On liberalism and NIMBYism

I was delighted to see Tim Farron taking on housing as a personal campaigning priority. In order to do this effectively, though, he will sooner or later need to take on a culture of expedient NIMBYism in his own party.

Local campaigns against new development are often highly effective in garnering media attention and engaging people who might join or support the party. At times, they are also the right thing to do for an area. At other times, however, they can be opportunistic and exaggerated: in a recent example I came across, a local party deliberately misinterpreted a proposal in a non-party, think-tank style report on the housing crisis for a concrete, Conservative plan to pave over a large swathe of the district. Local campaigns which proudly 'see off' developers may leave a legacy of usable sites remaining derelict for years, and seek to spin this as some sort of victory over vested interests, when in fact it is anything but.

This kind of tactical NIMBYism is not only cynical but also profoundly illiberal. The voices of the 'have nots' are drowned out by those of the 'haves', who need neither the homes nor the jobs arising from new development and for whom increased housing supply may mean capital losses. Sometimes developers 'win' on a particular issue and sometimes residents' associations do, but either way the victory benefits the establishment - and that's something which Lib Dems should be seriously concerned about.

As well as relative wealth, the 'haves' may also have the time and inclination to understand and write the rules which govern our planning system. By confining debate to whether a proposed development conforms to the rules - rather than considering its own merits and value - other voices and views are excluded. (This works both ways: we all know of developments that scrape past the letter of the rules but do little to improve an area). A particularly damaging example of this rigid, calcified approach is the fetishisation of the green belt, despite its regressive and environmentally damaging effects, and the deliberate but inaccurate conflation of 'green belt' with 'green space', which maintains public ignorance rather than empowering people to engage in constructive debate.

Our party's strength lies in our values-driven, evidence-based and innovative approach, which leads us to take on these kinds of sacred cows. A great example is our consistent championing of land value taxation and betterment capture to shake up the nation's outdated and inequitable model of land and property rights, which rewards rent-seeking behaviours while keeping many in relative poverty.

If we're serious about solutions to the housing crisis, we need to build on this boldness, and let people know about it. Make it explicit that the garden cities we advocate will need to be on the green belt, and explain why this isn't a terrible thing. Show how, through grown-up planning laws, those likely to lose out from nearby development could negotiate with the 'winners' on a level playing field for compensation and improvements, rather than simply opposing change at all costs. Develop new ways, such as through a system of tradeable development rights, to empower non-landowners to influence local development. And see NIMBYism for what it is: not a weapon of community politics, but a barrier to a free, fair and open society.

* Max Parish is a pseudonym for a policy professional and Lib Dem member who is in a politically restricted post.