already In IC Markets Learn More Undo Apart from the Emergency when fundamental rights were suspended, almost all the senior opposition leaders jailed and elections postponed, incorporation of 'secular' and 'socialist' in the Preamble have been opposed also because it was done by a Lok Sabha whose five year-tenure had already run out. The minister said the apex court had clarified that 'socialism' in the Indian context signifies a welfare state and does not impede private sector growth, while 'secularism' is integral to the Constitution's basic structure. The remarks of both Hosbole and Dhankhar were used by the critics to renew their charge that govt was conspiring to change the Constitution, something that had figured prominently in last year's 2024 polls.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store