Great question. It only feels one-sided if you're getting most of your information from HN and the tech community. CA YIMBY wants you to believe that their opposition consists entirely of old, white NIMBYs opposed to development. That is a misrepresentation. In fact it is CA YIMBY that is mostly white.
The main opposition to YIMBY here is not anti-development. It just prioritizes "affordable" low-income housing development and protection of existing low income housing. Whereas YIMBY, while claiming to know what's best for low income folks, prioritizes building market-rate housing to accommodate the explosive growth of the tech industry. They disagree on the effects of building market-rate housing in lower income neighborhoods.
The best thing to read? That LA Times article is a good start. Others have noted the DSA's stance on this.[1] Here's an excerpt, where they lay out exactly what they'd like to see in a pro-development bill:
---------------
SB 827 can be improved further with the following additions:
Add measures to ensure that new development occurs in affluent single-family neighborhoods and not exclusively in low-income communities with a history of racialized divestment.
Mandate that a high percentage of the new transit-oriented development be designated affordable at extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income levels.
Mandate that new units built from SB 827 accept housing vouchers.
Include value capture provisions such that value created by public transit development is returned to the public in taxes.
Impose a temporary rent freeze on buildings surrounding new development enabled by SB 827.
Pass legislation to raise funds from short term rentals and to mitigate the impact of short-term rental services, like AirBnB, taking units off the market.
Develop programs to ensure ownership opportunities of new housing in communities of color in order to combat the continued existence of redlining.
Target funding from the upcoming $3B November housing bond to be allocated for land acquisition and the construction of 100% subsidized, deeply affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color targeted by upzoning. Allow not-for-profit and public development proposals a first right of acquisition on upzoned parcels.
Amend the companion bill, SB 828, to study and analyze the racialized impacts of high-end development. Factor race and class impacts into regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) goals.
The main opposition to YIMBY here is not anti-development. It just prioritizes "affordable" low-income housing development and protection of existing low income housing. Whereas YIMBY, while claiming to know what's best for low income folks, prioritizes building market-rate housing to accommodate the explosive growth of the tech industry. They disagree on the effects of building market-rate housing in lower income neighborhoods.
The best thing to read? That LA Times article is a good start. Others have noted the DSA's stance on this.[1] Here's an excerpt, where they lay out exactly what they'd like to see in a pro-development bill:
---------------
SB 827 can be improved further with the following additions:
Add measures to ensure that new development occurs in affluent single-family neighborhoods and not exclusively in low-income communities with a history of racialized divestment.
Mandate that a high percentage of the new transit-oriented development be designated affordable at extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income levels.
Mandate that new units built from SB 827 accept housing vouchers.
Include value capture provisions such that value created by public transit development is returned to the public in taxes.
Impose a temporary rent freeze on buildings surrounding new development enabled by SB 827.
Pass legislation to raise funds from short term rentals and to mitigate the impact of short-term rental services, like AirBnB, taking units off the market.
Develop programs to ensure ownership opportunities of new housing in communities of color in order to combat the continued existence of redlining.
Target funding from the upcoming $3B November housing bond to be allocated for land acquisition and the construction of 100% subsidized, deeply affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods and communities of color targeted by upzoning. Allow not-for-profit and public development proposals a first right of acquisition on upzoned parcels.
Amend the companion bill, SB 828, to study and analyze the racialized impacts of high-end development. Factor race and class impacts into regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) goals.
[1] http://www.dsa-la.org/statement_in_opposition_to_sb_827