Key points:
- Los Gatos case highlights California’s housing crisis and impact of infill on existing neighbors.
- Resistance to infill projects often stems from fear of change, density, and loss of privacy.
- California’s housing crisis is exacerbated by Nimbyism, driving up costs statewide.
The Los Gatos case has put into sharp focus one of the most critical debates over housing in California: the impact of infill on existing neighbors. The conversation is not new, but the clash between state housing mandates and local resistance illustrates just how deeply entrenched the problem of Nimbyism has become.
I’ll state it up front. The impact of development on existing neighbors is almost always overstated. Time and again, projects that were once fiercely opposed turn out to be far less disruptive than feared. The resistance comes from fear—fear of change, fear of density, fear of something unfamiliar being built nearby. But fear is a poor foundation for policy, and it has played an outsized role in creating and perpetuating California’s housing crisis.
Take Los Gatos. Some residents who live close to proposed projects object that the buildings are too high, too dense, and too close to their backyards. They worry about privacy, noise, and the possibility of looming apartment buildings altering the character of their neighborhood. One homeowner put it bluntly: no one would want something built almost literally in their backyard.
That may sound reasonable at first glance, but it is exactly the kind of reasoning that has kept California from meeting its housing needs. Local opposition is often laser-focused on immediate impacts to existing property owners, while ignoring the broader consequences of not building enough homes.
The reality is that this is why we have a housing crisis—and the people who suffer the most from that crisis are not the homeowners who fear losing privacy in their backyard. It is those most vulnerable: the renters struggling to pay rising costs, the families forced to move far away and endure crushing commutes, the younger generations who can’t afford to live in the communities where they grew up, and the unhoused who are left with no options at all.
The critics point to state laws like the “builder’s remedy” provision, which allows housing projects to override local zoning rules when cities fail to adopt compliant housing elements. In Los Gatos, the Benedict Lane project by Green Valley Corporation has drawn sharp opposition under this provision. Homeowners object to the height and proximity, claiming it will eliminate privacy and increase noise.
But these objections don’t exist in a vacuum. They must be weighed against the wider crisis. Focusing only on whether a building is too close to a backyard ignores the systemic costs of underbuilding. Those costs include higher housing prices, longer commutes, traffic that clogs freeways rather than neighborhood streets, and a chronic failure to produce homes that match the needs of residents.
We’ve seen this dynamic play out before. When the Sterling Apartments were proposed in Davis, neighbors expressed fear about density, traffic, and disruption. The project was eventually approved, and, years later, when asked whether it had turned out to be a problem, most people acknowledged that it was not. Many of those who once complained now barely notice the development. The feared impacts never materialized.
Contrast that with the University Mall site in Davis. Intense opposition blocked housing there, leaving the site underutilized. Now those units will have to be built elsewhere, and the burden shifts to another neighborhood. The lesson is simple: when one community succeeds in blocking housing, it does not mean those units disappear. It just means another community has to absorb the demand, and the cycle of opposition repeats.
This is where Nimbyism becomes not just a local nuisance but a statewide barrier. Opposition by neighbors who are already housed perpetuates scarcity and drives up costs for everyone else. The beneficiaries of resistance are homeowners protecting the status quo. The victims are those locked out of homeownership, those priced out of rentals, and those pushed into displacement.
Some argue that the housing crisis is not really about Nimbyism, but about broader economic forces, or that people with limited means would never realistically move into wealthy enclaves like Los Gatos. But this misses the point. Housing is a regional and statewide system. The refusal of affluent towns to allow growth doesn’t just keep low-income residents out of their neighborhoods; it pushes demand outward, drives up prices in less affluent areas, and forces longer commutes that worsen traffic and pollution.
State law has recognized this reality, which is why the Legislature has passed reforms designed to limit the ability of cities to say “no” to housing. YIMBY Law, the California Housing Defense Fund, and Californians for Homeownership made this clear in an amicus brief in the Los Gatos litigation, describing it as “a story of state housing law working as intended to produce new housing while a resentful Town tries to gum up the process.”
If Los Gatos’ interpretation of the Permit Streamlining Act is allowed to stand, housing advocates warn, other anti-housing jurisdictions across California will take it as a green light to block projects through technicalities and dubious legal arguments. The law is explicit that courts must give “the fullest possible weight” to approving housing. Yet towns like Los Gatos continue to search for ways around the rules, no longer able to deny projects outright but still determined to delay and obstruct.
This illustrates the shift underway in California housing politics. State law has stripped localities of their veto power, but not their will to resist. The battlefield has moved from planning commissions and city councils to the courts, where procedural maneuvers are the new form of Nimbyism.
At the end of the day, the tradeoff is unavoidable. Either we build housing on the periphery—converting farmland and open space, creating sprawl, generating more greenhouse gases and traffic—or we build infill, which provokes backlash from neighbors who fear density in their backyard. The honest answer is that California needs both: smart growth on the edges and bold infill in existing communities. But pretending that we can avoid one or the other is just another form of denial.
The problem comes when the conversation focuses only on one end of the equation. When policymakers weigh only the perceived impacts on existing neighbors—most of which are exaggerated or never materialize—they ignore the very real impacts on everyone else of not building. Those impacts include skyrocketing rents, crushing commutes, homelessness, and the loss of entire generations from our communities.
It is easy to sympathize with a homeowner worried about a building rising behind their backyard. Change is unsettling, and everyone values their privacy. But housing policy cannot be built on the preferences of those who already have homes while millions of others face a crisis of scarcity. The greater good demands that we balance local concerns with statewide needs.
California has spent decades deferring to local fears, and the result has been a catastrophic housing shortage. If the state is to reverse course, it must stand firm against Nimby obstruction and ensure that housing gets built where it is needed. The lesson from Davis, Los Gatos, and countless other towns is clear: fear is loud, but it is not a plan. Housing delayed is housing denied, and the costs are borne by those least able to bear them.
Nimbyism is not just a local preference; it is a statewide problem. It is time we treat it as such.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Categories:
Breaking News City of Davis Housing Land Use/Open Space Opinion State of California
Tags:
Affordable Housing Benedict Lane project Builders Remedy California California Housing Crisis Green Valley Corporation Green Valley Corporation’s homeowners infill development Los Gatos Los Gatos residents NIMBYISM Sterline Apartments