Exclusionary zoning regulations that severely restrict housing construction are a major cause of the housing shortages besetting large parts of the United States. The standard explanation for why these rules persist is self-interested voting and lobbying by NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) homeowners who want to keep housing prices high in order to protect the value of their own property. But evidence increasingly indicates that much of the political support for exclusionary zoning actually comes from people—both renters and homeowners—who simply don’t understand basic economics and therefore do not realize that increasing housing construction is likely to reduce housing costs. Such people are suspicious of developers and tend to believe that additional construction will just benefit only the developers themselves or other wealthy people.
In a just-posted article, legal scholar Chris Elmendorf and political scientists Clayton Nall and Stan Oklobdzija (ENO) provide valuable evidence on the extent to which this kind of public ignorance can be overcome by presenting “housing supply skeptics” with countervailing evidence. ENO are also the authors of two important previous studies on public opinion about housing issues, which I considered here and here. Below is the abstract for their latest article:
Recent research finds that most people want lower housing prices but, contrary to expert consensus, do not believe that more supply would lower prices. This study tests the effects of four informational interventions on Americans’ beliefs about housing markets and associated policy preferences and political actions (writing to state lawmakers). Several of the interventions significantly and positively affected economic understanding and support for land-use liberalization, with standardized effect sizes of 0.15 − 0.3. The most impactful treatment—an educational video from an advocacy group—had effects 2-3 times larger than typical economics-information or political-messaging treatments. Learning about housing markets increased support for development among homeowners as much as renters, contrary to the “homevoter hypothesis.” The treatments did not significantly affect the probability of writing to lawmakers, but an off-plan analysis suggests that the advocacy video increased the number of messages asking for more market-rate housing.
The new ENO study has several important findings. Most obviously, they show that new information can have a big impact in changing supply skeptics’ minds about housing deregulation. When shown a short educational video explaining how liberalization can reduce housing prices, many become much more supportive of cutting back on zoning restrictions. As ENO explain, this makes housing policy different from issues on which voters have more deeply rooted attitudes, and therefore tend to ignore or dismiss opposing evidence.
It is also notable that homeowners were just as likely to change their minds in response to the video as renters (possibly even slightly more so). This further undermines the argument that opposition to zoning reform is primarily rooted in the narrow self-interest of NIMBYs. If the self-interest story were valid, realizing that liberalization would lead to lower housing prices should actually lead homeowners to oppose it even more. Yet ENO find the opposite effect.
So far, ENO’s results seem very optimistic. We can spread the gospel of YIMBYism simply by showing people simple videos! But I would add some cautionary notes.
First, as a practical matter, most voters are unlikely to take the time to watch even a short video about a policy issue they have relatively interest in. Most people are “rationally ignorant” about politics and public policy, and devote only very limited time to learning about the issues. Second, even if they do watch a video, in the real world they probably won’t pay as careful attention as in an experimental setting.
Finally, while ENO have performed a valuable service by showing that most opposition to zoning deregulation is driven by ignorance rather than narrow self-interest, we should not discount self-interested NIMBYism entirely. Such people clearly do exist, and often have disproportionate influence over local politics. They’re often the people most likely to show up at zoning board meetings, for example.
On balance, I think YIMBYism can make better progress by resorting to appealing rhetoric, than by expecting large numbers of people to watch videos or study other educational materials. Past studies, including some of ENO’s previous work, suggests that people are more sympathetic to YIMBYism if it is described as giving property owners the freedom use their land as they wish, than if we refer to developers and business interests. It also helps to emphasize that reform can lower prices and enable people to live closer to offices, stores, and other locations they want easy access to. Of course studies also show that the NIMBY side also has effective rhetorical ploys, usually focused on the role of business interests, and claims that only the wealthy will benefit from liberalization.
Ultimately, YIMBYs should pursue a strategy of combining political action with constitutional litigation. Josh Braver and I have made the case that most exclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause on both originalist and living constitution grounds. Past successful constitutional reform movements have usually pursued a two-track strategy, rather than relying on one method alone.
In sum, the new ENO paper is an excellent contribution to the literature, and should give some hope to YIMBYs. But changing minds in the real world is likely to be much harder than in a laboratory setting.
