What do you think?
Rate this book
Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America's Housing Crisis
Since the collapse of the housing market in 2008, demand for housing has consistently outpaced supply in many US communities. The failure to construct sufficient housing - especially affordable housing - in desirable communities and neighborhoods comes with significant social, economic, and environmental costs. This book examines how local participatory land use institutions amplify the power of entrenched interests and privileged homeowners. The book draws on sweeping data to examine the dominance of land use politics by 'neighborhood defenders' - individuals who oppose new housing projects far more strongly than their broader communities and who are likely to be privileged on a variety of dimensions. Neighborhood defenders participate disproportionately and take advantage of land use regulations to restrict the construction of multifamily housing. The result is diminished housing stock and higher housing costs, with participatory institutions perversely reproducing inequality.
218 pages, Paperback
Published November 1, 2019
13 people are currently reading
687 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
February 20, 2021
I found out about this book after listening to a podcast discussion with the author. The book also has a website with a one-page summary of its conclusions.
Land use deregulation is probably America's most underrated and underappreciated policy reform. America's population increased by 120 million since 1970, and an additional 120 million will need housing over the next 30 years. The supply of housing has not met this demand, causing a sharp increase in prices, as basic economics would predict. Vociferous opposition by "neighborhood defenders" to constructing the multi-unit properties that would accommodate increased population causes a significant increase in poverty, environmental pollution, homelessness, and delayed family formation. These negatives are most visible in California, which builds fewer new homes than the city of Paris in a given year, but even in a pro-developer city like Chicago, I pay thousands in extra rent each year due to NIMBY restrictions on supply. Broad majorities of mayors and Americans support new construction in the abstract, and yet nothing close to what is required gets built.
Neighborhood Defenders is a vital contribution to the discussion of how to reform the political process that bottlenecks the housing supply. A community's zoning board functions rather similarly to the US Senate, but at the local level: An institution intended to promote deliberative democracy and the input of every constituency is instead dominated by an unrepresentative group of older and whiter property-owners who use procedural clout to filibuster bipartisan reforms. Even when neighborhood defenders cannot kill a new building, their passionate filibustering of a project usually results in a redesign with fewer units constructed. Affordable housing units are typically the first thing to be scrapped in exchange for more high-income units that compensate the developer for the costs incurred fighting the filibuster.
An institutional bias in favor of homeowners and incumbent residents unfortunately preserves a centuries-long legacy of racial and socioeconomic segregation. America is unique in its strict residence-based segregation of access to the quality schools, policing, and other public goods that foster upward mobility. While most neighborhood defenders are not motivated by racial animus, the housing policy status quo is a textbook example of systemic racism, especially when we factor in how any new construction that does get approved usually involves the gentrification and displacement of nonwhite city neighborhoods.
I drew the above conclusions from my own notes and reflections on the meticulous evidence presented. The authors are far more measured and sympathetic towards NIMBYs, owing to their leftish concerns about gentrification, concerns which I believe to be overstated. They are aware of the abuses that resulted in the 40s, 50s, and 60s when bureaucrats and private developers could run roughshod over neighborhoods with impunity (see The Power Broker and American Pharaoh for famous examples). Having practical experience working on and with zoning boards, they acknowledge that community input prevents developer abuses and often improves the buildings that are ultimately built. The key takeaway from this book is not that community input is harmful or racist, but to have a nuanced understanding of how housing shortages need to be resolved through regional and national reforms that empower the silent majority who support new construction. - 2/17/21
Land use deregulation is probably America's most underrated and underappreciated policy reform. America's population increased by 120 million since 1970, and an additional 120 million will need housing over the next 30 years. The supply of housing has not met this demand, causing a sharp increase in prices, as basic economics would predict. Vociferous opposition by "neighborhood defenders" to constructing the multi-unit properties that would accommodate increased population causes a significant increase in poverty, environmental pollution, homelessness, and delayed family formation. These negatives are most visible in California, which builds fewer new homes than the city of Paris in a given year, but even in a pro-developer city like Chicago, I pay thousands in extra rent each year due to NIMBY restrictions on supply. Broad majorities of mayors and Americans support new construction in the abstract, and yet nothing close to what is required gets built.
