Token YIMBYism in California

Both pieces diagnose a mismatch between headline housing policy and on‑the‑ground effects: Cowen/Tandler argues NYC’s rent‑control is a symbolic or misdirected lever that worsens supply and enables asset transfers, while the existing idea flags reforms presented as significant but materially small; the common thread is policy gestures that fail to expand genuine housing supply and instead produce distributional or political side effects.

Both the article and the existing idea critique superficial or narrowly scoped housing policies (e.g., one‑off proposals or modest statewide bills) that look like solutions politically but fail to address the core supply/permit constraints that actually determine housing affordability; the article’s criticism of finance gimmicks complements the existing point that token reforms often produce only marginal effects.

The article’s sympathy for preservation of a quirky communal venue while noting council plans for a 190‑home scheme echoes the existing critique that many housing 'wins' are tokenistic or narrowly scoped: the Finsbury Park case illustrates how headline housing approvals can erase place‑character without necessarily delivering the forms of community or unit mix residents value.

Josh Barro’s item about property‑tax commissions that produce reports but no action directly matches the 'token YIMBY' critique (symbolic, narrow reforms that leave core permitting and supply problems intact); the article cites the late report of a mayoral commission and explains why political incentives block meaningful local reform.

Leary warns that the Pruitt‑Igoe approach persists politically as symbolic housing programs; this echoes the 'Token YIMBYism' critique that small, symbolic reforms often fail to correct the substantive institutional and supply problems that produce bad or exclusionary housing outcomes.

The newsletter’s critique that a democratized decision‑making regime has frozen building echoes the critique that nominal pro‑housing measures often leave supply constraints intact; both diagnose a political/administrative mismatch between rhetoric and de‑facto outcomes (actors: city councils, state regulators; evidence: prolonged reviews and regulatory layering).

Slow Boring reports local experiments that may be substantive or symbolic; that dynamic matches the critique that some state/municipal reforms are small, ‘token’ changes that look like progress but have limited geographic scope and impact.

Both pieces speak to California housing policy: Tabarrok’s post exposes a biting local regulation that reduces rental supply in a high‑demand city, which undercuts headlines about symbolic state‑level housing reforms (e.g., small zoning tweaks) and shows why token statewide reforms may fail without addressing municipal regulatory distortions.

The article documents Los Angeles’s 12–2 council vote to tighten rent control—an action that mirrors the critique captured by 'Token YIMBYism in California' that state or elite reform gestures often fail to alter local restrictive politics; both pieces highlight a gap between pro‑supply rhetoric at state/national levels and durable local regulatory choices (LA limits rents to 1–4% vs previous 3–8%).

The piece says SB 79 “allows apartment buildings to exist” while noting it covers under 1% of California’s transit stops.