Barack Obama Wants Democrats To Be the YIMBY Party. That's Easier Said Than Done.
The housing crisis is bad for national Democrats. At the state level, it's a political winner.

Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free.
This week's newsletter takes a look at former President Barack Obama's recent speech in which he urged Democrats to be more YIMBY.
Also included is an update on Charlottesville, Virginia, which—contra the city's previous statements—still has a zoning code after all.
Obama Wants Democrats To Be the YIMBY Party. That's Easier Said Than Done.
Obama's tough love electoral advice to his fellow Democrats during a fundraiser event in New Jersey this past Friday included a broadside against blue-state zoning laws.
Said Obama, per a Monday CNN article:
"I don't care how much you love working people. They can't afford a house because all the rules in your state make it prohibitive to build. And zoning prevents multifamily structures because of NIMBY," he said, referring to "not in my backyard" views. "I don't want to know your ideology, because you can't build anything. It does not matter."
Zoning reform still has the feel of a niche, nerdy issue, so it might seem somewhat surprising that a mainstream figure like Obama would reference it in a fundraising speech. That he did so certainly made a stir in the YIMBY corners of social media.
In fact, the former president has been quietly ahead of the curve on zoning reform for a long time now.
You are reading Rent Free from Christian Britschgi and Reason. Get more of Christian's urban regulation, development, and zoning coverage.
As Bloomberg's Kriston Capps has reported, the Obama administration proposed incentivizing local zoning reform with federal grants all the way back in 2016. (The basic idea would eventually become law with the creation of the PRO program in 2022.)
It is still a sign of the rising salience of YIMBY-style policy reforms that Obama is talking more and more about zoning reform.
If one looks back at the comments Obama made about housing as president, they were mostly about stabilizing the housing market post–Great Recession.
As the national conversation has shifted from falling home prices to rising home prices, zoning has become a much bigger part of the conversation, and consequently, it's become an issue that Obama feels increasingly comfortable talking about.
One recalls that he included a few YIMBY-themed lines in his 2024 Democratic National Convention speech. (The former president reportedly had to be talked out of mentioning zoning specifically.)
Obama's remarks about zoning on Friday are more interesting still, given that he didn't make them in the context of a policy speech, but rather as part of some general advice on how Democrats can take back the country from President Donald Trump's Republican party.
A primary way of doing that, according to Obama, is to provide people with real economic opportunity by removing liberal states' regulatory barriers on housing production.
This is the gist of the "abundance agenda" promoted by the likes of Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and increasingly embraced by Democratic politicians such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Their self-reflective story is that blue states' regulatory regimes have undercut liberals' own policy goals of more affordable housing, more clean energy, more public transit, etc.
At the national level, Obama is almost certainly right that embracing YIMBY policies is good politics for Democrats. (Newsom's adoption of "abundance" rhetoric as he seemingly prepares for a presidential run is evidence that the governor thinks so as well.)
Certainly, when it comes to optics, it's hard for Democrats to pitch themselves as worthy of governing when the states they run are the least affordable in the nation. On a practical level, the more people leave blue states because of high housing costs (among other issues like high taxes), the harder it will be for Democrats to win control of Congress and the White House.
The trouble is that on the state and local levels, NIMBY zoning laws have been a benefit to Democratic electoral prospects.
As states such as California and New York have gotten more expensive thanks to excessive land-use regulations, they've also gotten more Democratic. High housing costs have encouraged lots of more moderate and conservative middle-class voters to move to Florida and Texas. The electorate they leave behind is increasingly made up of (increasingly Democratic) wealthy voters and equally Democratic lower-income voters who are cushioned from rising costs by various price controls and subsidy programs.
At the state level, it benefits Democrats for their states to become enclaves of wealthy liberalism.
State and local Democratic politicians who do embrace zoning reform put themselves in a position of having to fight with major interest groups within the Democratic coalition (labor unions, environmental groups, affordable housing groups, literal socialists, and Democratic-controlled local governments) that all have their problems with zoning reform.
In the discourse, any time a liberal writer says labor groups or tenant advocates are holding back blue-state growth, another liberal writer will wonder why they're punching left when Trump is dragging the country further into authoritarianism.
