The most sympathetic case for NIMBYism is still wrong

The catastrophic January 2025 wildfires in the Los Angeles area destroyed countless homes and neighborhoods, forcing residents to make difficult decisions about what will replace them. A year and a half later, rebuilding remains slow, especially in regions like Altadena, Pacific Palisades, and other communities already struggling with a severe housing shortage and one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation.

California's legislature is set to vote on a new law, SB 1090, that would suspend a pro-housing law, SB 1123, in Altadena until 2030. This law allows developers to build up to 10 smaller homes on lots zoned for single-family houses, a provision that has been met with fierce opposition from local residents. The law's opponents argue that it would disrupt the idyllic character of Altadena, a community of storybook bungalows bordering the San Gabriel Mountains.

Neil Tyler, a fire survivor, supports the new legislation, stating that many in the community are deeply concerned that developers could profit from rebuilding at higher densities, which would feel alien to the Altadena they are trying to recover. The debate over SB 1090 highlights the larger issue of local control versus statewide housing policies.

While the intent to protect local communities is understandable, critics argue that such decisions should be made at the state level to ensure adequate housing supply and affordability.

The case for maintaining local control over housing decisions is based on the belief that communities should have the power to shape their own development. However, this approach has led to decades of underbuilding housing in regions like Los Angeles, contributing to the region's chronic housing scarcity and skyrocketing costs. The new law, SB 1090, essentially converts residents' desire to maintain the low-density form of Altadena into a restriction on others' rights and choices, potentially blocking homes desperately needed in the region.