To borrow from the comic strip “Pogo”: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”
In the West Side neighborhood, two residents filed a lawsuit to block a modest six-unit housing project. They claim the city erred in approving variances that allowed the project to move forward. Despite its small scale, the project has sparked an outsize reaction, with opponents asserting their concerns are about legality and community respect.
Just north, in Parkville, members of The National homeowners association oppose a planned development of million-dollar homes. These are not low-income or subsidized units, yet the neighbors still claim the project could hurt their property values. Parkville spokesman Stephen Lachky pointed out that these concerns mirror those voiced in 1998, when The National subdivision was first proposed. We’re not just failing to learn across different kinds of neighborhoods — we’re failing to learn over time.
Though the two examples differ in location and scale, they share a common theme: property owners asserting that their enjoyment of the status quo outweighs the rights of others to build. This entitlement — often protected and even encouraged by city policies — has become another major impediment to new home construction across the country.
In each case, opponents frame their objections in the language of law and fairness. West Side residents say, “No one is against housing,” but insist, “Development must follow the rules and respect the people who already live here.” Parkville homeowners claim they were left out of the conversation, saying the plan is being “pushed down their throats without good communication.”
Salim Furth, Director of the Urbanity Project at George Mason’s Mercatus Center, described this behavior in an email interview as a classic example of NIMBYism, short for ”not in my backyard.” Furth adds, “The neighbors say they are defending ‘fairness and process,’ but the entire setup of zoning as practiced (which has little relationship to zoning in theory) is to unfairly assign different rights to similar properties.”
In both cases, developers followed the proper approval processes, processes that are already costly and time-consuming. Yet, after clearing all formal hurdles, they face an additional challenge: the homeowner’s veto. This informal but powerful tool allows existing property owners to block new housing via public comment, city council lobbying, or local zoning boards.
Jerusalem Demsas diagnosed the problem in The Atlantic: “We’ve delegated the power over how our land is used to the local level, and seeded the process with various veto points. We’ve done this under the misguided assumption that decentralization will make the process more democratic. In reality, this system has resulted in stasis and sclerosis.”
Many of us support housing — in principle. But when new construction is proposed nearby, it’s easy to find reasons to resist. Whether we cite concerns about process, character or communication, the outcome is often the same: fewer homes, higher prices and new families locked out.
The myth persists that only certain types of housing are “good”: typically the kind already present in a neighborhood. But the truth is that all new housing adds to the regional supply. Even luxury homes help ease pressure on the market. New construction doesn’t need to be affordable in name to have an affordability impact in practice.
Allowing for new housing doesn’t mean the West Side will sprout high-rises or that Parkville property values will plummet. What it does mean is that cities will be more responsive to growing demand, providing housing for a broader range of people, across income levels. That’s a good thing.
We all want a say in how our neighborhoods grow. But when small groups use complex regulations to halt change entirely, we risk prioritizing personal comfort over broader community needs. It’s time we balanced our rights as homeowners with our responsibilities as neighbors.
We owe it to future generations to ensure our cities remain places of opportunity — not just preservation.
Patrick Tuohey is co-founder of Better Cities Project, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit focused on municipal policy solutions, and a senior fellow at the Show-Me Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to Missouri state policy work.