Meanwhile, in red and purple states, it's often Democrats who are the more NIMBY party. A long history of Republican-controlled state governments preempting the liberal policies of blue cities has made Democrats partisan defenders of local control.
See Arizona Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs' opposition to zoning reform in that state or Texas Democrats' concerted (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to kill zoning reform in that state's Legislature this year.
This isn't to say that there aren't Democratic state politicians making strides on zoning reform. California, Washington, and Maine managed to enact a number of productive reforms this year. In almost every state, there are YIMBYs and NIMBYs in both parties, and most zoning bills require bipartisan support to pass.
Nevertheless, a YIMBY/abundance politics that plays well for Democrats at the national level faces a lot of political headwinds in several states and their many localities.
Consider this thought experiment. If Obama's audience this past Friday were not Democrats writ large but rather a candidate trying to win office in Martha's Vineyard (where the former president has his summer home), would he be wise to urge that candidate to embrace zoning reform as his main cause? Almost certainly not. And yet, it's local officials in Martha's Vineyard who have the most say over zoning policy.
Certainly, anyone who wants to see the liberalization of land-use laws should be happy that major Democratic figures are pushing the party to make this a central theme of its policy agenda.
Obama's remarks are welcome and encouraging. On pure policy grounds, the former president is correct that zoning has been a disaster for working people's ability to afford a home.
Still, what is good land-use policy is not necessarily good or easy politics, especially in the places with the worst land-use regulations and the worst housing crises.
The current Republican Party, of course, has its own internal contradictions on the issue of housing affordability. The same Trump administration that wants to open up Western lands for more housing development also wants to deport the workers who'd construct that housing and tariff the materials needed to build it.
For the foreseeable future, we should expect both major political parties to offer a contradictory mix of housing policies that offer to lower costs with one hand and raise them with another.
Charlottesville, Still Zoned After All
The strange saga surrounding Charlottesville's zoning code continues to unfold, with the city now saying that it does still have a zoning code after all.
That's a reversal of City Manager Sam Sanders' statements to local media (which this newsletter covered last week) that, as a result of a circuit court judge issuing a default judgment in favor of residents suing to block the city's 2023 zoning code update, Charlottesville's entire zoning code had been struck down.
"The old ordinance had to be repealed in order for the new one to be adopted. The void of the new one leaves us without one temporarily," Sanders had told Charlottesville Tomorrow in an email earlier in the month.
Absent an effective zoning ordinance, the city didn't have the ability to "regulate a number of things important to the community, including which uses are allowed in certain parts of the city," Sanders had said.
But in an email to Reason this past Thursday, Charlottesville Director of Communications Afton Schneider said Sanders' statement was "mistakenly conveyed" and that the city still had an active zoning ordinance.
"As of today, July 11, 2025, we are still operating under the 2024 Development Code, pending the Circuit Court's issuance of a formal, written order," the city further clarified in a Friday-issued press release.
In fact, as a practical matter, the city's land-use regulations have gotten a lot more restrictive.
While the city is still "operating" under the new development code, it also said on Friday that it has paused consideration of "zoning-related applications", which include "new construction, additions, site modifications, and changes in use." Building permits outside of that scope are still being considered and issued.
I wrote last week that the apparent court decision voiding Charlottesville's zoning code was a surprise victory for YIMBY zoning abolition.
The suing residents' primary complaint about the 2023 zoning code was that it allowed too much density in formerly single-family neighborhoods. (The 2023 code allowed at least three-unit developments in single-family zones, and in some cases six- to eight-unit developments.)
It was an ironic twist, then, that their lawsuit would void the entire zoning code and permit projects of theoretically unlimited density.
With the city's walk back of Sanders' remarks, that YIMBY paradise is now gone—and apparently never existed. Instead, property owners are left waiting for the court to enter a written order before they can know exactly what land-use rules will actually be in effect going forward.
In an article for Information Charlottesville, land-use reporter Sean Tubbs reported general confusion from the public and minimal comments from city officials about what exact zoning rules were currently in place and whether projects would be able to move forward under the new code.