Neighborhood Defenders is a vital contribution to the discussion of how to reform the political process that bottlenecks the housing supply. A community's zoning board functions rather similarly to the US Senate, but at the local level: An institution intended to promote deliberative democracy and the input of every constituency is instead dominated by an unrepresentative group of older and whiter property-owners who use procedural clout to filibuster bipartisan reforms. Even when neighborhood defenders cannot kill a new building, their passionate filibustering of a project usually results in a redesign with fewer units constructed. Affordable housing units are typically the first thing to be scrapped in exchange for more high-income units that compensate the developer for the costs incurred fighting the filibuster.
An institutional bias in favor of homeowners and incumbent residents unfortunately preserves a centuries-long legacy of racial and socioeconomic segregation. America is unique in its strict residence-based segregation of access to the quality schools, policing, and other public goods that foster upward mobility. While most neighborhood defenders are not motivated by racial animus, the housing policy status quo is a textbook example of systemic racism, especially when we factor in how any new construction that does get approved usually involves the gentrification and displacement of nonwhite city neighborhoods.
I drew the above conclusions from my own notes and reflections on the meticulous evidence presented. The authors are far more measured and sympathetic towards NIMBYs, owing to their leftish concerns about gentrification, concerns which I believe to be overstated. They are aware of the abuses that resulted in the 40s, 50s, and 60s when bureaucrats and private developers could run roughshod over neighborhoods with impunity (see The Power Broker and American Pharaoh for famous examples). Having practical experience working on and with zoning boards, they acknowledge that community input prevents developer abuses and often improves the buildings that are ultimately built. The key takeaway from this book is not that community input is harmful or racist, but to have a nuanced understanding of how housing shortages need to be resolved through regional and national reforms that empower the silent majority who support new construction. - 2/17/21
May 1, 2020
Although some cities clearly need more housing, many people would prefer that housing to be in someone else's neighborhood- and the people most virulently opposed to new housing often have the biggest voice in land use decisions. These "neighborhood defenders" (as the authors call them) or NIMBYs (as pro-housing activists call them, an acronym for "Not In My Back Yard") are able to exclude housing because of the public meeting process surrounding zoning. Because zoning laws are so complicated, new building often requires a zoning change, which under current law nearly always requires a public hearing. Neighborhood defenders the neighborhood flock to these hearings and fight the project.
This book didn't tell me much that it was surprising, but adds data supporting what I already suspected to be the case. Based on a survey of dozens of towns in metropolitan Boston, the authors point out that:
1. The sheer volume of regulations is correlated with low levels of housing production, especially low levels of multifamily housing production. Suburbs with many different types of regulation have fewer new apartments or condos, and the buildings that are developed in these suburbs have fewer units. This correlation is not limited to regulations directly limited to housing supply (such as density limits); even innocuous regulations can be used to delay housing.
2. Conventional economic wisdom suggests that neighborhood defenders seek to protect their property values by limiting new housing. On the other hand, some new urbanists would like to believe that prettier projects would be more popular. However, neighborhood defenders are more likely to raise concerns about traffic and environmental concerns than aesthetic or economic concerns. Less than 10 percent of commenters in the authors' sample directly mentioned home values.
3. The traditional justification for public meetings about zoning is that commenters represent the public. The authors disprove this idea: commenters at zoning meetings are much more likely to be homeowners as opposed to renters, and are whiter, older and more male. (However, it is unclear to what extent this affects commenters' positions; nonwhites are more likely to support new housing, but because Massachusetts is so white, the authors have a limited sample size of comments to draw from). While the overwhelming majority of comments are against new housing projects, results from a 2010 Massachusetts referendum on affordable housing show that most people want more housing, not less.
