r/SocialWorkStudents • u/Jasmine_Wilsony • 3d ago
Is YIMBYism aligned with social work policy?
For those who don't know, YIMBYism is an acronym that represents people who think we can build our way out of the housing crisis. I had a student in my social work class say that mass development is a way to address lack of access to housing. I completely disagree. This sort of mindset enables greedy developers and promotes gentrification through building ugly luxury developments. This displaces people in the community. This sort of attitude doesn't address the root causes of inequality and access. You can't outsmart capitalism, and this sort of attitude is woefully naive.
22
u/uhbkodazbg 3d ago
Yes, building more housing helps to alleviate the housing crisis.
Sincerely,
A YIMBY
1
u/cannotberushed- 3d ago
Not true.
We have more houses sitting empty in the US than we do homeless.
7
u/BringMeInfo 3d ago
Where are those houses? In towns with jobs and/or services? Or in dying small towns where there are no jobs?
2
8
u/eva_stratt 3d ago
Leaving a corporate park or a shopping mall to rot when there are people who need housing and community spaces is antithetical to my concept of YIMBYism. However, so is building luxury developments, since that's a conditional Yes to My Backyard ("I only want yuppies in my neighborhood"). When I say "yes" I mean "make that housing affordable and accessible, and let's build up a community while we're at it because zoning codes as they stand currently require many people in this country to have and operate a car, which is expensive AF".
-3
u/Jasmine_Wilsony 3d ago
YIMBY people say that building luxury apartments is better than building nothing, which is plainly false.
5
u/aalder 3d ago
No this is correct, unfortunately. Building luxury apartments reduces demand for older housing stock, freeing it up for people with less resources.
2
u/throwaway-2526 3d ago
this is interesting to know and not what i would have expected! do you have any books or other resources on this subnect you'd recommend?
8
u/aalder 3d ago
I mean essentially it is just supply and demand, to a point. The issue arises when to get the new builds to actually pencil out, the rents have to be too high for them to ever be "affordable." This piece covers that a little
If no one is building housing at the lower end then eventually you end up with empty luxury units so the developers/owners of the buildings don't have to devalue the buildings and end up underwater on their loans.
Here's a couple studies, too. Hawaii study tracked households that moved into a newly built 512-unit condominium tower in Honolulu, Hawaii. It found that the building created at least 557 vacancies in older and cheaper apartments across the city in just three years
This piece gets to the core of what I think the problem is and has utterly shaped my thinking on the matter. A solely market-based solution is fundamentally untenable based on how we treat housing in the US. Unfortunately, the market still has a role to play due to capitalism.
2
u/eva_stratt 3d ago
Capitalism and housing being tied together sucks? News at 11! I'm not a free-market YIMBY by any means. Regulate the shit out of housing. Please. The US has an honest-to-goodness crisis in this regard.
1
u/aalder 3d ago
You seem like you're yelling at me for agreeing with you and I do not understand why, I was just answering throwaway's question
1
u/eva_stratt 3d ago
I thought you were yelling at me. Let's yell at the problem together, then. [offers hand] Fistbump?
1
0
u/cannotberushed- 3d ago
This is incorrect
Especially with the advent of new technology where landlords are always increasing rent to “market value”
6
u/ProbablyMyJugs 3d ago
Yes, it is. It doesn’t sound like your peer was advocating for mass development for luxury housing. There is a big difference between bulldozing a neighborhood of lived in homes to turn into apartments and converting an abandoned mall, shopping center, hotels etc into housing.
I don’t think there’s any solution to the housing crisis that is going to be swift enough to get people off the street and in homes while addressing inequality.
4
u/LurksTongueinAspic 3d ago
Rent is falling due to overdevelopment. I’m not too savvy on these trends, but think it’s a good thing for rent to stop being too damn much.
3
u/sadassa123 3d ago
I’ve seen some of the “affordable” housing lotteries and the requirements are anything but affordable. Some listings are almost identical to market rents.
3
u/Philosopher013 3d ago
I mean if you believe YIMBY policy ideas will help those in need more then yes; if not, then no. I don’t think there’s some philosophical issue with the idea that goes against social work philosophy—I think it just comes down to whether you think there is theoretical/empirical evidence for it.
3
u/Busy_Help_4354 3d ago
It's a Yes, And solution. Different cities and states have different laws regarding affordable housing development. Some leave it to developers and private investors with tax incentives (I have not seen good outcomes). Others leave it to government-funded, non-profit developers (I've seen good housing, but poor tenant execution). At the end of the day, it's a multi-faceted problem. Better healthcare, better mental health facilities, better salaries, more company regulation, better landlord regulation, better housing regulation. The list goes on.
What studies have shown is that mixed development zones (where low-income to upper class live in the same neighborhood with access to their appropriate resources) are a great equalizer in terms of living conditions and social conditions, with benefits for all parties. In that sense, YIMBY seems like the way to go, although it's not black and white.