The city says that it is currently attempting to work out a settlement with the plaintiffs, and will appeal the judge's decision if those prove unsuccessful. In the event of unsuccessful legal appeals, the city said it will readopt the voided code.
So, to summarize, Charlottesville's new zoning code is still in effect, but the city also won't process applications relying on the 2023 zoning code until a written court order clarifies exactly what zoning rules remain in effect.
Quick Links
- Seattle is sued (again) over its affordable housing mandates.
- Matt Yglesias on the errors of "inclusionary zoning."
- Multifamily housing production plummets in Montgomery County, Maryland, following the county's adoption of a new rent control policy.
Rent control just devastated Montgomery County, Maryland's multifamily construction. (Via @salimfurth) https://t.co/iYkxS9C797
— Jason Sorens (@JasonSorens) July 12, 2025
- The case for new cities.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He wants Dems to have their personal chef mysteriously die in their backyards? Wut?!?!
Now you’re cookin’.
Soup’s on!
He dindu nuffin!
Can't wait to see the affordable housing plans for Martha's Vineyard.
They have affordable housing on Martha's Vineyard.
Section 8? Looks more like Section 80.
My thought exactly. This shit NEVER applies to the anointed at the DNC. They get their armed guards and gas stoves and Venezuelan-free zones. It's the rest of us who are supposed to sacrifice for the collective.
Socialism is for the you, not the socialist.
Of course, he'd laugh in your face for assuming he meant his backyard. What's the point of owning multi-million dollar beachfront property walled off from the rabble if the rabble comes to you? The question of his glaring climate change hypocrisy in owning beachfront property can wait for another time.
They can't afford a house because all the rules in your state make it prohibitive to build.
You built that, O.
"You didn't build that, because you can't build anything."
The circle has been squared.
By calling it "Abundance" Dems give themselves permission to co-opt Libertarian concepts. I should be irritated, but whatevs...
The MBTA is the public transportation system in the metro Boston area. The Lefty legislature passed a law requiring towns within an arrowshot of public transportation to accept multi-unit housing - think big apartment blocks. The nearby town of Milton - Harris 11.7K votes, Trump 4.5K - voted by referendum to refuse to allow such development. So the state is cutting funding from them as punishment. Not mentioned in the above article - this kind of development requires 'affordable' housing - low income, you know who. THAT is why they say Not In My Back Yard - they know what will happen to their neighborhoods and their schools when affordable (poor people) housing comes to town. And they're right to fight.
What does Howie Carr say about it?
It used to be called "block busting" very popular in Detroit and Chicago.
The state government of Taxechussets is more like the Supreme Soviet.
There are no gulags ....yet.
Rent control just devastated Montgomery County, Maryland’s multifamily construction
MoCo, the San Fran of the East.
If one looks back at the comments Obama made about housing as president, they were mostly about stabilizing the housing market post–Great Recession.
Translated into English, this meant making sure housing prices remained high. Literally.
And that unqualified applicants continued to receive loans they couldn't afford. Literally.
Quite a bit worse, actually.
When the dip happened 2010-2013 it was damned near impossible to get a mortgage loan. I knew a guy had nearly 30% down and a good job, kept losing places because of the paperwork issues. They were getting bought out from under him by cash offers, corporate, and foreign money (which is a different rant). All because of "protection" for "consumers" like Dodd-Frank.
That should have been the time for regular people who were lucky enough to have jobs to get into a home, like 1994 or the mid 80s for the Boomers. The banks who held the fraudulent paper should have been forced to short sell, should have been prosecuted for fraud,
Instead, everything Obama (and my local Ds) did was the opposite. Obama gave the same people who caused the problem endless money through the FED and TARP, bolstered unions and big business, and did just about everything to slow any recovery from the employment crash. He effectively split the housing market so there were the haves and the never will haves. Houses in my neighborhood in 2012 were in the $400Ks, 2020 they were a million for an 1100 sq ft house from 1950. Everyone who already HAD a mortgage that they could afford got a ridiculously cheap interest rate, everyone else was pretty much fucked.
That's what Obama built. If he says YIMBY, I don't believe him. He means give preferential treatment to his donors to build something horrible that was probably against the law for good reasons. Don't trust him. Don't trust democrats.
