Abundance is not anti-democratic, it’s anti veto
The discourse surrounding Klein and Thompson’s "Abundance" raises a critical concern: the potential for increased development to override local voices. Klein himself said so on an interview with Cowen This concern, while well intended, I think is precisely wrong when it comes to local vetocracy.
The pursuit of greater local control, intended to empower communities, has inadvertently fostered a system of vetocracy. City-level decisions are frequently paralyzed by neighborhood-level opposition, and national projects are stymied by state-level vetoes. However, this is not a failure of democracy itself, but rather grouping who gets to vote at too-narrow a level.
The core issue lies in the disparity between the voting polity and the impacted polity. When a small, localized group wields the power to veto projects with broader regional or national implications, the voices of those affected beyond the immediate vicinity are effectively silenced. The people who would move to a city or had to move out of a city because of low housing supply don’t get a vote in that city. And that city keeps voting to block more housing.
This dynamic manifests in NIMBYism, where neighborhood opposition obstructs housing development, transportation infrastructure, and other essential projects. Those who would benefit from these projects—potential residents, commuters, and those seeking economic opportunities—are disenfranchised.
The problem is not an excess of democracy, but a deficit. The solution lies in expanding the scope of democratic participation to encompass all affected stakeholders. This requires a reevaluation of what constitutes "local" and a shift towards governance models that prioritize regional and national interests alongside local concerns.
Rather than granting veto power to narrow constituencies, we must establish mechanisms for inclusive decision-making that account for the broader impacts of development. This may involve regional planning bodies, state-level oversight, or federal intervention in projects of national significance.
The goal is not to eliminate local input, but to balance it with the needs of the wider community. By ensuring that all affected parties have a voice, we can mitigate the risks of vetocracy and promote development that serves the common good.