By Mike Lewis / The Coast News Group / August 13, 2025
If you’ve spoken up at a city council meeting lately, you may have noticed something strange.
If you raise questions about fire safety, infrastructure or water supply, you’re not met with dialogue, you’re met with a label: “NIMBY.”
Not a neighbor. Not a taxpayer. Not a citizen. Just a “NIMBY.”
This label is more than lazy rhetoric. It’s a calculated attempt to discredit residents who dare to question the wisdom of Sacramento’s high-density housing mandates. And it’s part of a larger strategy to make it politically toxic to care about your neighborhood.
The YIMBY movement, short for “Yes In My Back Yard”, and now also known as WIMBY (Wall Street In My Backyard) likes to claim the moral high ground. They speak of equity and affordability while pushing policies that, in practice, produce thousands of market-rate rental units, often in cities already grappling with overburdened infrastructure.
The promise is affordability. The result is investor-friendly projects that produce mostly rentals owned by Wall Street corporations or billionaire landlords, with the intention of supporting their vision of a renter society.
In comparison to apartments, few real homes for real families are being constructed, and even fewer that are affordable.
Meanwhile, local communities are left holding the bag. Let’s talk about that bag.
When hundreds of units are fast-tracked into a built-out city like Encinitas, someone has to pay for the expanded sewer systems, stormwater drainage, road maintenance, increased fire protection, water reliability upgrades, and school capacity.
But under many of these “by-right” development policies, developers aren’t required to fund those upgrades proportionally, or at all. They walk away with their profits, while residents are left with the consequences.
Prudent inquiry isn’t opposition. It’s common sense. And calling it “NIMBYism” doesn’t make the problems go away.
Worse, these labels shut down nuanced discussion and vilify anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the state’s central government approach to planning. It’s a dangerous precedent: disagree with the orthodoxy, and you’re morally suspect.
But here’s the truth: Opposing poorly planned density is not immoral. Pretending we can pile people into high-cost rentals with no investment in schools, infrastructure or public services — that’s what’s immoral.
It’s time we stop letting name-calling drive public policy. Residents aren’t against housing. They’re against being steamrolled by policies that ignore ground truth realities.
A community’s ability to say, “This project doesn’t fit here, for these reasons,” is not obstruction, it’s stewardship.
And let’s not forget the irony: The very people calling for dense rental development in the name of affordability are often the same ones fighting to block single-family starter homes in other areas, because they don’t align with the ideology of “build up, not out.”
In doing so, they’re not fighting for ownership opportunities or long-term affordability. They’re fighting for density as a virtue in and of itself.
But density isn’t a moral category. It’s a planning tool, and one that must be used thoughtfully, not ideologically.
Communities deserve a seat at the table when it comes to shaping their future. Local input is not the enemy of housing; it’s the key to getting housing right.
We can build more homes and protect the character, safety and integrity of the places people already call home. But we’ll never get there if we continue to demonize those who speak up.
So, the next time someone calls you a NIMBY, ask them this: Who benefits from them shutting you up?
Mike Lewis is an Encinitas resident
Amazing article, thank you for stating what a lot of us have been feeling. I got attacked by a YIMBY group for writing an article about the impact of high density on our mental health. Expressing any concerns about high density is met with accusations of being selfish or lacking empathy for “all those who need housing.” It’s an aggressive, misguided and unhelpful stance. I don’t appreciate being silenced and am glad you spoke up, Mike Lewis.
Dear Sara,
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my recent op-ed, “The High Cost of Being Called a Nimby.” Your support means a great deal.
One point I believe bears repeating is that “NIMBY” was never a self-chosen identity. It was a slur coined by developers and YIMBY activists to caricature residents who care about their neighborhoods. By contrast, “YIMBY” was proudly embraced and organized into lobbying arms and PACs, a sign of who is truly playing identity politics. The public understands this distinction: one side was labeled, the other chose its label.
Equally important, the premise behind the insult is false. Those branded “NIMBYs” are not anti-housing. In reality, they support affordable homes for essential workers, seniors, and families; growth that doesn’t overwhelm local infrastructure; and community character that keeps neighborhoods livable. That is not obstructionism, it is responsible stewardship.
