From SOHO Newsletter / Nov.-Dec. 2025
The rallying cry “Yes in My Backyard” sounds positive on the surface. Who wouldn’t want to be part of a movement that claims to champion housing, inclusion, and opportunity? But behind the slogan lies a harder truth. In practice, many in the YIMBY movement, which is primarily run by corporate and political players, are speaking in code, really saying: “Yes in Your Backyard.” This, in fact, is the unspoken rallying cry of developer- and investor-funded interests that push density, demolitions, and deregulation into other people’s neighborhoods while protecting their own assets, investments, and privilege.
The modern YIMBY movement may or may not have begun with good intentions, but in cities like San Diego it has been co-opted by the for-profit housing industry and developer/investor-funded nonprofits. These groups have learned that “YIMBY” makes an excellent disguise, one that cloaks profit-driven lobbying in the language of social good.
Under this banner, policies are being hyped that remove community voices, weaken environmental and historic protections, and fast-track demolition over rehabilitation. The result? The loss of our most walkable, sustainable, and affordable neighborhoods, the very communities that embody the kind of living urbanists support.
It’s no coincidence that historic districts and older neighborhoods are among the first to be targeted. These are places where smaller, human-scaled buildings, mature trees, and neighborhood-serving businesses create the fabric of real community. Yet they are being rewritten as “obstacles” to progress, rather than the models for it.
True “Yes In My Back Yard” activism would look very different. It would mean embracing adaptive reuse, restoring historic housing stock, and encouraging sensitive infill that complements neighborhood character. It would mean supporting preservation as an essential tool for naturally occurring affordable houseing (NOAH), sustainability and affordability, not a barrier to it.
SOHO, and many volunteer-driven community organizations like ours, say “yes”—to community, to balance, to heritage, and to the shared responsibility of planning for the public good.
How do historic districts preserve or create affordability wouldn’t they do the opposite? From what I have observed most historic districts tend to be in areas where housing costs are very high. I imagine if a historic designation was applied to NOAH it might actually increase its property value so it becomes less affordable. Not to mention regulatory constraints that raise renovation costs for any home under historical designation.
That being said many historic homes and districts are beautiful. I love walking down Fort Stockton. They definitely add value for the residents who live in or near them, or who like visiting them.
My favorite argument to stop rich YIMBY developers from trying to densify our coastal neighborhoods and break the 30 foot coastal height limit is to say, you first. If you are truly YIMBY, start with your own backyards instead of our coastal neighborhoods.
Start with your own spacious, gated luxury neighborhoods situated around golf courses and Country Clubs, east of Interstate I-5. Such as Fairbanks Ranch, Pacific Highlands Ranch, and Rancho Santa Fe where many rich developers live.
These sparse low-density residential neighborhood are protected from creating dense Affordable Housing through out-of-date Zoning designations for former farmlands that use to grow agricultural crops, horse farms, or were dairies with livestock.
See areas in Green that are Agricultural Residential (AR) Zones located near large areas of natural protected Open Space.
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/development-services/zoning/pdf/maps/grid39.pdf
Zone AR-1-1 require minimum 10-Acre Lots (435,600 square feet) for each mansion, and AR-1-2 requires minimum 1-Acre Lots (43,560 square feet) for each mansion. Most areas where rich YIMBY developers live are former farmlands that no longer grow crops or have animals and should be rezoned to increase residential density.
Areas Zoned AR-1-1 and AR-1-2 that are still farms, and grow agricultural crops and have animals should keep their sparse AR zoning.’
However, if they are now residential communities of gated luxury mansions, they should be upzoned to Zone RS for Residential Single-Family homes. Which have minimum 5,000 to 40,000 square foot lots. Or Zone RM for Residential Multi-Family homes. Which have minimum 200 to 3,000 square foot lots.
With the Affordable Housing density bonus program instead of only one mansion per acre, we can add infill high-rises to their backyards within their gated communities. That way their kids, staff, maids, and landscapers can live near their work which would reduce traffic.
The City of San Diego can make so much more money in property taxes by upzoning YIMBY developer neighborhoods first. This would be justice and create equity for all.
See Municipal Code Chapter 13 for Zoning.
https://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/officialdocs/municipal-code/chapter-13
Agricultural Residential (AR) Zoning.
https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter13/Ch13Art01Division03.pdf
Residential Zoning (RS and RM)
https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter13/Ch13Art01Division04.pdf
The photo says it all. Makes me sick to my stomach.