TARP was a Hank Paulson/Dumbya creation of 2008. Yes, credit went from easy to difficult because of the GOP mortgage crisis.
Clinton started it with the repeal of portions of Glass Steagall. But of course you try to blame democrat disasters on republicans, right Shrike?
Why don’t you just go back to your kiddie porn?
All that portion of Glass Steagall did was prevent investment banks from owning deposit banks.
So why did standalone investment banks like Lehman, Merrill, and Bear fail?
Repealing Glass is a stupid person’s explanation of the crisis.
Tell me, Shrike, just how did your Sarah Palin's Buttplug account get banned again?
No, what you just said is a stupid person’s analysis. What it did was allow banks to make riskier investments with FDIC insured funds than previously allowed. Which was one of the reasons for the financial crisis.
Recall that fat fuck Michael Moore called Bill Clinton the best Republican president ever.
Sadly, he was right. The only two surpluses in 70 years was due to the Big Dawg.
And yet, you and Moore conveniently forget that from 1995 onward, Slick Willie had a Republican House that made all of this legislation.
He knows. He’s just a child raping liar
How did I draw a grey bar?
There's PLENTY of blame to go around with housing affordability. And I go back to Clinton and the ridiculously low interest rate to try and generate a soft landing from the Dot Com era, Irrational Exuberance bust. Clinton, Greenspan, Bush, Obama, Geithner, Paulson... ALL OF THEM. What they did fed stupid shit onto the dumpster fire of fiscal policy in the pre-covid era, before we get to Yellen, Trump, and god help us the current nightmare of a Fed and Biden.
But, you see, it was fucking Obama trying to claim Democrats are the YIMBYs. Not Bush or Trump or even Bill Clinton. So Obama gets my ire as a fucking liar, and Democrats have made building impossibly more expensive in this state forever, but ESPECIALLY in the post-Bush era, so I'm extra anti-D.
Before the Obama years, we always had a Republican Governor. When Jerry Brown got elected we had a D supermajority in the state legislature, all of the shit that Ahnold, Duke, and Wilson could stop was pushed through. Actually, Brown was a relative control, being a liberal not a modern progressive, so when Newsome got in they basically tried to govern 40 million people like Newsome ran San Francisco.
Everything from forcing Unions to DEI requirements in the modern era all the way back to endless environmental legislation for goddamned near any project goes back to that Democrat supermajority. During the Obama era.
I'll bitch about covid era skewing of the housing market when Biden and Trump start talking out their ass.
TL:DR -- Fuck Obama, he's a liar and would be nothing if he didn't have the press sucking his dick all these years to cover for it.
mainstream figure like Obama would reference it in a fundraising speech. That he did so certainly made a stir in the YIMBY corners of social media.
That's not where you want the stir to occur.
Chris Matthews might have gotten a stir up his leg.
One recalls that he included a few YIMBY-themed lines in his 2024 Democratic National Convention speech.
Was this before he said Joe Biden was sharp as a tack or after?
Hahahaha, who?
Pretty sure last black president is in the dustbin of history at this point. Nobody cares what he has to say, and nobody will meaningfully remember him outside of an encyclopedia article or a list of former presidents.
What about the first black president?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21x7KObESV0
E.g.:
"Obamacare And Medicaid Popularity Hit All-Time High As GOP Preps Cuts"
"The ACA, which was signed into law 15 years ago by President Barack Obama, has expanded individual coverage under the law also known as Obamacare to more than 24 million people."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2025/06/17/obamacare-and-medicaid-popularity-hit-all-time-high-as-gop-preps-cuts/
funny how there is no mention of what has happened to the cost of healthcare since the ACA ... it sure as shit is not more affordable
People don't much care about the cost of healthcare, as long as they're not paying it.
I provided the example ("e.g.") as evidence that Pres. Obama is not "in the dustbin of history at this point" and is "meaningfully remember[ed]", contrary to AT's assertions. _Forbes_ put "Obamacare" in the article's title because its editor[s] assumed that the word would be understood. Whether Obamacare is a good program is irrelevant to the point of my post.
