When someone takes a new job in the Boston area, they face a housing choice. If they can afford Somerville, they compete with current residents, driving up prices and causing displacement. If they can't, they’re likely to commute from further out, possibly displacing someone from that town, pushing them to an even longer commute. Either way, someone ends up living farther from where they work.
Without new housing growth, new demand means that someone has to move further from the city center. That creates a lot of what economists call “negative externalities,” consequences that affect other people. One person’s short commute forces someone else into a longer commute, and that long commute is worse for their family, their health, and the global climate. It’s especially bad for climate when combined with newly built sprawling exurbs that break up fragile ecosystems.
Some people, fed up with high prices and long commutes, move even further away. They may go to Houston or Tampa, despite the risk of storms and flooding. Building and living in places like that means more driving, more sprawl, and even more climate risk than building and living around here.
It presents a political problem, too, because those places are often firmly Republican. New housing outside of Houston and Tampa is also increasing the electoral power of Texas and Florida. Massachusetts has already lost one seat in the House, and historically NIMBY California is on track to lose three in 2030. Meanwhile, Texas and Florida are expected to gain four each. Recent Supreme Court decisions allowing elaborate gerrymandering schemes have made the electoral map even more important.
Restrictive zoning in Massachusetts doesn’t just prevent construction: it contributes directly to worse health outcomes, climate change, and the decline of democracy in America.