Are you a YIMBY? test

I’ve been sending you ideas every week for a year. Now — send yours. The think tank Inclusive Abundance is requesting ideas to include in their agenda of “16 bold policy proposals.” Each idea should “illustrate a solution to a major economic or governance bottleneck that holds back opportunities for Americans.”

Submissions can be up to 2,000 words; the deadline is June 5.

I’m an ally to Inclusive Abundance. I’m also a member of the Build America caucus in Congress, which works on the abundance agenda. I agree with its central arguments on the left and right. With the left, it argues that unlocking production (in housing, energy, et al) is more effective than price controls or subsidies to lower prices. On the right, it argues that improving state capacity to draft and enforce reasonable regulations (not DOGE-style destruction of public services) is government reform in service of prosperity.

Yet these arguments are often still abstract. In an interview with The New York Times, Bernie Sanders criticized Abundance for pretending to be an ideology. I take the criticism in good faith. In response, here are four proposed litmus tests for the Abundance faction. Good litmus tests crystallize disagreements in service of ideological coherence. The tests should be precise and costly to signal; they are controversial by design.

Housing litmus test

Do you support allowing single staircase construction for residential buildings of up to six stories?

YIMBY advocates agree that more production of missing middle housing is critical. Requiring one staircase plus a fire escape, rather than two built-in staircases, removes a costly barrier to that production. For example, there are nearly 5,000 lots in Greater Boston suitable for single-staircase, mid-rise housing development of the type that, last century, helped make Allston-Brighton affordable for young homebuyers.

This proposal can be politically challenging to support because it is opposed not just by NIMBYs but also by many fire departments. There is ample evidence, though, including from Europe, that fire safety is maintained in single-staircase construction so long as sprinklers are still installed. The District of Columbia just passed the change to single staircase. More cities & towns should.

Transportation litmus test

Do you support congestion pricing in cities?

An ‘Abundance’ transportation program should seek to maximize the number of connections to jobs & services within a 30-minute commute radius. (A 30-min radius is known as Marchetti’s constant; it’s approximately humans’ tolerance for one-way commutes.)

In this dimension — and others, like walkability and air quality — New York City’s congestion pricing experiment has been stellar. It took more than a decade to launch, though, due to intense cross-partisan opposition. Levying drivers is tough politics, but prioritizing transit and walkability over cars is the road to better cities.

This issue is taking on new urgency, because the advent of autonomous vehicles provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to manage congestion & the curb, improve walkability, and dedicate revenue to infrastructure. But it requires levying the AVs. Read a terrific essay on the potential, here.

Energy litmus test

Do you support nuclear energy, including reform to ‘As Low As Reasonably Achievable’ radiation regulation?

Nuclear power is clean, safe, reliable, affordable and (increasingly) popular. Abundance allies agree that it should be scaled. Federal regulations, however, strangle nuclear generation with radiation exposure regulations that presume a linear relationship between exposure, public health, and requirements for mitigation. That is, if one million millirems are terrible and must be prevented, then 100 millirems must be a little bad and should also be prevented to go ‘as low as reasonably achievable.’

Comprehensive studies, though, do not support the presumption of adverse public health effects from exposure below 10,000 millirems annually. If the type of unscientific presumption being applied to nuclear power held sway in other facets of American life, then no airplane could ever fly, no dentist’s office could operate, no swimming pool could open, and no bananas could be stacked in grocery stores.

Defending even doses of radiation that are below humans’ daily background exposure is, well, radioactive to most politicians. But elected officials serious about climate action, energy sovereignty, and lower utility bills should make the case based on the science.

Education litmus test

Do you agree that by September 2020 all public-school students in the nation should have returned to full time, in-person learning?

Abundance has not developed a strong point of view on education policy. My own proposals center on surging 1:1, live-online tutoring for reading (1st & 2nd grades) and math (middle school) and building more trade schools. Funding would come from a surcharge on social media corporations.

There are many other bold ideas for education. Before asking students and parents to give these ideas a hearing, though, policymakers should build back trust and credibility with a mea culpa. The schools were closed for too long, with too many restrictions when they did open. When I was elected to Congress in the fall of 2020, the epidemiology, academic fallout, and mental health concerns were all pointing in the same direction: the schools could and should fully re-open. I made it my day-one issue, but it took too long. The devastating repercussions are still with us, even though neither party talks much about it.

Wherever Abundance ends up on education, there’s nothing abundant about closures.

Propose your own tests or tell me I’m wrong in the comments.