Bad Faith: a NIMBY Theology
What does it take to "save" a town?
Entire towns need saving, according to the lawn signs. As local elections intensify across North Carolina, the housing debate has taken on a spiritual significance. Housing advocates must recognize that opponents to development are speaking theologically, not just politically.
I witnessed a great awakening in 2017 when an emergent “Save Davidson” campaign ousted the long-time mayor and much of the town council over “high-density development.”
Now, I’m witnessing a revival as the group “Save Chapel Hill” formed last Spring against a proposed zoning amendment, Housing Choices for a Complete Community. It passed in June and legalized Missing Middle housing options in Chapel Hill.
The language of “saving” carries a spiritual weight beyond conventional local politics. The mission of Save Davidson is to “preserve Davidson's small-town quality of life,” and Save Chapel Hill spoke about keeping the “small college town” identity. The soul of the community is at stake. It requires salvation through preservation.
Now, the major fault line in the Chapel Hill mayor’s race is housing. The two candidates were on opposite sides of the vote in June, and the issue is top of mind for voters. I was struck by this quote in the Daily Tar Heel from Chapel Hill resident and pro-housing advocate Samuel Gee:
“The housing problem in Chapel Hill, if we really want to meet it head-on, has to be something where we hold very little sacred.”
Gee spoke powerfully in that interview about the need for zoning reform. But notice how pro-housing advocates cede the sacred to their opponents. There is a pervasive theology underlying this local housing debate— where the status quo is holy and change is profane. Pro-housing voices are enemies at the gate, and only NIMBYism can save the town.
NIMBY activists have developed what theologians would call a soteriology— a doctrine of what it means to be saved.
Being “saved” can take many forms. My Uncle once caught a Black Widow spider in a glass jar. He told me he wanted to save it. I expected him to move the spider into a safer place in the woods, away from the house where we found her. Instead, he filled the jar with formaldehyde. He saved it, and it is still floating in the jar on a shelf today.
When concerned residents, frustrated by traffic or saddened by teardowns, want to “save” their town, they are looking for rescue. The priests of preservation promise salvation for the community. But they only embalm it.
This is the inevitable conclusion of a NIMBY doctrine of Creation that views students as pollution. In California, the group “Save Berkeley Neighborhoods” successfully sued the university and nearly prevented thousands of students from enrolling. This movement uses spiritual concerns for community and creation to entrench policies that privilege a subset of residents.
Nationwide, the political debate on housing has turned in favor of building more housing. California capped off one of its most pro-housing legislative sessions: accelerating housing permitting, legalizing housing on religious campuses, and protecting student housing from lawsuits like we saw in Berkeley. Policy research continues to show that cities building housing see lower rents.
The theological debate, however, is just beginning. Policy memos cannot counter spiritual claims on the nature of housing and neighborhoods. The continued momentum of greater housing abundance, particularly in the South, needs a theological language.