YIMBYism is supposed to be non-ideological and non-partisan, but make no mistake: A conservative backlash is building against it. iStock illustration

If some mass-transit geeks and climate change activists have their way, most if not all new housing in the future will be restricted to large apartment and condominium projects near train and subway stations.

And they have become an enthusiastic segment of that loose coalition of people, from builders, economists and labor leaders to 20- and 30-somethings fed up with crazy rents and prices, that make up the budding YIMBY movement.

We certainly need more apartments and could use a lot more condos as well.

But if huge housing complexes next to transit hubs are allowed to become the de facto symbol of YIMBYism, the cause is all but doomed in our politically polarized country.

The beauty of the YIMBY idea is its simplicity and its pragmatic, non-ideological approach to solving the country’s increasingly dire housing crisis, which can be summed up in three words: build, build, build.

That means not just affordable units, but all types of housing, including luxury units, in all kinds of locations to meet the needs of a market starved now for years of adequate supply.

Just about every new condo or home, no matter how grand or expensive, is affordable to someone out there, and, with the exception of those irksome speculative investors, will take another buyer out of the market.

Another Far-Left Scheme?

The problem is, the YIMBY cause is increasingly becoming associated with large, multifamily, transit-oriented housing schemes.

Sure, there are the stray comments, but much of the sentiment from YIMBY supporters is unspoken, with Massachusetts choosing the MBTA Communities law.as its main – and pretty much only – solution to one of the worst housing crises in the country

Passed in the waning days of the Baker administration, Gov. Maura Healey & Co. have forged ahead with unmistakable zeal in their efforts to enforce local compliance with the measure.

The 2021 law requires cities and towns across the Boston area to zone for apartment and condo buildings near T subway and commuter rail stations, and it has sparked a populist backlash, particularly on the right, with Republicans and Republican-leaning voters particularly skeptical, according to polls.

There are other warning signs as well, with The Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal running an op-ed piece last month conflated YIMBYism with large, transit orientated multi-family developments.

In “If You Like Your Town, Can You Keep It?,” Robert Showah offers a roadmap for how opponents might paint YIMBYim, at heart a market-driven solution to one of our nation’s key economic problems, as yet another flaky, far-left, progressive scheme.

In his WSJ piece, Showah, who writes The Patchwork newsletter, conjures up fears of a federal takeover of small towns across the country, an unlikely development but a potent line of attack for conservatives.

“This crowd’s most zealous advocates tend to be upwardly mobile, white-collar urbanites who romanticize dependence on public transit and the high-density spaces depicted in fictional utopias,” Showah writes. “They’re driven by the desire for austere efficiency: the goal of fitting more people into tighter spaces and demolishing any barriers that stand in their way.”

Push for More Small Homes

So, what’s the solution here? It’s certainly not to stop building large apartment buildings near T stations, with rents have spiraled out of control right alongside home prices.

But YIMBY groups and activists need to put some passion into pushing for the construction of a broader range of housing and, above all, not be seen as decreeing a one-size-fits-all solution to all our housing woes from on high.

Scott Van Voorhis

There are a number of factors that killed the more modest capes and ranches of the post-World War II era, but right up there was the decision by many suburbs to impose lot-size requirements of 1 acre or more.

That has all but ensured that any new home built in Boston’s suburbs is going to be priced, at the very least, at $1 million, and likely a lot more.

Some YIMBY groups around the country have already been doing that, calling for a dramatic reduction in required lot sizes for single-family homes.

It’s a good start, but they are going to need to do a lot more of that.

There is clearly a growing effort afoot to portray the YIMBY movement as a progressive Trojan Horse designed to destroy small-town and suburban America.

Silly? Sure it is. But politically perilous? You bet, and then some.

Scott Van Voorhis is Banker & Tradesman’s columnist and publisher of the Contrarian Boston newsletter; opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.