Just to add, many developers are not in Rancho Santa Fe. They have never been to San Diego. Try Chicago, with CedarSt, LLC previously designating San Diego on their website as a target city. They have already built The Nash, Bancroft, Hillcrest, Flats at Adams, and The Lawson in San Diego. Golden Hill is now protesting their next project on A Street. Google CedarSt LLC Chicago if you would like to see them.
But they have so-called local representatives. From the CedarSt website, corporate in Chicago, however, can’t spell “Solano”:
West Coast Office
415 S. Cedros Ave, Suite 200,
Solona Beach CA, 92075
Sadly, Cedar Street, LLC’s Managing Director, Development, Kit Barmeyer, is a hometown boy. He played baseball at Presidio Little League with my son. :-(
He’s been very busy, for a while: https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/inyourneighborhood/nearly-a-hundred-years-of-north-park-history-gone-in-an-hour/3355164/
This picture is misleading because it implies this a Single-Family Neighborhood, but this is on the corner of Upas and Sixth.
If you go on google, it’s a multi-family residential neighborhood with many high-rise towers that have already been there for a long time. The zoning area is RM-4-10 with a FAR of 3.6. That street has literally been zoned for density for a very long time – if anything these single-family homes are out of place and are sucking up the accessibility to Balboa Park right across the street.
Critique the developers and all that… Im not arguing about upzoning their precious cul-de-sacs and private neighborhoods, but I’m going to call a spade a spade – this area was zoned for density.
Hey whazyourname – I found it — your first comment. Next time you come back, use your real name — (be proud of it, don’t hide)
Hmm, yeah, I’ll pass on doxxing myself so you can use your lawyer sleuthing to dig around for any dirt to discredit a different opinion. Way to deflect and complain about my complaining when this whole website is built on just that.
Lets get back to topic at hand which is that this article is using an image that isn’t telling the whole truth. Yes, let’s call out greedy developers, yes, density can be a big issue when the neighborhood character is under the thumb of corporate giants, but in this specific case, the neighborhoods character IS density – there’s at least 8 – 15 high rises on this street alone already with many 3+ multi-family buildings in between. The image is intentionally cropped and it’s funny that the article doesn’t mention once where this project is located – assumingly to just provoke emotional reactions from Nimby’s.
And again, just as reminder this neighborhood is zoned for density, and is ideal for that due to its proximity to the park which will provide greater access to a larger amount of people than a single-family home ever would. Quite literally this is perfect textbook example of an ideal location for walkability and great urban living. This area is where density makes sense and aligns with responsible growth.
Of course, we need to scrutinize what these units will rent for, which I’m sure will be out of reach for a lot of San Diegans, but that is another conversation.
“Doxxing oneself” — what a concept. Your last sentence says it all.
Great job staying on topic, Frank. Don’t let your emotions get in the way of valid critiques and discussions on the future of the city.
Dude (if you are even a dude) – you’re having a conversation with yourself. I’m not taking you on. And apparently no one else has either. Look to the source of the article / photo. And maybe be somewhat more transparent if you really want a serious discussion. Otherwise, you’re coming off as a troll.
Hey Frank,
I’m a first-time poster and frequent reader. I posted a comment on this article 2 hours ago and it hasn’t appeared yet.
I highlighted how this is on the corner of Upas and Sixth, in an RM 4-10 zone which is designated for density and has been for quite some time. I also looked into the Historic district map of San Diego and this isn’t a historic district which this article suggests. The claim is also that this building removes accessibility to public resources which is an outright lie – more housing here would directly create accessibility to Balboa park right across the street which these single-family homes prevent others from.
There’s other things I would critique about this article.
I am not above critiquing developers and greed, but it really makes me question the integrity of this website when viewpoints are being pushed without all the facts present. But hey, its your website! I’ll continue to read regardless, but it’s apparent when anyone(even people on your side) have some points to address that doesn’t align with your prerogative, it gets filtered out into the ether. Best of luck with your propaganda machine.
Me thinks you protesth too much. This is the very first comment we have received from you #2264583 whoever you are. And you’re already complaining.
For context, the google street view is a Feb 2023 time frame. The houses are 3rd and 4th away from Upas & 6th without the thing being built behind it.. The only high rises nearby, are at the corner, and there are 2. You’d have to travel to get to 8-15 high rises in this pic.