I appreciate your encouragement, and I’m committed to keeping this conversation focused on real solutions, not name-calling.
Warm regards,
Mike Lewis
As I’ve stated before, YIMBY was founded and funded by Big Tech and Big Developers, during the tech booms in the Bay Area, to advocate for bulldozing zoning regulations in order to quickly build housing for high-paid tech sector workers. Hence, YIMBY is a special interest astro-turf group who cares nothing about ‘affordability,’ despite their rhetoric. Those who buy into their garbage talking points don’t understand how supply-and-demand works in popular cities like San Diego, and how adding endless housing supply will never bring down housing costs here. Ever.
Those of us who care deeply about our neighborhoods, and how overbuilding impacts them, will never be silenced by the histrionic NIMBY invective being flung at us. After the dust settles, and our cities are more congested, ugly and unlivable, YIMBY will finally be thrown in the ashcan of history.
Ron, I agree with you — but in the meantime, they’re still around — folks like YIMBY DEMs; a lot of them will be at a downtown San Diego ADU convention in mid-September if you or anyone else is interested. Speakers like Christian Spicer will be on hand.
We should organize a protest at that event, if one isn’t already planned.
Good points. Actually the “NIMPY” callers are actually pro-developers at the cost of all else and MEGA Republicans because name calling is their stock and trade. They don’t have anything else and can’t stand the sunshine on their views so they call the others names. Comes from grade school bullies.
Mostly on target, but 3 things:
1. The “YIMBY” approach gives all the equity to the hedge fund investors, on top of tax breaks. It makes Wealth Inequality worse. There will be no Equity in Housing until Residents Own the Equity in Their Housing.
2. The infrastructure problem is also due to public works not being financially competent enough to charge impact fees that are based on the Replacement Cost of their very long term assets. Failure to do so means existing ratepayers are subsidizing the New Joiners – e.g. wealthy investors. For more: https://www.opportunitynowsv.org/blog/-opinion-the-iceberg-of-bay-area-public-works-deficits?rq=dieguez
3. I called these ‘pro-housing’ people Lemmings, as in LMMMMG’s “Let Me Make My Money Growing”. WIMBY isn’t bad either.
Mike,
You hit the nail right on the head. And thank you for saying it. WIMBY is correct but so is YIYBY (Yes In YOUR Back Yard) because they don’t have back yards. If we really want to understand the problem, we need to look at Sacramento where developers, contractors, and labor unions give millions to the Democratic Party which supports the politicians who pass the laws to help their major donors make the most profits. I call them DODO’s, Developer Owned, Developer Operated.
So many of us have tried to understand YIMBY views, have productive conversations with them, to find compromise. But Mike Lewis explains so succinctly why that’s impossible. YIMBYism isn’t a “housing philosophy” based on truth, facts and proven means — it’s nothing more than a front for developers, investors and politicians. And the YIMBY playbook has been highly successful at making them rich, all the while, ruining cities across California. “Opposing poorly planned density is not immoral. Pretending we can pile people into high-cost rentals with no investment in schools, infrastructure or public services — that’s what’s immoral.” He’s exactly right. The question then becomes, how long are Californians willing to let this immorality and injustice to homeowners play out? Until we can rid the state and cities of unethical legislators? If so, we can only hope voters have the good sense to know that enough is enough, and to elect leaders who possess a moral compass — something that’s clearly been lacking.
Thank you for the article. I have realized that anyone who does not agree with YIMBY doctrines is a NIMBY by default, so I do not feel bad. Next time I am called a NIMBY, I’ll proudly say I belong to the creed “Neighborhood Is My Backyard” – caring about neighborhoods as we care about our backyards.
This article was a good read, thanks for writing. I find myself often very pro-density in San Diego, but want to be a part of collaborative and cross-perspective conversations, not name calling.
You write, “Opposing poorly planned density is not immoral. Pretending we can pile people into high-cost rentals with no investment in schools, infrastructure or public services — that’s what’s immoral.”
Who do you see as presenting moral alternatives? We seem to be in a lose-lose situation, and I find myself voting for density as a “lesser-of-two-evils”.