This paper advances debates around the financialization of housing with a case study of Los Angeles’s yes-in-my-back-yard (YIMBY) groups. In response to the post-2008 affordable housing crisis, YIMBYs have emerged in support of orthodox economic policies that deregulate land use, expedite construction, and intensify financial accumulation in rental housing. Using detailed empirical analysis collected from YIMBY housing activists, this paper examines how the market-based logics they advance take root in local land use issues. It focuses specifically on the impact of YIMBYs on existing divisions within urban politics, including the scale at which housing is contested. By conceptualizing the YIMBY position as one that facilitates financialization, this paper reveals the ways financialization is more than a mode of accumulation: it is a political process embedded in the state from the bottom up and inside out.
FieldsD (2015)
Contesting the financialization of urban space: Community organizations and the struggle to preserve affordable rental housing in New York City. Journal of Urban Affairs37(2): 144–165.
18.
FieldsD (2017a)
Unwilling subjects of financialization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research41(4): 588–603.
19.
FieldsD (2017b)
Urban struggles with financialization. Geography Compass11(11): e12334.
20.
FieldsDUfferS (2016)
The financialisation of rental housing: A comparative analysis of New York City and Berlin. Urban Studies53(7): 1486–1502.
21.
FischelWA (2004)
An economic history of zoning and a cure for its exclusionary effects. Urban Studies41(2): 317–340.
FultonW (2001) The Reluctant Metropolis: The Politics of Urban Growth in Los Angeles.
Baltimore:
John Hopkins University Press.
25.
GibbonsA (2018) City of Segregation: 100 Years of Struggle for Housing in Los Angeles.
New York:
Verso Books.
26.
GlaeserE (2011) The Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier.
New York:
Penguin Books.
GleesonB (2012)
Critical commentary. The urban age: Paradox and prospect. Urban Studies49(5): 931–943.
29.
González-BailónS (2014) Online social networks and bottom-up politics. In GrahamMDuttonWH (eds) Society and the Internet: How Networks of Information and Communication Are Changing Our Lives.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press, pp.209–222.
30.
GothamKF (2006)
The secondary circuit of Capital reconsidered: Globalization and the U.S. real estate sector. American Journal of Sociology112(1): 231–275.
31.
HackworthJ (2016)
Defiant neoliberalism and the danger of Detroit. Tijdschrift Voor Economische en Sociale Geografie107(5): 540–551.
32.
ImbroscioD (2021)
Rethinking exclusionary zoning or: How I stopped worrying and learned to love it. Urban Affairs Review57(1): 214–251.
33.
JocoyC (2018)
Green growth machines? Competing discourses of urban development in Playa Vista, California. Urban Geography39(3): 388–412.
O’SullivanA (2018) Urban Economics. 9th ed.
New York:
McGraw-Hill.
55.
PeckJ (2016)
Economic rationality meets celebrity urbanology: Exploring Edward Glaeser’s city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research40(1): 1–30.
56.
PikettyT (2017) Capital in the Twenty-First Century.
Cambridge:
Harvard University Books.
57.
PurcellM (1997)
Ruling Los Angeles: Neighborhood movements, urban regimes, and the production of space in Southern California. Urban Geography18(8): 684–704.
58.
PurcellM (2000)
The decline of the political consensus for urban growth: Evidence from Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Affairs22(1): 85–100.
59.
PurcellM (2001)
Metropolitan political reorganization of urban growth: The case of San Fernando Valley secession. Political Geography20(5): 613–633.
60.
PurcellM (2006)
Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies43(11): 1921–1941.
Rodríguez-PoseAStorperM (2020)
Housing, urban growth and inequalities: The limits to deregulation and upzoning in reducing economic and spatial inequality. Urban Studies57(2): 223–248.
TappR (2019a)
Renters' revolt: Revisiting City of Quartz to understand Los Angeles’s housing crisis. City23(1): 123–127.
69.
TappR (2019b)
Layers of finance: Historic tax credits and the fiscal geographies of urban redevelopment. Geoforum105: 13–22.
70.
TeresaBF (2016)
Managing fictitious Capital: The legal geography of investment and political struggle in rental housing in New York City. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space48(3): 465–484.
71.
TeresaBF (2019)
New dynamics of rent gap formation in New York City rent-regulated housing: Privatization, financialization, and uneven development. Urban Geography40(10): 1399–1421.
72.
TroutmanP (2004)
A growth machine's plan b: Legitimating development when the value‐free growth ideology is under fire. Journal of Urban Affairs26(5): 611–622.
73.
USC Lusk (2019) Casden Real Estate Economics Forecast: 2019 Multifamily Forecast Report. Los Angeles, CA: USC Lusk.
74.
WachsmuthDWeislerA (2018)
Airbnb and the rent gap: Gentrification through the sharing economy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space50(6): 1147–1170.
WeberR (2015) From Boom to Bubble: How Finance Built the New Chicago.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
77.
WhittemoreA (2012)
Requiem for a growth machine: Homeowner preeminence in 1980s Los Angeles. Journal of Planning History11(2): 124–140.
78.
WijburgGAalbersMHeegS (2018)
The financialisation of rental housing 2.0: Releasing housing into the privatised mainstream of Capital accumulation. Antipode50(4): 1098–1119.