This book didn't tell me much that it was surprising, but adds data supporting what I already suspected to be the case. Based on a survey of dozens of towns in metropolitan Boston, the authors point out that:
1. The sheer volume of regulations is correlated with low levels of housing production, especially low levels of multifamily housing production. Suburbs with many different types of regulation have fewer new apartments or condos, and the buildings that are developed in these suburbs have fewer units. This correlation is not limited to regulations directly limited to housing supply (such as density limits); even innocuous regulations can be used to delay housing.
2. Conventional economic wisdom suggests that neighborhood defenders seek to protect their property values by limiting new housing. On the other hand, some new urbanists would like to believe that prettier projects would be more popular. However, neighborhood defenders are more likely to raise concerns about traffic and environmental concerns than aesthetic or economic concerns. Less than 10 percent of commenters in the authors' sample directly mentioned home values.
3. The traditional justification for public meetings about zoning is that commenters represent the public. The authors disprove this idea: commenters at zoning meetings are much more likely to be homeowners as opposed to renters, and are whiter, older and more male. (However, it is unclear to what extent this affects commenters' positions; nonwhites are more likely to support new housing, but because Massachusetts is so white, the authors have a limited sample size of comments to draw from). While the overwhelming majority of comments are against new housing projects, results from a 2010 Massachusetts referendum on affordable housing show that most people want more housing, not less.
December 31, 2025
This book provides a very useful but unfortunately underdiscussed framework for understanding the causes of housing crises across America. "Neighborhood defenders", who tend to be wealthy, white, and homeowners, dominate public forums and community meetings and block and delay the construction of virtually everything. I loved how the authors went over the effects of this on gentrification as well. Because wealthy neighborhoods are able to utilize their political and economic power to block development in their localities, neighborhoods with lower incomes and more POC deal with the brunt of development, causing residents to be pushed out when upper-income people move into these new developments. Community input in the American development process only seems to bring out the voices of a small yet powerful group that limits construction, and contributes to high housing costs and gentrification.
March 27, 2021
Solid. The authors argue that the housing shortage in the U.S. is a result of people using local land use regulations to stop or delay the development of new housing. They fill a gap in the literature in that the literature has focused on how land use regulations deter developers or how residents oppose new developments but not the interaction between the two (how residents use said land use regulations to stop developments). Their argument is unique and made well, using a range of evidence. If you like the technical side of social science research, there are plenty of regressions and even a natural experiment. If you prefer a more journalistic take, there are plenty of anecdotes that demonstrate their points on a more granular, personal level. This variety of types of evidence make their argument compelling, accessible, and enjoyable to read.
July 3, 2023
if you ever in find yourself in the leafy affluent suburbs of Massachusetts and stumble across a yard that’s rocking a “in this house we believe” sign (speaking to a general sympathy for the marginalized) alongside another sign in that very same yard that’s super NIMBY, like pleading for you to vote against affordable housing or an up-zoning measure (something that could materially help those marginalized folks), you may ask yourself “what in the fuck.” Or if you’re a sicko white supremacist militia dude from the one of those less affluent parts of Mass, or rural NH, you might be like “wait, why didn’t we think of that?”
Incredible book, with next level of research. honestly the only ding is by the time it wraps, we’re just getting started. There’s not many books like this, but this is the kind of book that needs to be three times longer
Incredible book, with next level of research. honestly the only ding is by the time it wraps, we’re just getting started. There’s not many books like this, but this is the kind of book that needs to be three times longer
September 3, 2025
I was late to this but glad to have finally read it. A result of being late is that I already had been exposed to a lot of the key arguments and findings, so I didn’t get a ton from
this per se. Still good to absorb it all. I wish there were more of an attempt to synthesize the different reform strains and at least point toward some ideas for federal policy enhancements.
Hilariously poor fit for an audiobook, trying to imagine plot lines and datasets.
this per se. Still good to absorb it all. I wish there were more of an attempt to synthesize the different reform strains and at least point toward some ideas for federal policy enhancements.
Hilariously poor fit for an audiobook, trying to imagine plot lines and datasets.