What he says here and now though - nobody cares, nobody's listening, nobody wants to see his face ever again. When you think back on him, all anyone can think is failure and relief that he's gone forever.
Carter was treated with more historical appreciation than Zero is.
Healthcare costs have risen faster. It only makes sense all insurance premiums have increased.
DEATH SPIRAL!
(the Peanut Gallery repeated claimed the ACA would implode back in 2015-16)
People getting free shit like free shit? No shit?
Now the rest of us paying taxes and having our Healthcare completely disrupted and not able to find primary care physicians (many employees here cant find them because ACA government plans get first pick when they accept just one) dont agree.
Then again democrats have always relied on the ignorance of the masses.
Lol. And a KFF poll. I'm sure the questions were unbiased and neutral.
DEATH SPIRAL!
(the Peanut Gallery repeated claimed the ACA would implode back in 2015-16)
Your side claimed it would make healthcare cheaper, shriek, you hicklib pederast. Why didn't that prediction come true?
It would not be a complete GOP circle jerk without Red Rocks.
ACA is popular amongst those who were never actually forced into it. I was. The rest of you can just shut fuck up.
You nailed it.
F*** Soetoro!
Their self-reflective story is that blue states' regulatory regimes have undercut liberals' own policy goals of more affordable housing
Liberals don't have a goal of 'affordable housing'. Yes, they use those words, but like so much in leftist-speech, they use the same words you do, but they use a different dictionary. When the left talks about 'affordable housing' they don't mean houses which are cheaper.
In the discourse, any time a liberal writer says labor groups or tenant advocates are holding back blue-state growth, another liberal writer will wonder why they're punching left when Trump is dragging the country further into authoritarianism.
Sure, that's what they say today, but what did they say in the years 0000-2015?
Meanwhile, in red and purple states, it's often Democrats who are the more NIMBY party. A long history of Republican-controlled state governments preempting the liberal policies of blue cities has made Democrats partisan defenders of local control.
It's restrictive! It's liberating... and it can only be described in two words: Right on!
They're thinking more along the lines of Pruitt-Igoe and Cabrini-Green.
The "Greens" heard about them. The garden spot of Chicago./s
In the parlance of progressives "affordable housing" is a stock of forced below market rate housing they get to dole out to their client voting class while making the remaining housing even more expensive.
It's interesting what he wants them to do now that it no longer has an effect on his own political career.
Obama also wants the Democrats to be more violent than they already are.
Obama wants to control you through regulations.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/12/30/obamas-legacy-2016-ends-with-a-record-shattering-regulatory-rulebook/
How do you dumbasses fall for this shit?
Obama mainly made sure banks held enough capital to survive.
See 2008 and the Bushpigs.
Since we all know you’re an idiot, Jesse, the economy crashed in 2008 and the GOP had to nationalize 10-15 big banks. You should read about it sometime.
You are a Bushpig, pedo.
They don't "fall" for it, they promote it.
It's about their team, not actual ideology.
You’re Team Red all the way dipshit. You just blamed Obama for the Bush TARP bill.
Maybe you’re just ignorant.
Did you say that while looking in a mirror?
Hey dumb shit. I bet even you knew that Dumbya signed TARP.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was correct. "Americans are the most dumbed down, ignorant and brainwashed people on the planet."
energy, appliance and fixture mandates
solar panels,
electric ranges and HVAC
low flow dishwashing and laundry machines,
shower heads
obama (as would klein and thompson) would control the thermostat in your house if he could
Being required to install a smart thermostat that public service can control/override will be in the code soon in some places.
That presidential failure is irrelevant. He no longer holds any sway with the Democrats and the rest of the country has Obama fatigue from starting the war in Ukraine. The nation has Obama fatigue. His people remained in the white House when Biden was selected to occupy it knowing full well ole Joe was senile and decrepit.
Obama can retire to one of his mansions either in Marhta's Vinyard or Hawaii. He should remain there. The nation has Obama fatigue.
He tried but failed to infect the nation with Chicago style Marxist ideology and Bill Ayers activism.
Luckily, he failed.
Time for you to go away Barry.