Zoning reformers want to get rid of some strictures that were written into urban and suburban planning laws in the 1900s. Mostly, these changes are pushed by New Urbanists or YIMBY* activists who seek to remove “exclusionary” regulations that deter new housing, especially for potential residents of lesser wealth or income. But, not surprisingly, these efforts can meet pushback by those who like their neighborhoods as is.
A reminder came this month in Lakewood, Colo., a western suburb of Denver (pop. 157,000) whose council had enacted more permissive allowances for small multifamily structures in previously single-family zones, even without commensurate off-street parking. Voters repealed the measures, overwhelmingly.
Colorado law, as in other statehouses, has shifted to push against tight local zoning, for reasons of “equity” and to alleviate pinched housing markets. So it remains to be seen whether popular referendums such as Lakewood’s (or local policies to the same effect) will hold up as they are challenged. The federal government under the Trump GOP has ceased to weigh in against single-family zones.
The parking aspect of the Lakewood fight attracted the attention of Reason magazine’s Christian Britschgi, who favors looser limits from a property-rights perspective but who also has a YIMBY bent for more housing production. In fact, however, a certain property right–motor-vehicle ownership–has a lot to do with many of these zoning disputes.
As zoning developed around the U.S. in the last century, the gathering effects of cars and trucks were a primary motivation. Planners sought to contain the crowding effect of too many vehicles by imposing parking requirements on land development in order to, er, curb street congestion. A related aim was to keep cars and trucks off the frontages of parcels.
New Urbanist reformers generally disparage the prerogatives accorded to motorists. The most avid among these activists seek car-free zones or high fees on possession of private automobiles. A general target, however, is “free parking.” The notion of letting someone command public curb space for their four wheels without so much as a meter is abhorrent in these circles. (And no, they don’t want them on the lawns, either.)
Putting a price on space makes theoretical sense, to some libertarians as well. But the idea of “taking back the streets” can be highly unpopular in settled communities where the familiar ways of life seem to be just fine. It’s not just parking but fears of traffic, which can seem worsened by constricting the flows along some routes–another reformist goal. For better or worse, personal transport remains the American default. Add to this whatever other apprehensions attend to a concentrated housing push, and you get popular (if underfunded) resistance as in Lakewood.
The question then becomes, should wise policy seek to “live and let live” by deferring to the wishes of a resident majority? Even when a few will be blocked from building, when some may suffer exclusion and when demographic trends suggest those residents will price out a supportive labor force or family members? Would it make for more comity, instead, to seek out “blighted” areas or entirely new ground to create better visions of modern living?
In other words–or acronyms–should NIMBY be able to shoulder aside YIMBY to enjoy breathing room? To a degree, yes, in our fractious social climate, this could be for the best. –April 15, 2026
*Yes In My Back Yard, as opposed to Not IMBY.
Tim W. Ferguson 