“YIMBYism” is having a moment—a glow up, if you will. The movement, which is made up of individuals who say “Yes In My Backyard” to more housing, is riding high as housing reform has become a key issue in this year’s presidential election, and YIMBYs secured a crucial preliminary victory in a recent lawsuit surrounding housing reforms in Montana. But as YIMBYs enjoy their success, states like Montana show us there’s still a long fight ahead if YIMBYism wants to cement its moment in the spotlight.
Getting to this point for YIMBYs hasn’t been easy thanks to NIMBYs (short for “Not in My Backyard”). For decades, NIMBYs used restrictive zoning laws to stop the development of denser housing (duplexes, townhomes, garden apartments, etc.) near their neighborhoods. But housing costs began to skyrocket nationwide after too many neighborhoods became off limits to denser housing. City and state leaders have passed YIMBY-friendly reforms to address the affordability crisis, but opponents have repeatedly tried to derail that progress by challenging those reforms in states like Montana.
Montana’s reforms, which passed last year, gave homeowners in all cities and towns the right to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and, in larger cities, the right to build duplexes in neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes. A local NIMBY group challenged the laws, arguing the reforms violated their equal protection and substantive due process rights. And the trial court agreed, blocking the state from implementing the reforms while the lawsuit moved along. However, recently the Montana Supreme Court sided with YIMBYs and state legislators, allowing the laws to go into effect while the NIMBY lawsuit winds its way through the courts.
The ruling comes at a time when Montana, like most states, finds itself in a housing affordability crisis (the National Association of Realtors rated Montana as the least affordable state for home buyers). Because of that, the issue of housing affordability is a key issue to Montanans and other voters in this year’s presidential election. In fact, both presidential candidates have introduced their own plans to address the problem.
After the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for exclusionary zoning nearly 100 years ago, local governments have deployed the tool to make it all but impossible to build housing that is affordable for ordinary, hardworking Americans. But YIMBYism has finally broken through, as elected leaders at all levels of government rush to fix the nation’s housing affordability crisis. NIMBYism’s hold on policymakers seemed ironclad, but even iron can break under enough pressure. Now, YIMBYs are basking in the spotlight after their recent success and attention.
But as Montana showed us, breaking through was only the first battle. A long war remains to enact and defend reforms from the onslaught of NIMBY challenges in Montana and elsewhere. While YIMBYs might’ve won their most recent skirmish in Montana, that lawsuit and many more are still being litigated in courts across the country. So, while YIMBYism’s moment should be celebrated, there’s still a long way to go.
Tell Us About Your Case
The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public interest law firm. Our mission is to end widespread abuses of government power and secure the constitutional rights that allow all Americans to pursue their dreams. IJ has represented individuals who faced retaliatory code enforcement for public comments they made, were arrested for posting jokes about their local police departments on social media, or had baseless lawsuits filed against them because of their criticisms of government officials. If you feel the government has abused your constitutional rights, tell us about your case. Visit https://ij.org/report-abuse/.
About the Institute for Justice
Through strategic litigation, training, communication, activism, legislative outreach, and research, the Institute for Justice advances a rule of law under which individuals can control their destinies as free and responsible members of society. IJ litigates to secure economic liberty, educational choice, private property rights, freedom of speech, and other vital individual liberties, and to restore constitutional limits on the power of government.