Same problem in so many college towns: locals have become affluent due to students and campus vibrancy. At the same time, they have antipathy for the college, trying to freeze the town in amber. Students are stuck with decrepit housing conditions.

Many NIMBYs don't hate all density. They hate the ugliness that comes from sudden densification.

I think people who think abundance has failed should ask themselves a question: What's the most significant bill congress passed in 2026?

A nearby Palo Alto homeowner is upset about this proposal for a four-story condo building in a single-family neighborhood—because it DOUBLED the property value and he wants to be able to propose one too! Sometimes the Homevoter Hypothesis—the idea that people oppose new housing to protect their property values—gets completely inverted. People support new housing bc it boosts their property values Some context: Palo Alto had a two-week window in July where state law allowed 5-7 story buildings within a half mile of transit. Property owners submitted nine proposals, mostly modest infill housing. The city then used a loophole in the law to cut heights and densities in half until 2032. I’m working on getting the city to re-allow SB 79 heights and densities—and hopefully neighbors who want to increase their property values will join in (Also P.S. this is still Dr. Jeremy Levine, PhD of City Council meetings—still unable to change my profile information after idiot X verified my account immediately after I got hacked)

A seventh (and final, for now) SB 79 application in Palo Alto: One single-family house → six condos It’s amazing what becomes possible when zoning changes

Dr. Jeremy Levine, PhD of City Council Meetings here. My account has been hacked and idiot @X verified it within 2 hours so I can’t change my information back even after kicking out the hackers Silver lining is the blue check means I can talk about NIMBY bullshit all I want. Good news: I got covered in the SF Business Times for my work in Palo Alto—where new leadership by the council and community is shifting the conversation about housing!

Abundance is really a radical framework that challenges all Dem party factions and I don’t understand why pundits cannot get this There’s nothing moderate about wanting to undo a century of federal, state, and local land use policy to 10x the rate of housing construction. Or break the labor cartels created by doctors, lawyers, and other white collar professions to push up costs for everyday consumers. Or remake America’s transportation system by building thousands of miles of high-speed rail. Or transform our energy grid with tons of new clean energy and infrastructure. I could go on—abundance envisions big changes! In our broken polarization framework, ideas that represent a huge shift from the status quo get framed as “moderate” because they sometimes involve markets rather than state intervention. But exclusionary zoning and doctor cartels and veto-ridden planning don’t fit on the moderate-progressive spectrum, or even the left-right spectrum. They are just bad policies with massive negative consequences—namely higher costs for consumers and taxpayers—that earlier generations supported and entrenched interests continue baking into American life The cool thing about abundance is it completely breaks the political polarization framework. Ultra-progressive NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani worked with moderate New York Governor Kathy Hochul to reform environmental laws that blocked sustainable housing and transit. Super-lefty California State Senator Scott Wiener passed the state’s biggest upzoning in history with votes across factional and party lines. Texas has exponential clean energy growth because their permitting is more chill The abundance framework can help people who identify with any faction deliver better results. Whether it gets broadly adopted across issue areas remains to be seen because it’s still early days. The most politically developed abundance-y movement, YIMBYism, is barely a decade old. Everything else is nascent. But lawmakers are learning: Abundance-coded bills like The Road to Housing Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan majorities and support across factional lines. To me, passing historic federal legislation with support from across the Democratic Party suggests the abundance framework is doing just fine Articles coming soon expanding on these points + describing the new organization’s sprouting up to promote a cross-issue abundance movement (P.S. If you made is this far: Housing nerd Dr. Jeremy Levine, PhD of City Council Meetings here. Been hacked and X verified the hacker so can’t change my info even after kicking them out. On the plus side, now I can post long rants)