First lets lay these ridiculous acronyms out.
Yes In My BackYard – Not In My BackYard.
But what does that mean? A playground, grass, deer, an apartment? Yes, that. The last one. That originally is what advocates for Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, DADUs, would say. “Yes, (a DADU) in my backyard”. Anyone who didn’t want a DADU was a NIMBY, a derogatory term meant to portray a person who didn’t care about their community, didn’t care about equality and only cared about their single family zoning.
ADUs were the first housing type to break through the decades long barrier of Single Family zoned areas and allow for a new type of housing in what was seen as segregation in rich neighborhoods. ADUs were billed as, ‘not a silver bullet’ but a step in the right direction for affordable housing and increased equality in neighborhoods that were highly sought after to live in. YIMBYs sucked the life out of any other discussion or option for a real affordable solution for those in need.
Not only were YIMBYs wanting to build DADUs in their backyards, but they wanted Yes In Your BackYard too. The City of Bellingham, and much of the nation, was (and is) facing a housing affordability crisis. It was said that ‘every new door counts’ in fighting this crisis, and so utilizing land in backyards to create density was an easy start to a solution.
The heart strings got tugged, and YIMBYs found support in government. Affordable housing would ‘be created’, and inequality in housing would be solved. Why wouldn’t anyone but the most evil agree to that? It was made into a binary decision. Yes, or no.
But, the question was, “would density like DADUs actually create affordable housing and equality in our single family zoned neighborhoods?” YIMBYs said yes.
NIMBYs said “How could it? Its too expensive, and market rate”. “Shouldn’t we focus on proven steps that will create real affordable housing and equality?” They were silenced by money, snake oil ‘experts’ and misdirected City leadership.
As when we defined the _IMBY acronyms above, let’s define “affordable housing”.
- Affordable housing in this context is discussing the housing crisis.
- The housing crisis is a crisis due to the fact that some cannot find affordable housing, at all, in their city of choice.
- Affordability is defined as spending 30% or less of your income on rent or a mortgage.
- To solve this crisis, housing must be created that low income residents can afford; and is usually subsidized, in part, by the City, State or Federal governments.
The conundrum is that housing affordability, a broader term, sounds very similar. Housing affordability is when a person cannot afford what they would hope for and must choose a smaller home or one not in their neighborhood of choice because it is unaffordable for their income bracket. This is not a crisis.
Subtle but important.
One, is ‘at all’, and one is not as they ‘would hope’. One risks homelessness, one is disappointing. DADUs solved for disappointment. Advocates for DADUs did not see it that way nor did they market it as such. They called the zoning change an important step to a solution of the crisis. Once again, the crisis was for those couldn’t find housing ‘at all’.
DADUs are 1) market rate, 2) new standalone structures, 3) being built one at a time, 4) usually by home owners who are not experienced in housing development. These 4 points make it impossible to build DADUs at a price that a person in crisis would be able to afford. YIMBYs marched on with well funded organizations such as Sightline Institute and the Whatcom Housing Alliance, morphing the issue into an us against them, and a ‘only this’ solution.
Fast forward to 2025. How are those affordable equitable DADUs doing? They don’t exist. Even if construction costs had stayed normal, the 4 points listed above make it so that only the rich can build them, and the rich need high rents to pay for them.
Instead of coming together as a community to create affordable housing, 5 years was spent fighting for/against housing for the rich. YIMBYs created an intentional vacuum, and it hurt our community.
The state saw the issue for what it was, and said let’s build more than 1 at a time [point 2 and 3], and build them by professionals [point 4]. Thus HB1110 was born, to allow 4 plexes in all single family zoned areas, sadly leaving 1) market rate in place.
Bellingham is now 10 years into the housing crisis, and 3 years since the City Council made it official. What actions are being taken to actually create affordable housing for our Workforce? Literally none, and YIMBYs continue to focus solely on supply, silencing all conversation, making it impossible to create affordable housing for those in need. This is how YIMBYs became NIMBYs, by saying no to any housing other than market rate.
Those folks who cared about affordable housing, and saw through the falsehoods of DADUs? They still fight for real affordable housing. They will gladly accept affordable housing in their neighborhood if it actually is affordable for those in need. They fight back against the lies that they are racist, and fight for a City government that does what it says it’s doing; creating affordable housing instead of only creating housing that’s affordable for the rich.
Who are the prominent ‘NIMBY’s’ who through their rhetoric and dedication to profits of developers, stop any opportunity to help our Bellingham residents afford to live in Bellingham?
Kim Lund (Mayor), Scott Pelton (Whatcom Housing Alliance), Rose Lathrop (Planning Commissioner), Andrew Reding (City Council Candidate), Jace Cotton (City Council), Skip Williams (City Council), and Michael Anderson (Sightline Institute).
We are not calling on any reduction in the City’s focus on supply. Housing supply is needed for a multitude of reasons. Housing affordability, though, for those who cannot afford to live here, those who make Bellingham…Bellingham because of the lives they lead and the work they do, must be an important solution to be solved in parallel. For anyone who cares, its an AND, not a no.
From,
A YIMBY
Affordability, Yes In My BackYard
