“Not in My Backyard” is a term that refers to people supporting the idea of affordable housing but opposing projects in their own community, not wanting to be affected by potential traffic, lack of space or noise concerns. However, homelessness is a prominent concern in California: in 2024, the state had over 24% of the nation’s total homeless population. NIMBY attitudes worsen the housing crisis and prevent cities from developing in favor of self-preservation. Successful housing progress requires finding a balance between acknowledging community concerns while also prioritizing project completion.
Common NIMBY arguments reveal more about privilege than genuine concern. Atherton, the wealthiest ZIP code in the United States, is a prime example of its harm. In June 2022, the Atherton City Council proposed a design of nine townhouse developments. It was opposed by many residents, who argued that more than one residence per acre of land would decrease property values and increase noise pollution and traffic. Ironically, Marc Andreessen, a resident opposing the proposal, serves on Meta’s board of directors, which pledged in 2019 to commit $1 billion to the housing crisis over the next decade. He exemplifies wealthy elites who abandon promises of social work to prioritize their own interests.
“The bottom line is we can pass any law we want, but the market has the ultimate say,” Cupertino City Council Member Ray Wang wrote in an email. “Builders have to find lenders who believe that a project is viable.”
Instead of waiting for voluntary goodwill to combat homelessness, cities must address the issue of self interest preventing progress. A common NIMBY misconception is that building more housing lowers nearby property values. However, studies in other states point to the opposite effect. The Urban Institute found that property values in Virginia rose by 0.06% after the construction of affordable housing in above-median-income neighborhoods. Trulia analyzed 3100 low-income housing projects, finding they had negligible impact on property values in San Francisco.
Some community members are receptive to the idea of housing to support vulnerable populations, but share their honest concerns about overcrowding.
“Cities should work on constructing in places with less developments,” junior Megan Ramjahn said. “More housing in this area will contribute to our already-bad traffic and cluttered community.”
Nonetheless, a lack of housing will result in population decline, leading to a myriad of consequences. California could lose 5 Congressional seats if the population continues to decline from rising costs of living, reducing its voice on the national stage and losing federal funding. However, rejecting NIMBY doesn’t mean that cities shouldn’t approach new housing proposals with resident concerns in mind. Recently, a proposal for one of the first affordable housing developments along Mary Avenue in Cupertino faced opposition from community members due to lack of city transparency over safety concerns about traffic and toxic waste. In the decade of its planning, neighbors said they were never notified of other project details that would affect their daily lives: the narrowing of Mary Avenue and loss of 89 parking spots.
“We are all for affordable housing, but this spot is unsuitable,” local resident Roberta Murai said.
Yet the project, meant for developmental disabilities and low-income residents, is necessary in our community. To minimize alarm, affordable housing developments should be coupled with transparency.
“A lady knocked on my door asking if we knew about the proposal,” Cupertino resident Shaun Fong said. “I was so shocked.”
Although concerns such as these are legitimate, the majority of NIMBY talking points — that new housing will create inconveniences like temporary noise or closed construction areas — are minor compared to housing. People need homes to live in, and inevitably, those houses and apartments will be next to another’s property. No progress will come out of supporting the theory of affordable housing yet opposing its proximity to current communities. To tackle the homelessness problem in California and preserve the benefits of a diverse population, NIMBY attitudes need to be eliminated.
