Opinion piece in the Australian Financial Review.
I’ve recently been labelled a NIMBY for pointing out that a community in my electorate felt blindsided by suddenly revised plans to radically revamp development at the heart of its village.
This is a story about two things: the profoundly complex nature of the housing crisis, which sees the haves and have-not-yets pitted against each other, and the temptation for commentators to sensationalise this “conflict”.
While the NIMBY versus YIMBY frame is a clever exercise in branding and media shorthand, it works against, rather than for, much-needed solutions.
During the 2025 election campaign, our volunteers knocked on over 30,000 doors from Northbridge to North Turramurra. The single biggest issue that people wanted to talk about was housing. And although there were as many views as doors knocked, the unifying message was that we need to build more of them – affordable, quality homes built sensitively, sustainably and close to infrastructure.
Because school teachers should not have to billet a room in their students’ family homes due to a lack of suitable rentals in Killara.
Because essential workers should not be dangerously fatigued from a 90-minute commute each way between their homes on the Central Coast and their jobs at Royal North Shore Hospital.
Because families and communities should not be forced to fracture when kids have to leave the area, knowing that saving for a deposit to buy a local house is a waste of time.
I believe that most people understand that the single biggest lever to making homes more affordable is to increase supply. But they also understand that housing supply only works if it is matched with the local infrastructure that supports daily life – schools, transport, and public green spaces. Otherwise, we are supplying new and existing residents with a raw deal.
That’s why I find it challenging when commentators push the public discourse on housing into a false binary: either preserve neighbourhoods or build more homes – you’re either a NIMBY or a YIMBY.
“Local input ensures development delivers more than extra dwellings – it creates neighbourhoods people actually want to live in.”
Complex problems require complex solutions, and housing is no exception. Labels shut down debate and, worse, divert energy from fixing the systems that could make housing viable.
Last year, following a lengthy community consultation process, Castlecrag Progress Association and Willoughby City Council supported a redevelopment of the Quadrangle Shopping Village into a five-storey residential shop-top complex. Residents were consulted. They flagged issues with traffic, school capacity, and public space. The final design was improved to reflect that input.
A few months into demolition, the same site was on-sold to a new developer who resubmitted plans for an 11-storey tower under the NSW government’s “state significant development” rules. Having already contributed their perspectives on what would work, the community is frustrated that the process appears to start again. Local schools are full. The suburb has only one main road in and out. It is not on a train line. Bus services are woeful. These issues remain, but now, the goalposts have shifted.
And how does this play out – NIMBY or YIMBY? The Support Lindfield group has spent over a decade giving the community a voice in shaping their village’s future. When plans emerged for the Lindfield Village Hub on an old council carpark site, they did not oppose development. They accepted the need for taller buildings, even the jump from nine to 18 storeys.
What mattered to them was that growth be carefully planned, with social and green spaces, parking, and other essential infrastructure being included, so families could stay in the area and the village remained liveable.
Local input ensures development delivers more than extra dwellings – it creates neighbourhoods people actually want to live in. The best outcomes are achieved when we combine growth with local and expert knowledge of what needs to be maintained and what needs to be expanded to keep neighbourhoods thriving for the next generation.
That only comes through meaningful engagement. That is how you turn housing into a village people want to belong to.
NIMBY versus YIMBY framing does not help this cause. It reduces complex questions to a culture war while the real problems – bottlenecked planning, under-funded infrastructure, skills and labour shortages, short-term politics – get off scot-free. Meanwhile, people who are ready and willing to work, save, and contribute remain locked out.
We know that increasing housing supply is key to making housing more affordable. We should also know that the housing crisis will not be solved with labels. It will be solved with innovative solutions (such as build-to-rent-to-own), better master-planning, and genuine community engagement that makes places fit for the people who live in them – old and new neighbours alike.
That – not unhelpful labels – is how we make sure our villages are places for people, and not just property.