Chapter 8: Think And Talk About Opponents As Little As Possible | Building YIMBYs of NoVA
Are you doing what your opponents want you to do?
105 people are receiving this post via email. Special thanks to my 4 paid subscribers.
Welcome to Chapter 8 of the Building YIMBYs of NoVA series, which covers:
Chapter 7: Recruit Like Crazy (Plus Thoughts on Social Media)
Chapter 8: Think And Talk About Opponents As Little As Possible
Before we dive in, I need to define the two broad types of NIMBYs. Suburban housing opponents tend to be—not just anecdotally but also according to research—older, wealthier, and, indeed, whiter than average. They are also likely to be homeowners, specifically single-family homeowners. But this does not mean denizens of suburban apartment and condo towers will not rally to try to block new apartment and condo towers. Such were our first opponents. Urban NIMBYs, a la New York City, are more racially diverse. They are more likely to be immigrants or recent descendants of immigrants, people of color, and lower income, and may lack the local political clout of their suburban fellow travelers. I just noticed that neither type of NIMBY would likely want to see the other move into their neighborhood.
Urban, racial minority NIMBYs’ opposition to new housing is generally in good faith and quite understandable, to the extent it is motivated by fear of displacement. Many of them bear generational scars from urban renewal and highway construction. I just had a call with a local tenants’ rights group that serves poor immigrant communities, and the conversation was tough. For something like four decades they have consistently experienced development and new housing as destructive forces that raise rents and fracture their communities.
YIMBYs of NoVA operates in suburbia, where the whiter, wealthier NIMBY species predominates, which I think makes things much easier for us, certainly in a region that is by most standards very politically progressive. It is hard to imagine us being flanked from the left by anyone with real power or influence. Core cities are a much more complex, fraught political environment, which is how you end up with New York’s big YIMBY group styling itself as too cool and socially conscious for the YIMBY brand and supporting rent control, despite the policy’s heinous track record of failure in that city. YIMBYs are, narratively, the underdogs in suburbia. To put it more bluntly, one of the veteran organizers I mentioned in a prior chapter, who is white himself, explained to me that a bunch of white people speaking at a community meeting in the District would likely backfire. Right or wrong, that is just the political reality.
Turning to this chapter’s main topic, I really do believe that YIMBYs and housing advocates should think and talk about opponents as little as possible. But it is still a work in progress for me, not only because of the discipline required, but also because sometimes you do need to respond. Arlington’s Civic Federation adopted a resolution with a lengthy appendix singling out YIMBYs of NoVA and baselessly attacking us. We decided to issue a press release, which I had no involvement in because the appendix mentioned me. On the other hand, one of the top NIMBY groups had a couple of pages on its website dedicated to attacking us, and this is only the second time I am publicly mentioning it, in part because I think it is hilarious.
There are some basic epistemic questions at play. One of our leads recently pointed out that even publicly referring to folks as housing opponents gives them attention, while using that term needlessly precludes the possibility that their skepticism might soften. It might push people off of the fence into the arms of NIMBY.
Is the term NIMBY ad hominem? Even I as a generally positive, optimistic person would tend to argue it is not. The stock argument you hear ad nauseam is that even if we need more housing, ‘we should build it farther away from me.’ So “not in my back yard” is literally descriptive. Unfortunately, opponents’ arguments are usually in bad faith or insufficient in the face of an honest to goodness housing shortage and affordability crisis, so they have no one else to blame for negative connotations.
By human nature, there is a constant temptation to lash out at people you disagree with, which I think we have avoided quite well. As I have mentioned, multiple people told us that staying positive was key to our success in the fight over Arlington’s Missing Middle housing plan. If you have an impact, you can expect personal attacks (in writing, obviously). The first time I was properly attacked, in a luxuriously long letter to the editor, it was much less fun than I thought it would be. Even though all of the claims were either mundanely true or flatly incorrect, I questioned myself. Had I crossed any lines? After a lot of reflection, my honest answer was no. My conscience was clean. This was an unanticipated benefit of holding ourselves to a high ethical standard. Since then, personal attacks have rolled off my back, mostly, even though I always thought of myself as somewhat thin-skinned. I actually relish attacks a bit. It shows that people feel threatened. One NIMBY even messaged me on LinkedIn.
When NIMBY behavior is truly toxic, I do sometimes choose to call attention to it on Twitter. It may be toxic in an absurd or funny way, like Richmond NIMBYs railing against a nursery school’s incremental expansion or a letter to the editor advocating for a population cap in Alexandria. The Richmond tweet received almost 950,000 impressions; Twitter really does reward negativity.
The most important practical reason not to talk about opponents is that doing so validates them and makes you look threatened. That is why the bar for toxic behavior worth mentioning is very high; it must violate a basic norm. Whenever you call out a NIMBY group, you are giving it oxygen, and usually the NIMBYs stand to benefit. As a rule I do not publicly name NIMBY groups. Even alluding to them is indisputable evidence that you think about them and believe them worthy of attention.
Female members of our team have faced disproportionate intimidation, particularly in person: People yelling for an hour at a civic association meeting, or men invading their personal space. Members of your team will be harassed, which is harder for me to brush off than shots taken at me. After getting advice from different quarters, I resolved to make sure my colleagues know that I have their back and give them a space to vent or express any negative emotions. We all make ourselves available to support and reassure each other.
All of this reinforces the importance of staying positive and productive. Do not take the bait. I try to ask myself, am I doing what my opponent wants me to do? Better for your opponents to spend more time thinking about you than you spend thinking about them. Better to ignore them.
Your organization will be attacked, accused of being bought and paid for by developers. We were called developer shills mere months into our existence, when we were still a dinky Facebook group. Much as regular peoples’ views of housing policy easily skew conspiratorial—developers, hedge funds, foreign buyers, oh my!—detractors will completely make things up about your organization.
Housing opponents have a stubborn habit of making things up in general and catastrophizing about the effects of a housing development or zoning reform. Accept that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, many or most of your opponents will not believe or care that housing is expensive. They will claim this publicly, but you should resist any temptation to correct them. NIMBYs excel at making themselves seem unreasonable and ridiculous. Let them. One of my mantras is a paraphrase of Napoleon: When your opponent is making a mistake, do not interrupt them.
Still, you must respect your opponents, not by holding them in esteem, but rather acknowledging what they are capable of. Politics punishes hubris and complacency. Figure out what motivates your opponents. More often than not, it is fear. Understand where they are coming from, if only to help you outmaneuver them. The best case scenario is converting opponents into supporters, which is incredibly challenging, but a member of our team has pulled it off. Not dehumanizing opponents is also a moral imperative, and keeps you out of a negative headspace. Focus on what you are doing.
When our rank and file YIMBY members complain about the latest nonsensical or dishonest thing some NIMBY does or says online, my message is consistent: The way we beat these people is by building ourselves up and making them irrelevant.
If you enjoy this series or want to work together, I would love to hear from you at lucagattonicelli@substack.com. I am glad to answer questions from readers, ideally in future blog posts. Visit YIMBYs of Northern Virginia at yimbysofnova.org.