The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Catholic Case Against NIMBYism
Urban policy analyst Addison Del Mastro advances it in the Catholic journal America.
In a recent article in the Jesuit publication America, urban policy commentator Addison Del Mastro explains "Why Catholics Should Resist NIMBYism":
The cost and supply of housing has gone from a problem associated with a handful of high-growth cities to a national crisis. Anybody who has moved in the last three years understands this. Calls to loosen zoning restrictions and repeal parking space requirements for apartment buildings in the hope of spurring housing production have become mainstream….
Perhaps the most relevant element of the Catholic ethic here is the idea that people are good. Pope Francis affirms this in his encyclical "Laudato Si'," in which, contra Malthusian fears about overpopulation, he argues that even concern for the earth cannot be placed above the dignity of the human person….
Using the not-surprising example of abortion, Francis articulates the broader Catholic conviction that no public policy which contradicts the principle that people are good can itself be good. Likewise, no apparent good that relies on the negation of this principle is worth keeping….
This may seem easy enough. But people do not exist in a vacuum. Recognizing their dignity or accommodating their needs is not just an intellectual exercise. Their needs must be provided for concretely in the real world, and one of those needs is housing.
If people are good—if babies and families are good—the housing they need must also be good. Housing is an extension of people and of the family, and when babies grow up, they become neighbors. But in American politics, these concerns have been separated and siloed….
Does this mean Catholics should never oppose new housing? What about objections to ugly new buildings, or traffic, or rapidly increasing density leading to a sense of overcrowding? Are these illegitimate concerns? I would not argue that, and housing policy is certainly one of those matters on which Catholics may freely argue and disagree.
I would instead frame this issue this way: At least in our country's higher-growth, most housing-deficient regions, it may be necessary to choose between the needs of people and our preferences for the built environment around us. We might have an image of what a "family-friendly neighborhood" looks like: detached houses with yards, for example. But a family-friendly neighborhood could instead be a neighborhood that the average family can afford, and it may look different than our ideal. It may be the case that putting the human person and the family first requires letting go of certain aesthetic preferences…
Del Mastro omits an additional reason why Catholics should oppose NIMBYism: the Church is—rightly—supportive of migrants fleeing poverty and oppression. But, in many places, exclusionary zoning is a major obstacle to building new housing needed to take in migrants and refugees (as well as native-born Americans seeking economic and educational opportunities). This is one of the major causes of New York City's current problems with asylum-seekers, for example.
I am not a Catholic, myself, or even a religious believer at all. But many of the points raised by Del Mastro are ones that can be shared by many secular people, as well. For example, I too believe "people are good," and that NIMBY esthetic considerations should yield to that imperative (though it is also the case that current homeowners in communities with restrictive zoning often have much to gain from reform).
In a related recent Reason article, explains how zoning reform can help various religious groups survive and grow.
I have written previously about how zoning reform is a cross-ideological cause that cuts across conventional ideological and partisan lines. In this case, it might also cut across some of the divisions between the religious and the secular.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck the Catholic Church.
This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It’s the opinion of some. It is not THE Catholic view. Other Catholics can and do disagree.
It was presented as THE Catholic position.
The gay case for YIMBYism.
The pedo case for teddy bears.
The blue case for violins.
Sheesh.
Blue cases for violins are surprisingly common.
I honestly don’t see the reasoning here, anyway. As Roger S says below, zoning laws absolutely benefit people. Whether they benefit enough or the right people is hardly a theological question.
And that Jesuit article on repealing parking space minimums was bizarrely lacking in anything I would characterize as reasoning, let alone religious reasoning. The justifications given seemed to be just shallow left-wing cant.
The end of the quoted bit clarifies the argument: if you want your neighborhood to be a nice place, that’s a preference, but if somebody wants to live closer to where they work, that’s a need because they need somewhere to live.
And remember, people are good, which means terrorists are good, drug dealers are good, thieves are good, and so forth, and we must make public policy that favors them. The principle of people are good compels you!
(It’s 110% shallow left-wing cant.)
” but if somebody wants to live closer to where they work, that’s a need because they need somewhere to live.”
But if somebody wants a place to park their car, that’s not a need, because they don’t need to be able to actually commute to work?
That’s why I said shallow left-wing cant. They’re wish-casting parking spaces not being necessary, because everybody should be walking to work or using public transport, not driving.
But terrorists, drug dealers, and thieves are good – FROM THEIR POINT OF VIEW.
So that goes to the age-old question; who decides what is “good?”