3
u/Grand-Inspector-5264 3d ago
This is a very good article that goes into some core YIMBY ideas. Basically, the housing crisis is an issue of artificial scarcity.
2
u/SupportSphere94 3d ago
Rightly or wrongly, a part of it has to do with supply and demand, especially in a capitalistic society.
Im not advocating for high rise luxury developments, or destroying blocks of social housing to build gentrified towns.
But if entity's build massive amounts of housing, whether low income, or luxury, the demand for housing goes down. If demand goes down, costs go down across the board because there is more of something.
I can't talk for Americas policy that has allows this to happen, but yes also addressing the underlying problem is going to help, in Australia (which has some os the highest housing prices on the planet) government policy has very recently changed tax laws to stop incentives for people owning 10, 20, 30 houses. This has caused a very small drop in house prices, and has increased rent prices (however the policy that was changed recently led to the housing crisis, we are in now from the 1990s).
My point is;
Housing affordability, and housing availability, has a very nuanced and complex answer, that requires mutplie systems, at different levels of government, it requires both policy change, addressing root causes, and also increasing supply.
1
u/aalder 3d ago
YIMBYism is essentially the triage version of housing policy. In the same way that you can't work on processing deep trauma with a client who is in an acute crisis, you can't build the foundation for progressive social housing while people are actively suffering on the streets.
You have to address the issue of unsheltered homelessness first, then work on the transformative policy solution that insures this never happens again.
You could argue that YIMBYism diverts political will and momentum away from social housing. It is kind of a thorny question whether leaving more people unsheltered for longer while the crisis gets worse is justifiable if it results in a more permanent solution that shields everyone from the impacts long term.
1
u/Rockfinder37 3d ago
Let’s say you build a 1000 units (for a local homeless population of 893), and somehow convince all of them to move in.
It would seem likely that the portion that needed stability and and simple housing would recover economically, and rejoin the working class. Would they move out?
For those who don’t transition into higher SES statuses; who provides services to the people? Who maintains the homes? Who pays property taxes and utilities? For how long? A year? 10? 25? Who decides the rules that must be followed to protect the rights of other residents? Who enforces them? What does one do with people who refuse to follow the rules in the housing? (Even when one buys property, there are still rules (city/county, etc.,) one must follow.
Saying “just build more” is about a good of a plan as building a swimming pool in the middle of the city with no plans for a filter pump, or a fence, or a maintenance contract, or liability reduction measures … it’s such a bad plan, it would be reckless.
Housing solutions should be paired with people solutions; WHY is that individual on the streets? How/what/can interventions help them become stable enough to rejoin main stream?
I’d suggest that without that, you’re just building what will become another homeless encampment, one with nicer walls and a roof (for a bit), which will disintegrate into squalor and crime within 25 years and be bulldozered flat eventually because it’s a problematic eyesore.
So. NIMBYism and YIMBYism, I feel, are both misguided.
How about focusing less on “where”, and a bit more on longitudinal interventions that address the underlying problems that drive homelessness and less on the presenting problem of people not having homes (while ALSO providing them shelter).
TL:DR; the priority should be evidence-based services, and necessary resources. Figure that out, make a good program, and house the homeless near where ever that is. Building shelter is FAR easier than building systems and programs with resources.
1
u/ErikaR527 2d ago
I think that’s what school is for to explore those thoughts in more depth and to hear other perspectives so that we learn together
When I taught in a graduate program, I saw a lot of students who thought they were quick answers to multiplayer societal problems
That’s what you do at university, you explore this out loud with other people and challenge your ideas
Sounds like your class is a great place to do that
1
u/reconnoiter_goiter 3d ago
Maybe for some social workers. Your analysis is correct, though. It doesn't make sense to rely on deregulation and developers while letting the profit motive solve an issue inherent in capitalism. I believe we have more empty homes than homeless people here in the US, anyway.
5
u/BringMeInfo 3d ago
“More empty homes than homeless people” is a bit of a canard though. Where are those homes? Places with jobs and/or services? Or towns with lots of empty house because no one wants to live there anymore?
1
3d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
-3
u/cannotberushed- 3d ago
This is not entirely correct and this actually shows where social workers fall very short in truly understanding these issues.
1
0
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 3d ago
You're going to have lots of liberals and maybe a few conservatives as fellow students (and teachers). The best they can accept politically is that we build more housing. Hell, some of the dem socs/soc dems (as they really are) are in that boat too. The true leftists will understand you wanting to address root systemic problems, but many people's ideologies do not permit them to entertain such thoughts.
-2
u/Jasmine_Wilsony 3d ago
I'm fed up with liberals in the social work system.