September 15, 2024
Probably the most accessible and thorough treatment of modern housing politics I’ve read. The suggestions about pro-housing coalition building were particularly insightful and read as quite prescient given what’s happened with labor involvement in land use reform since the book came out. The discussion of gentrification and emphasis on capital-A Affordability seems a little out of step with the steady stream of research on filtering. It’s not clear to me whether this research was still solidifying when they wrote this or whether they just neglected to interrogate the segmented market stuff, but either way they’re not pretending to be economists so it’s forgivable.
November 1, 2020
I picked up this book on recommendation of a BU political science professor who I know through activism work in my city.
"Neighborhood Defenders is fundamentally about the people who participate in local housing politics and the institutions in which they participate. It centers on the motivated residents who show up at meetings to oppose new housing and zoning changes. Thee individuals use their privileged status as current members of a community to prevent new housing, and thus close its doors to prospective new members."
The authors, instructors at BU, analyze data extracted from what seems likes thousands of public meeting records from zoning meetings in eastern Massachusetts. Through this data, they demonstrate how zoning regulations provide local housing development opponents the leverage they need to delay development. Those delays result in cost increases and an overall reduction in the amount of housing built in communities.
This book also "represents a new way to study political participation" in that it systemically analyzes participation in local-level institutions (e.g., zoning meetings) to exert influence.
I couldn't help but read the authors' arguments as anti-participatory, which troubled me. For example, the authors cite again and again how public comment to zoning variances touch on topics unrelated to the zoning board's concerns or the scope of the project. In my view, public comment on "unrelated" topics is an important check on the work done (often by volunteer) zoning boards. For example: how can a municipality ensure climate-change considerations be baked into zoning? By showing up to meetings and making the comment again and again. Public comment as checks and balance.
One suggestion I found shocking is that, because most opposition to development is highly localized, ward representation may exacerbate anti-development tendencies. At-large representation may provide more leverage around neighborhood resistance to housing projects. Something to think more about....
Outside of limiting public comment, book is short on suggestions to change the systems so to avoid egregious stalling of projects through public comment.
"Neighborhood Defenders is fundamentally about the people who participate in local housing politics and the institutions in which they participate. It centers on the motivated residents who show up at meetings to oppose new housing and zoning changes. Thee individuals use their privileged status as current members of a community to prevent new housing, and thus close its doors to prospective new members."
The authors, instructors at BU, analyze data extracted from what seems likes thousands of public meeting records from zoning meetings in eastern Massachusetts. Through this data, they demonstrate how zoning regulations provide local housing development opponents the leverage they need to delay development. Those delays result in cost increases and an overall reduction in the amount of housing built in communities.
This book also "represents a new way to study political participation" in that it systemically analyzes participation in local-level institutions (e.g., zoning meetings) to exert influence.
I couldn't help but read the authors' arguments as anti-participatory, which troubled me. For example, the authors cite again and again how public comment to zoning variances touch on topics unrelated to the zoning board's concerns or the scope of the project. In my view, public comment on "unrelated" topics is an important check on the work done (often by volunteer) zoning boards. For example: how can a municipality ensure climate-change considerations be baked into zoning? By showing up to meetings and making the comment again and again. Public comment as checks and balance.
One suggestion I found shocking is that, because most opposition to development is highly localized, ward representation may exacerbate anti-development tendencies. At-large representation may provide more leverage around neighborhood resistance to housing projects. Something to think more about....
Outside of limiting public comment, book is short on suggestions to change the systems so to avoid egregious stalling of projects through public comment.
January 12, 2026
I was looking forward to this book since it addresses a timely and critical topic both nationally and in my home town. The authors cite the good advice they received to turn what they had planned to be an article into a book. They should have followed their first instincts, for in the end a considerable portion of the book was given over to repetition, saying what was going to be discussed and reiterating what had already been covered.
Though many of the conclusions offered seemed obvious to me, I do appreciate that they were backed up by evidence meticulously gathered and analyzed, even if most of it was drawn from Massachusetts, which the authors admit to being unique in some ways.