Just so we are clear, are you actually arguing that those groups are good, or are you merely trying to distract from the actual point under discussion?
I’m asking who decides what is “good” since we’re discussing “people are good.”
The people you listed terrorists, drug dealers, and thieves are criminals IAW with our laws, so we can agree they are not good.
But then why do some people think that J6 people WHO HAVE BEEN CONVICTED AND SENTENCED are good?
Aren’t all lawbreakers not good?
Okay, so you are merely trying to distract from the actual point. As usual.
Acknowledging that people have different ideas about what is good is hardly ever a distraction from a political or policy discussion. It’s usually essential to getting anywhere on it.
Yes, and recognizing a troll who jumps from housing policy to “HURR WHAT ABOUT J6?” is also essential to getting anywhere useful.
I notice a distinct lack of “HURR”s in anybody’s comments besides your own.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was a convicted criminal.
Just sayin…
who decides what is “good?”
Those who write the zoning regulations
The OP talks about ‘individual dignity’ which seems to go deeper than “I want my neighborhood to be *nice*”
remember, people are good, which means terrorists are good, drug dealers are good, thieves are good
No one actually says this, though. Certainly not the Catholic Church.
You even lost Brett.
I am not sure why Brett had a problem reading into the mindset behind apedad’s comments. It was extremely clear, shouty, and irrelevant.
The original article was written for a Catholic audience and assumes that audience accepts some form of “people are good” precept — and that this is expresses divine values. Arguing over who gets to decide what is “good” is amazingly beside the point because that was presented as their God’s value; they know who decided that, and questioning whether God gets to decide what is good is not going to have any traction with them. Arguing that humans have mis-perceived God’s judgment about who or what is good would at least engage with the original article, although again isn’t likely to convince anyone.
My original comment was pointing out that the argument was poor because “people are good” underdetermines the outcome of “build high-density housing everywhere”. Your arm-waving at “individual dignity” (a phrase which is not used in the article) does not help much: who decides what comprises “dignity” in this case, and why is the dignity of a short commute superior to the dignity of a neighborhood that is free of litter and small shops focused on lottery tickets and tobacco products? The original article doesn’t explain or cite what it means by “people are good” or by “the dignity of the human person”. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is certainly something that Catholics say, supporting the idea that terrorists are worthy of love, drug dealers might be good even if dealing drugs is bad, and so forth.
In short, Catholics believe laws should benefit people, and zoning laws do the opposite.
No, this is a terrible argument. Zoning laws do benefit people. You could argue that some benefit more than others, but all laws do that, and zoning laws are certainly designed to benefit people.
Of course they benefit people. But they also cost people. And the people who have to pay the costs are often different people from the ones who get the benefits.
Policy is generally a question of weighing costs and benefits. Are the benefits worth the cost?
Framing things in absolute terms merely invites useless straw man arguments.
Yes, that’s right. Somin specializes in useless straw man arguments.
The idea is to make it easier for housing. This is a Christian value.
Before people on the left jump in and say, “Yeah!”, Jesus said to help your neighbor. He didn’t say point a gun at your neighbor and force them to help your other neighbor.
By that same argument, abortion should be legal.
I think the argument against abortion is “Thou shalt not kill” Unfortunately though, that falls on deaf ears to the faithless enamored with infanticide.
As opposed to “thou shalt not steal”?
The Torah says “Lo tirtzach,” which means “murder,” not “kill.” As the Torah commands killing in many contexts, it can’t possibly forbid killing.
Do you think this commandment forbids ever taking a life in any context? One can’t take a life in self-defense, defending your family, dare I say it, defending one’s country (I know you guys don’t believe in sovereign nations anymore, but just pretend)?
Yes, it’s widely understood that it was a mis-translation, and the actual commandment is, “Thou shalt not murder.”
There’s a lot of institutional inertia preventing that from being corrected.
You’re talking the Book of Exodus, right?
It is a bad argument because “all” Catholics do not subscribe to this interpretation. It isn’t an article of faith. Some may but a lot may not. This isn’t Ex Cathedra from the Pope. Of course, ignorance on the workings of the faith has never stopped pundits before.
Ilya presented it as “all Catholics”…
Of the many wrong ideas which caused me to leave the Church I was raised in, the doctrine of original sin was the worst. Thinking that we are born with the stain of sin on us is very damaging.
Here the Church’s better instincts seem to be taking over. Doctrine was been changed (I mean, er, “developed”). We are inherently good.
I believe in the “seamless garment” — being truly pro-life — but that is not popular in an era of polarization.
Housing is not a problem for rich people, because they can afford their own infrastructure. Ringing every modest sized city and larger, are hundreds of mini developments, with a private funded street or three. But no water, sewer, communications.
Zoning is that balancing of housing v infrastructure.
Policing is also a huge factor. Nobody wants to live close to govt subsidized housing. The People that fill those units bring crime with them.
Until society starts to enforce the social contract, things will only get worse.
I think that the view that Professor Somin has advanced, that zoning laws are inherently bad and not only that, unconstitutional, is a non-starter. They’re perfectly constitutional, and sometimes good. The question is, when? Arguing in terms of absolutes frequently obscures that. I disagree on the absolutes, so as long as we argue only absolutes then there’s an irreconcilable conflict.
I think Professor Somin should pay more attention to the fact that the core unit of political decision-making on these issues is the state. While states have innate sovereign power which (at least in theory) Congress can’t intrude on, localities have no such innate power. They are mere creatures of the state. Any power they have is delegated and can be taken back.
This means that our tendency to think of zoning issues as a local community issue is a mere custom. It could be a state issue. States have the power to take back certain decisions and make them on a state-wide basis in a way that localities can’t, and it isn’t clear the federal government can.
This means that states really need to be much more the locus of political discussion on these issues than they have been.
Of course, zoning generally benefits the rich, and in our society the rich have inordinate political influence, and politics is often dominated by self-interest. But the rest of the people do retain power to make a difference. In addition, it’s in some rich people’s, such as developers’, interests.
“Of course, zoning generally benefits the rich, and…”
You got caught in the rhetorical trap about “the rich”
What is accurate is that zoning generally benefits property owners.
It’s pretty generally true for ‘the rich’ as a comparative attribute.
If you have 2 sets with 2 different average incomes, the odds are pretty high that robust zoning rules will be more favored by the set with a higher average income.
Sarcastr0, that may sound plausible to you. My experience suggests the case is likely variable. And more accurately, a large cohort of the poor probably have never given a thought to zoning, one way or the other.
Among less-wealthy folks who do think about zoning, my guess would be that quite a few are alert to opportunities to do what many like them have done, which is to get rich over time, by buying inexpensive property close to the edge of urban development, protect its character with zoning, and retire as land-rich multi-millionaires.
A former boss of mine grew up on a poor farm outside Boston. That got taken by eminent domain, to build Rte 128. He invested the proceeds wisely or luckily in a nondescript outer suburban area. That matured into one of the most wealthy suburbs in the Boston area. My former boss ended up the largest landowner in the town, and very rich indeed.
That kind of thing is by no means unusual, and people know about it. I have previously mentioned the poor black slum-property owners of Georgetown, who got rich after zoning drove out a rendering plant which until the 1950s had blighted the whole neighborhood with its stench. The old architecture which previously had not been worth modifying then became a fashionable asset. The Kennedys moved in. Some formerly poor blacks got rich selling out, others still own Georgetown townhouses.
Why am I not surprised that an article about Catholics and zoning written by Mr. Somin could shoehorn illegals into it somehow?
Non-believers using religious arguments to sway people of faith to their point of view seems to me to be a textbook example of sophistry.
soph·ist·ry
/ˈsäfəstrē,ˈsōfəstrē/
noun
the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
I don’t see it.
“I am not a Catholic, myself, ….”
That’s ok. Neither is America magazine.
But I thought this was “the” Catholic case expressed here?
Well, as supplemented and improved by Ilya Somin.
When Simon Schama was interviewed about his history of Britain, he was asked why he called it _A History of Britain_ rather than _The History of Britain_. His response was something like “There are lots of perspectives, and mine is only one. It would be quite presumptuous to call it _the_ history of Britain.”
Same can apply here. The America article is _a_ Catholic perspective.
(As an aside, kind of reminds me of the arrogance of Ohio State calling themselves tOSU and trademarking “the”.)
“I am not a Catholic, myself, or even a religious believer at all. But [that won’t stop me from pontificating on religious teachings and telling religious people what they are supposed to think, particularly when it comes to political matters]”
You speak for a sizeable number of people there.
But it’s OK when religious people tell non-religious people (or people from other religions) what they’re supposed to think?
Religious or non-religious, the problem with pontificating about things that you do not understand is that you tend to build Sarcastro style, cartoon strawmen that make it clear that you are all bluster with little of substance to say.
If you wish to rally the faithful, or boost your flagging self esteem, this might be a fine result. If your goal is to actually illuminate or convince the thoughtful, you are worse off than you were before you opened your mouth. They are now convinced you are yet another cartoon buffoon and even if you inadvertently make a good point, they are probably no longer listening.
I suppose Somin’s success depends on what he is trying to accomplish.
I lack so much substance that you can’t stop telling everyone how little I matter.
Nah, You are simply an excellent archetype. Examples add clarity and you pretty much embody a style of argument.
ML, the full quote is: “I am not a Catholic, myself, or even a religious believer at all. But many of the points raised by Del Mastro are ones that can be shared by many secular people, as well”
So Prof Somin didn’t telling religious people what they are supposed to think at all.
You lied.
You are lying, as usual.
“Del Mastro omits an additional reason why Catholics should oppose NIMBYism: the Church is—rightly—supportive of migrants fleeing poverty and oppression……”
The Catholic Church is behind the invasion, and not because the trespassing illegal aliens are Catholic, but because Catholic Charities gets good money helping them steal our birthright.
We’ve known it all along, but now even Gov. Maura Healey’s regime is admitting the obvious.
The hacks have no clue how many foreign freeloaders are flopping in Massachusetts on the taxpayers’ dime.
That’s on top of the state’s related befuddlement, as to how much these permanent vacations for thousands of illegal criminals is draining from the working classes of Massachusetts.
The lowball number for the cost of unlimited welfare for illegals is a billion dollars a year. If it’s an over-under bet, I’ll take the over.
If the over-under is a billion-five, I’ll still take over the over.
Healey’s admission that she has no clue as to how illegals are living large on welfare in Massachusetts came this week in state-run media, the Boston Globe.
This catastrophe is so dire that Healey has also announced a hiring freeze, which she said was not a hiring freeze.
Of course, this “freeze” comes after an unprecedented hack hiring spree since Healey took office 15 months ago.
In the first seven months of 2023, for example, Health and Human Services added 300 paper shufflers and pencil sharpeners.
The state’s environmental agencies added more than 200 people to fight….climate change.
I wonder how much global warming they’ve halted since they went on the payroll.
How many polar bears’ ice floes were saved by these Democrats tasked with advocating, focusing, articulating, implementing, transforming, reviewing, ramping up, outlining, analyzing, etc. etc.
Just to cite you two examples of what the state’s $54 billion budget has been squandered on, besides thousands of illegal Haitians, consider the two new Melissas on the state payroll.
First Melissa Hoffer, who last year became the new “Climate Chief” in Maura’s administration, for $166,400 a year.
Since then, her Office of Climate Innovation and Resilience has completed an extremely critical 86-page report – “a call for an economic analysis of state investments needed” blah-blah-blah.
Melissa donated $1000 to Maura before she received her crucial brand-new job.
But that wasn’t enough to save the planet. Plymouth red-bellied turtles are still at risk.
So last month Maura announced another new hack holding pen – the Office of Energy Transformation.
That is going to be run by another Melissa – Melissa Lavinson, for $173,000 a year.
Before her nationwide search, Melissa II gave even more money to Maura — $1,100, in addition to $600 to Lt. Gov. Kim Driscoll.
Now, sadly, there is a hiring freeze. When will the next Melissa who gives a grand to the governor get her $160,000-plus sinecure at the public trough?
Does anyone think Maura Healey is going to let any of this chaos interfere with her next top-secret romantic weekend getaway to some sunny place for shady people?
But the people who live in the affected communities don’t have the option of jetting off to Puerto Rico with their younger gal pals.
But Maura is thinking of them, from 35,000 feet up in first class. She’s suggesting that local communities be given the option of increasing local taxes, you know, like on meals, or hotel-motel occupancy.
Consider the Town of Stoughton, which is being inundated with more illegals on welfare than any other town in the Commonwealth. Of the 351 communities, little Stoughton is number six in the number of invaders. Only five cities have absorbed more.
Obviously, the town is being crushed. If Boston still had a functioning media, the plight of Stoughton would be big news. As it is, it has barely rated a mention, and then only on TV news.
Stoughton has been flooded with more than 230 illegal “families” receiving so-called emergency assistance. (Spoiler alert: the welfare emergency for these illegals will continue forever.)
Stoughton had two hotels – they have been converted into flophouses. The one motel is “being converted,” according to Ch. 5.
The town manager in Stoughton is Tom Calter, a former state rep from Kingston. He realized that with all public accommodations shut down, the town was looking at a shortfall of hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue, just on that one line item alone.
It doesn’t matter if you let a town increase the taxes on hotels if they’ve all been shut down to provide free housing for non-working foreigners to live in forever. Oh, and by the way, the 911 calls to the former hotels in Stoughton are way, way up.
Who could have ever predicted that?
Plus, as Calter told the state, the lack of all lodging is affecting the town’s ability to attract new industries, and “a successful medical device company” is pondering a move.
“The financial burden for the Town of Stoughton,” Calter wrote, according to Ch. 5, “is disproportionately high.
The Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities responded that Stoughton is getting reimbursements in the first six months of the fiscal year of… $24,000.
Wow – 24 large!
Calter asked if the state has any plans for “making the Town of Stoughton whole financially.”
Yeah, right. So he sent a follow-up letter to Lt. Gov. Driscoll, inviting her to come on down to Stoughton.
I called Town Hall this week looking for an update on any responses he’s gotten, but Calter was on vacation. Hey, if I were responsible for the budget of Stoughton or any other city or town where these freeloaders are being dumped, I think I’d be on vacation too.
A permanent vacation. Somewhere in America.
Meanwhile, the crisis spreads. Now it’s Dennis dealing with the ominous threat of a “family transitional shelter.”
It’s for 79 “families,” mostly single moms with kids and infants (anchor babies! More welfare!).
As one Cape Codder told this newspaper:
“They are not being clear at all about who these people are. We can’t ask them where they come from.”
One thing for sure: they’re not coming from any employment agencies, or day-labor pools, or vocational schools. The newcomers must learn “life skills,” the local Americans are told, although it seems like they’ve already mastered one, which is how to live for free, forever.
The state may be falling apart, but look on the bright side. At least we have a new Office of Climate Innovation and Resilience, in addition to the new Office of Energy Transition.
Massachusetts is doing great, at least if you’re named Melissa and you gave a grand to the governor.
Breaking news from Vegas: the over-under on how much the illegals are costing the Commonwealth has just been upped to $2 billion.
I’m still taking the over.”
That was SUPPOSED TO ALL be in Italics beyond the first line and attributed to Howie Carr — https://howiecarrshow.com/healeys-taxing-hack-holding-pen/
Gremlins, I guess….
The Church isn’t behind anything. Some NGOs who allege Catholic allegiance may be part of it
Wiki says: “Within the United States, each diocese typically has a Catholic Charities organization that is run as a diocesan corporation, i.e., a civil corporation owned by the diocese or archdiocese.”
Wiki wrong?
Make it a point to notice. Use of, “NIMBY,” is all about punching down, almost never about punching up. Often that tracks relative wealth, but almost always it tracks relative power. Even wealthy folks like the Kennedys can get targeted, but only with attacks launched from power bases even greater than their own. The point of using, “NIMBY,” is to shame into silence opposition from folks being targeted for uncompensated loss.
Of course, that always goes down best when served with a sauce of alleged public gain, so the sauce is never omitted. But the meat of the dish is always an advantage an accuser seeks on its own behalf. Sometimes that advantage is no more complicated than a lunge for profit—for instance for the real estate development interests Somin so generously serves.
Alternatively, and surprisingly often, it is about a contested choice, where it looks like either a rich suburban neighborhood, or a poor black neighborhood, could be singled out to pay the price of advantaging others. Where it works that way, expect to find, “NIMBY,” among the first words uttered by poor black infants in the targeted neighborhood.
If you doubt the accuracy of that critique, ask when was the last time you heard, “NIMBY,” associated with any policy initiative from which everyone would gain alike.
Another general observation about zoning. The suggestion is that getting rid of zoning is policy to make it easier for lower-cost housing to get built. I think that needs demonstration, with likely results widely variable by location and circumstance. I don’t think it works at all in the dense cores of America’s most in-demand urban locations.
But leave that aside, and consider another effect instead. If the notion is to advantage less-well-off multitudes, ask whether their prospects for accumulating wealth are better served by policies favoring upheaval, or by policies favoring stability.
I think the principal beneficiaries of unstable social conditions are those equipped with financial liquidity to respond quickly to change. Folks living closer to the edge are the ones who require the protection of long-term stability, so that their necessarily more-incremental efforts have time to mature into measurable gain.
Zoning favors poorer people greatly; zoning hampers rich capitalist ambition slightly. For those with liquid assets, opportunities will always abound.