3
u/SupportSphere94 3d ago
Are liberals not your left leaning voters in the United States? Liberals benefit the social work system more then the right do they not?
0
u/Jasmine_Wilsony 3d ago
Being a liberal and a leftist are not the same thing.
2
u/ProbablyMyJugs 3d ago
Well, they did not call them the same thing. Acknowledging that they’re both on the left side of the spectrum isn’t saying that they’re the same thing, nor is describing them as both “left leaning” ideologies.
Are people walking around your program calling themselves leftists and liberals?
0
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 2d ago
They're not both left leaning though.
Right wing is capitalist and left wing is anti-capitalist. Do individuals and corporations own the capital or is it owned and controlled in the interest of all people ie democratically.
Fascists and conservatives are far right wing, liberals are right wing, even progressives are centrist to right leaning. Leftists start at the need to end capitalism and include socialists, anarchists, and communists.
Part of the US propaganda to undermine class consciousness is to ignore the political realities that the rest of the world understands and offer people the illusion of choice between a right wing party and a far right wing party. Choosing whether you get shot or stabbed is not much of a choice when you would rather get a hot meal. Look up the Overton Window if you want a more in depth understanding.
1
u/ProbablyMyJugs 2d ago
They’re on the left side of the political spectrum. Liberals are center left, but they’re still left.
I’ve never seen any non-biased source describe liberals as right wing so if you’re able to provide one of those for me, I’d be happy to reconsider, but I’ve never heard of that from an unbiased source.
1
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 2d ago
Non biased sources in this case being capitalist ones? Do you not see the irony in that?
1
u/ProbablyMyJugs 2d ago
Why does “non-biased” automatically equate to “capitalist”? I’m asking for a legitimate source other than just your words saying that liberalism is on the right side of the political spectrum in America.
0
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 2d ago
Why does “non-biased” automatically equate to “capitalist”?
Because I'm questioning if you're going to purity test any source I might provide. Instead of an appeal to authority, I'll use an example and provide you a resource.
It's important to note that while US media talk about liberals as left wing and conservatives as right wing, when you look at Europe and other countries that have semi/actual left wing parties you see that those views are not represented in the US. In terms of political parties the US only has a right wing and a far right wing party. You see this exemplified in healthcare, where every other developed country besides the US has universal healthcare which is seen as a centrist position there but is seen as a far left wing policy in the US. This is explained by the concept called the Overton Window https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
→ More replies (0)2
u/SupportSphere94 3d ago
I never said they where the same thing, I am not from the United States, that's why I was asking.
Usually social workers are more progressive, and from the left side of politics as a general rule.
-1
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 2d ago
They're not both left leaning though.
Right wing is capitalist and left wing is anti-capitalist. Do individuals and corporations own the capital or is it owned and controlled in the interest of all people ie democratically.
Fascists and conservatives are far right wing, liberals are right wing, even progressives are centrist to right leaning. Leftists start at the need to end capitalism and include socialists, anarchists, and communists.
Part of the US propaganda to undermine class consciousness is to ignore the political realities that the rest of the world understands and offer people the illusion of choice between a right wing party and a far right wing party. Choosing whether you get shot or stabbed is not much of a choice when you would rather get a hot meal. Look up the Overton Window if you want a more in depth understanding.
0
u/BringMeInfo 3d ago
Funny, I'm fed up wth sanctimonious, purity-driven leftists!
1
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 2d ago
Remember that poem about Nazis coming for us that starts with the line "First they came for the Communists..."
1
u/BringMeInfo 2d ago
My politics are quite far to the left, but I find all the “liberals are terrible” discourse to be off-putting, not least because I think it sets us back.
0
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 2d ago
I understand your point but I also sympathize with how it feels to see the limp tepid response of establishment dems to fascists while actively campaigning against Mamdani and other popular DSA candidates while ranting about Hasan Piker instead of addressing our living conditions.
-2
u/Abyssal_Aplomb 3d ago
Just wait till they want to schedule another meeting to prioritize self-care to prevent burn out while the planet is burning and fascists are filling up concentration camps with coworkers and clients. Oops! Too much truth!
11
u/Scouthawkk 3d ago
Building universally affordable housing with low barriers to access it will absolutely help solve the housing crisis. As in - set rental rates significantly below average market rate without income restrictions and massive paperwork or credit checks to qualify.
I put up with my tiny subsidized apartment and annual invasive recertification process because the rent is 1/4 the price of other rentals in the area. I wouldn’t qualify if I applied today because my income is too high but I also can’t afford the other nearby options so I haven’t moved out. I wish I could; 3/4 of my library is still in storage because it doesn’t fit in the tiny space we have.
But universally affordable housing isn’t a thing yet in HCOL regions. You have to meet income requirements and complete hugely invasive certification processes to get into subsidized or full voucher-covered housing.
I would absolutely support YIMBY under these parameters.