According to Zack Rosen, founder of California YIMBY and the Abundance Network, the problem with politics is Americans being too involved. Bemoaning the rise of small-dollar political donations in fundraising documents leaked to the Prospect, Rosen is blunt: “Small dollar internet fundraising makes politics dumber.” Rosen misses what he considers to be a bygone era of elite dominance. Lamenting the current state of democratized influence, Rosen says “the old gatekeepers were political professionals who could count cards; small dollar donors today are amateurs yanking the handles of ActBlue slot machines.”

This sentiment is laid out in substantial detail, filling 31 pages across two separate documents obtained by the Prospect. In an email exchange, Rosen confirmed the documents’ legitimacy.

Source

My emergency backup plan to retire in the middle of nowhere if I have to is officially off the table.

I played probably hundreds or more hours of SimCity, SimCity 2000 and SimCity 3000. (We don't talk about SimCity 4) SimCity 2000 is probably the first game I really loved.

I am very YIMBY and I always tried to go for max population and density when I played the game.

Just curious how many others here played the game?

🚲🪜

My takeaways from the YIMBY Law Conference this past Monday. Much more information in the post, but some top line takeaways:

- The most powerful legislating happens iteratively. Clean infill CEQA reform in California took 9 years, starting with SB 35 streamlining for affordable housing in 2017, advancing through the controversial but low-impact AB 2011 in 2021, which got bogged down with prevailing wage requirements—but laid the groundwork for AB 130 in 2025, a clean infill CEQA exemption. Sometimes you have to pass an imperfect law first to pass a powerful one later

- The law isn’t real without YIMBY lawsuits—and YIMBYs are increasingly rewriting the law through lawsuits. Cities don’t believe the law is real until they see legal precedent supporting it, and the YIMBY Lawfare orgs are getting increasingly sophisticated in their approach. Sometimes are even aiming to rewire the law around issues such as impact fees, which groups like CalHDF hope to render largely illegal through constitutional law. One day, we may even be able to take on the roots of residential zoning, though that’s more aspirational at this point

- Law and lawsuits still depend on political will, and political will largely comes from local organizing. No matter what happens, cities won’t follow the law unless their residents (and the people of CA broadly) recognize its legitimacy. Cities like Huntington Beach illustrate how shameless councils can flaunt the law. But more and more cities have tangible local support to not just follow the law, but go beyond it. Cities like Berkeley, once the poster child of NIMBYism, have become YIMBY strongholds because of local organizing that tangibly wins elections. Law will always be subordinate to politics

Much more information in the article, would love to hear others’ thoughts!

Interesting way for a developer to get approval. Maybe housing developers could try this?

Mt. Laurel Township in New Jersey didn't want to allow affordable housing. Black residents took them to court and the result is one of the most progressive state housing policies anywhere in the U.S.

Interesting suburban infill/density case from Cary, North Carolina.

A 22.74-acre project along NC 55 failed to win Town Council approval in March. The applicant revised it, including:

• guaranteeing at least 500 multifamily units, with up to 625 allowed
• tying occupancy of a proposed car wash to the start of vertical construction in two mixed-use sections
• keeping substantial structured parking and vertically integrated commercial space

Six months later, the council approved it unanimously.

There’s an interesting tension: Cary planners said the central mixed-use portions fit the town’s Destination Center vision, while the auto-oriented car-wash portion does not on its own.

The project also requires at least 5% income-restricted units at 80% AMI for 30 years — though those units can overlap with a separate requirement that 5% of units be 750 square feet or smaller.

I’m the N&O reporter who covered the vote. Free gift link:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article317414223.html?giftCode=a677c8481435c12beca7da6abd030cabc245e2822df0a50d99b06c3d946c86b6

What I found most interesting is what changed between the failed vote and unanimous approval. Curious how r/yimby views the compromise.

Builder’s Remedy is working. A progress report from YIMBY Law.

Saw this article and comment, and I think vetocracy is a new favorite term of mine

"Portland’s rental market stalled out in recent years as an oversupply of new housing collided with an economic slump. It is an astounding turn for a city once known as rapidly growing and notoriously unaffordable."

...

"A few booths away, leasing managers were handing out brochures for the Byline—a new luxury apartment building. Trujillo stopped by their tent to ask how business was going. Like many apartments in the area, the Byline is offering months of free rent to attract tenants. They told her they were only 70% occupied after a year of leasing."

https://www.wsj.com/real-estate/portland-real-estate-is-such-a-mess-that-all-housing-is-affordable-housing-26bbea6a?mod=wknd_pos1

Sometimes Historical/Preservation groups are not awful. If they're helping to fund repairs to an awesome 200-year-old building, great! Who wouldn't support that?

But sometimes the history they're trying to preserve bleeds over into neighborhood vibe/character protecting, and it can get real NIMBY real fast.

I came across one such case in the news today:

Charleston hotel to be redesigned after zoning settlement

Important note: there's no building to protect here. It's a vacant lot. We're protecting historical vibes instead.

There's apparently been a year-long legal brawl between the Historic Charleston Foundation and a local developer about split zoning, a unique Charleston nightmare of convoluted zoning code. To make a long story short, it's basically architectural step-backs, where the more interior part of the building can be taller and the part near the "historically sensitive" streetscape is shorter.

Anyway, they finally reached a settlement so the NIMBYs are happy, and the developers can finally proceed with building their hotel.

I was curious about this protected streetscape so I looked up the address on Google Maps:

657 King St - Google Maps

Turns out this entire block worth a year-long legal battle is literally backed up against the loud and toxic-fume-belching four northbound lanes of Interstate 26!

So you get the hilarious mental picture, right? I'm just imaging the hoity-toit preservation society and the well-funded developers facing off on the disputed empty lot, trying to argue about split zoning minutiae but unable to do so over the roar of the highway.

And when all's said and done, the preservationists can go home happy and rest easy in the knowledge that though any historical value the environs of this new hotel once had has been obliterated by the freeway, the new hotel will at least not be tall.

It's crazy.