A Yimby Shout

June 24, 2016

I envision an inclusive Traverse City that is able to proactively plan for future needs and respond to new demands. Our land use policy should support these efforts and address our need for housing -- housing that is close to jobs and services and affordable across the continuum"¦in particular, the demand for more accessible, compact housing often referred to as the missing middle needs our support. Traverse City has plenty of detached single-family units; we could benefit from more multi-family units, like apartments, multiplex e s , townhouses, and live-work low-rises. We could also use more mid-rises downtown, just as the city’s master plan and zoning code call for. Twenty years ago, city leaders wisely planned and prepared us for this need.

In a lot of ways, Traverse City isn't much different than other places around the country. Housing availability and choice is a critical concern everywhere, but particularly in wealthier locales like Traverse City. Well-todo small towns struggle with an exclusionary tendency where established homeowners in the community fight change and new development -- either by limiting it via zoning or through mobilized public protest against the nasty change of the day. When this happens, the outcry is always the same: "Traffic! Crime! Property values! Character!"

One critical aspect of our local problem is the disenfranchisement of the people not yet here --many currently travel long distances to fill our needed jobs. That is money and time not spent on family, health, education, or the future. More compact, inclusive communities show again and again that they help generate wealth in the community. Unfortunately, too often the public discourse is structurally and culturally resistant to these potential residents for whom new housing supply would provide transportation cost savings and better quality of life.

The City of Traverse City consistently hears complaints regarding proposals or policy changes aimed at increasing housing supply. Recently a simple request to split a lot from three units into four was successfully shut down, and many residents erupted in anger when a policy for accessory dwelling units was passed. These are low impact, gentle means of adding housing supply. This culture of "no" is now focused on a petition drive aimed at limiting building heights.People may not like the aesthetics of a building over 60 feet, but the foundation of exclusion shouldn't be glossed over. At root of the issue is an opposition to growth that cripples the city's ability to address the needs of the next generation.

There is an undercurrent here that development is antithesis to a small town. One project in a high exposure location can cause many to overestimate the actual rate of change. I appreciate that any change can be uncomfortable and create anxiety. A natural response to change, even if it is on an empty, blighted lot, is to dig in and be suspicious. We all could be better about recognizing that tendency and consider the community benefits of proposed changes -- if even for arguments sake -- rather than simply the potential issues resulting from inevitable change.

When we disempower non-owners and ignore the voice of those not yet here, we face unfortunate consequences. Examples of the consequences are a precipitous decline in student counts, lack of employees to fill job openings, and an inadequate growth in taxable value, straining city budgets when it comes time to pay for services and infrastructure.

Some places are fighting back. Recently in Boulder, Colorado, the first national YIMBY conference was held . YIMBY is in response to the NIMBYism that is endemic throughout many of the wealthier parts of the country. Where the latter says, "Not in my Backyard", the former says a resounding "Yes!"

I'd love to see a new mantra for Traverse City: "Yes to opportunity! Yes to housing! Yes to people!"

If you're with me, #YesTC!

Gary Howe is a City Commissioner in Traverse City and Tweets at @GLHJR