Given the book’s focus on obstacles to development across towns that differ by race and class, I was especially disappointed at the lack of clarity in the discussions of municipalities with higher levels of diversity and low-income residents. The authors conclude that even in those communities it is largely privileged white residents who are the neighborhood defenders, but they never explain whether the proposed development is in white neighborhoods or in whether defenders oppose all development in their towns, even when in poorer neighborhoods. That would seem to be a pretty important factor when drawing a picture of NIMBYism.
Less critical, but annoying, the book is full of typos and missing words. CUP should be embarrassed.
Though many of the conclusions offered seemed obvious to me, I do appreciate that they were backed up by evidence meticulously gathered and analyzed, even if most of it was drawn from Massachusetts, which the authors admit to being unique in some ways.
Given the book’s focus on obstacles to development across towns that differ by race and class, I was especially disappointed at the lack of clarity in the discussions of municipalities with higher levels of diversity and low-income residents. The authors conclude that even in those communities it is largely privileged white residents who are the neighborhood defenders, but they never explain whether the proposed development is in white neighborhoods or in whether defenders oppose all development in their towns, even when in poorer neighborhoods. That would seem to be a pretty important factor when drawing a picture of NIMBYism.
Less critical, but annoying, the book is full of typos and missing words. CUP should be embarrassed.
June 19, 2021
An absolute must-read for housing advocates of any stripes. Support more market-rate, affordable, public, social, permanent supportive, and/or other kinds of housing? none of that matters when an unrepresentative and privileged demographic of people get a veto through the neighborhood processes that push all new development out of affluent areas, driving displacement and gentrification where it does occur. This book examines the motivations of “neighborhood defenders” and the origins of the political fault lines that often weaken unified coalitions against them.
April 9, 2022
Researchers from Boston University present a mix of quantitative data and qualitative case studies focused around Massachusetts on how local zoning boards are a battleground for building more housing. "Neighborhood Defenders" often use a mix of threatened or realized lawsuits and regulations to impose delay and extra cost on developers, particularly around multi-family housing. Would recommend for anyone looking to learn more about the permitting and regulatory challenges that are a significant cause of the housing shortage!
December 30, 2025
Read for school - great study of local permitting and land-use procedures and their effects on the housing supply. This book has clearly been very influential to housing debates, so it was great to go straight to the source for a more objective view of the regulatory dynamics. Particularly appreciated the last chapter's discussion of implications for gentrification and potential solutions to mitigate how captured these processes are by wealthier, whiter homeowners.
October 1, 2020
Shows how a small and unrepresentative subset of incumbent residents (homeowners; usually wealthier and white) are able to block increased housing production. I found the discussion of how tactics of delay drive up costs--even when projects are ultimately approved--to be particularly enlightening. An important book.
December 22, 2022
A well-researched review of how non-representative "neighborhood defenders" weaponize the public process to slow or stop multifamily housing development. The linkage between increased regulation and decreased affordable housing was notable.
Helpful political analysis of Chapter 40B in MA and SB 827 in CA.
Helpful political analysis of Chapter 40B in MA and SB 827 in CA.
March 24, 2023
Great book, although I think that it at times (particularly in the implications part) becomes obsessed with constraining power, instead of thinking more on creating power. So when we remove homeowners from the equation, what forces do then emerge, in bureaucracy and in the council? Unclear to me.
Want to read
January 26, 2021Author joined the Center for Antiracist Research @ Boston University: https://www.instagram.com/p/CKhBsPNF-...
Want to read
February 10, 2023Jenny Schuetz rec from Ezra Klein podcast
March 8, 2024
I normally hate YIMBY books. This one was good because it included nuance, more of this please!!!
April 3, 2025
Wow. This is one of the wonkiest books I’ve ever liked. This was like listening to city council and HRA and Hamline Library public forums and litigation. Needed more on how to disrupt this status quo but does give a few important policy directions—different kind of neighborhood engagement, requiring appointed boards and elected officials not to make immediate decisions based just on public comment and to adopt broad plans like Mpls 2040 as policy direction.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews