YIMBYs are reformists, not fundamentalists. The policy changes we call for will enable more public and private housing alike.
In only his second-most controversial column of the week, Guy Rundle wrote on June 13 (“To build better cities, we need to build better YIMBYs“) that the YIMBY movement is “utterly misdirected”. The article, however, betrays fundamental misunderstandings of both YIMBYism and the contemporary housing crisis.
Let’s begin with Rundle’s critique of our focus on private housing supply. It is completely true that YIMBYs across Australia and the world are primarily focused on increasing the supply of private housing — and for good reason. Because, outside of terminally online public housing maximalists, most people actually want to own their own homes.
For better or for worse, home ownership is considered the Australian Dream, and we don’t see that dream dying anytime soon. People want to own their homes, and so YIMBYs push for policies that will enable those people to own housing within vibrant cities themselves, rather than on the amenity-scarce fringes.
We do this advocacy in the context of more people than ever wanting to live in Australian cities. Insofar as the demand for Australia’s cities might be construed as a “problem”, we see it as a good problem to have — and one that is entirely manageable through the government’s suite of tools for supply-side reform.
No doubt the Andrews government in Victoria is considering every one of these tools at its disposal ahead of the telegraphed supply-side planning reforms coming later this year. This may include potential mass upzoning, a reduction in heritage overlays, or the streamlining of planning processes. Ideally, YIMBY Melbourne would like to see all of this, and more. We must see systemic changes undertaken in order to increase housing supply.
The left-NIMBY caucus, of which Rundle seems to be a member, takes a narrow view of this project. They take our focus on increased development and affordable private home ownership and paint it as a sort of free-market fundamentalist project.
This could not be further from the truth. Rather, as per a recent column I wrote for Launch Housing’s Melbourne Zero campaign, YIMBYs very much recognise public, social, and affordable housing as essential parts of Australia’s housing ecosystem. We also recognise that the same planning system Rundle claims to not be a significant factor in constraining supply has held up several Victorian government housing builds for more than half a decade each.
Planning delays like this have seen Victoria’s social housing supply increase by an abysmal 74 units over four years, alongside skyrocketing social housing applications. This isn’t just a case of not enough money being thrown at the issue, either. The state government consistently falls short of its current, insufficient social and affordable housing targets. If the housing affordability crisis is, as Rundle claims, a vague series of failures tied to capitalism, and caused by the greed of evil developers, then why do government and non-profit projects also end up in the lurch?
It’s because the planning system is broken. This tangled web of state and council processes, of overlays and ordinances, of third-party objections, local council planning meetings, ministerial interventions, perverse incentives, tax inefficiencies, and VCAT — it’s a nightmare, folks.
And to his credit, Rundle identifies the troubled system in his article, at least to some extent. He points toward some minor items — such as Airbnbs, negative gearing and (troublingly) foreign property ownership.
Many of these things are worth talking about. And contrary to the article’s assumptions, YIMBYs are broadly in favour of negative gearing reform — we just don’t see it moving the needle very much. We also have a similar attitude toward Airbnb. But Rundle’s specific focus on foreign investment is blatant dog-whistling. If he is concerned about vacant properties (overblown, as per SGS Economics & Planning) then he should talk about that, rather than focusing on the tiny percentage of vacant homes owned by foreign nationals.
All of this and more bothered me about Rundle’s article. But the thing that bothered me most was how he chose to end it. At the very end of the article, after a 3000-word laundry list of reasons not to build, not to worry about supply, not to worry about planning reform — after all of that, he throws up the mea culpa: we do need to build more, he says, and quickly. But it has to be done in the exact ways he demands. And also — maybe not in his backyard.
Disclosure: Jonathan O’Brien is the lead organiser for the housing advocacy group YIMBY Melbourne.
Are you a YIMBY or a NIMBY (or something in-between)? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
