YIMBY chapter lead here… has anyone else found developers to be quite unhelpful advocates for housing reform?

I’m in a small city with mostly local developers. I’ve contacted a few of them over the years, thinking they’d be natural partners on upzonings, code reforms, parking, etc. On every occasion, I’ve found them to be disengaged or outright resistant to engage in broad-based code reform discussion. In fact, they seem to be pretty uncomfortable advocating for anything outside the context of their own projects, like rezonings.

AT THE SAME TIME they’re always quick to complain of mistreatment by planners, plan reviewers, etc. 🙄

Curious what others’ experience has been.

1. Non-farm productivity increases with population and population density.

2. Minimum population to support basic amenities is about 10,000.

3. Ideal walkable unit area would be about 250 acres with minimum 10,000 population, or average 40 persons per acre or more.

4. Non-market housing solutions is limited to 5% or less of the population in US, therefore market based solutions are required.

5. In a market, a desirable area will naturally attract more buyers and price driven up. The only affordable solution is to continuously build more such areas if population can increase.

6. If population is not increasing, it may be more economical to remodel less desirable areas to become more desirable.

He is trying to make a bunch of NIMBYs who live in some of the most exclusive neighborhoods of San Diego happy as he considers a mayoral campaign in 2028. Let's keep this guy on the right track!

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/670d801a7a048536eb7d538e/t/6a6bb83dc85aec76f5c50319/1785444413280/Peters%27+Letter+to+Gloria+-+TT.pdf

https://obrag.org/2026/08/scott-peters-on-turquoise-tower-right-now-the-priority-is-to-stop-this/

Does anyone have an all encompassing map, list, collection, etc of YIMBY resources? I want to expand my personal knowledge of the best writers, researchers, and supporters.

I've already asked Claude and did a handful of google searches but right now YIMBY-oriented content is still (unfortunately) niche. Not a lot of easily discoverable content.

I’m the News & Observer reporter who reported this.

More than 100 students were waiting for parking at a large suburban high school in Apex, NC. A longtime resident across the street has been allowing students to park on her property, but the town says the use violates its zoning ordinance and has sued her.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/wake-county/article316992156.html

I thought the case might interest this community because it sits at the intersection of suburban growth, land-use regulation, transportation and the ability of property owners to respond informally to demand.

Summary
The housing crisis in the United States, characterized by systemic shortages and high costs, is a significant factor contributing to young people’s disillusionment with capitalism. Despite being a largely private sector, the housing market is plagued by anti-market policies, such as zoning restrictions and limitations on manufactured housing, which have led to a supply-demand imbalance. This situation, exacerbated by historical decisions like the Supreme Court’s Euclid v. Ambler Realty ruling, has created a perception of capitalism as a failed system for many young people.

A reflection on the squalid housing conditions created by NIMBYism in my alma mater college town, Isla Vista. IV might be a little unique in its concentration of students—20k+ in barely half a square mile—but the same concept applies to supply-constrained college towns broadly across the country

Been cool to see Berkeley starting to build, hopefully a bellwether for more communities in CA and beyond

There's absolutely zero reason Detroit's relative affordability should be on par w/ Boston AND WORSE than Chicago's. No wonder the Midwest struggles to keep pace with national population growth—you're combining the worst region for weather AND one of the worst job markets in the country—and they still have terrible real affordability? Only to be outdone by the usual suspects—i.e., NYC, SF, LA etc?

At least the 'usual suspects' are world class cities known for how exorbitantly expensive they are, and at least two of them are major white collar job hubs.

It's an absolute disgrace.

But there is a deep reluctance, notably among leftist intellectuals, to admit that we are just correct and a radical program of land-use-law reform would largely solve the single biggest economic problem facing the country.

Because if we can solve the single biggest economic problem facing the country with a liberalizing reform, that calls into question the larger project of overthrowing “neo”-liberalism and replacing it with a new post-liberal economic order.

This line of thinking is how you get takes like this one from Christopher Serkin and Daniel Sharfstein who dismiss arguments “about the local regulations governing what and where people can build” as an illustration of “how narrow our imagination has become” and propose instead that we embark on a mass program of federally financed housing construction. But the regulatory reform conversation isn’t narrow at all — it’s exceptionally radical and also a necessary precondition to everything they’re arguing for.

https://geesemag.com/articles/nithya-raman-has-not-earned-the-endorsement-of-dsa-la

Submissions statement: DSA-LA members argue against endorsing Nithya Raman for Mayor, citing her lack of accountability to the socialist movement and inconsistent voting record on key issues. They believe endorsing Raman risks undermining the organization’s credibility and influence, especially considering the critical challenges facing Los Angeles in 2028. Instead, they advocate for building a stronger political infrastructure to support a DSA-LA mayor in 2030 who aligns with their values and is accountable to the working class.

Here's the situation:

The biggest reason almost no condos get built in California is because how we handle legal liability for construction defects. Developers need to get costly extra insurance, and almost 100% of projects get sued 10 years after they're built. Many insurance companies will actually drop professional liability coverage for architects if they design too many condo buildings.

AB 1903 is designed to fix this. It doesn't remove any consumer protections, but it allows developers to fix problems before they're sued and requires buy-in from condo owners before their HOA pursues a lawsuit. It's common sense legislation that will help make homeownership more accessible by making it possible for more developers to build condos instead of rentals.

Unfortunately, plaintiff attorneys, who make money off of these lawsuits and have a lot of power in Sacramento, are trying to kill this bill, and they're really close to being successful. Even though AB 1903 passed unanimously in the Assembly, it doesn't yet have enough votes to pass in the Senate, and the deadline for Senate approval is on Monday.

Please, please, please, if you live in California, Call your state senator today, and then call them tomorrow. Send them an email too! And tell all your friends to do this too and post about it on social media.

Here's the link to find your state senator:
https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/

Thank you!
- Joseph Cohen May