Forbes: Nativism: The Thread Connecting Progressive NIMBYs With Donald Trump

“Who does this sound like? A group dealing with economic disruption decides that, rather than addressing its problems internally, it will blame outsiders. So the group adopts a nativist stance, looking to build walls, enforce regulations and impose taxes that discourage outside people and goods. The group also adopts a reactionary cultural conservatism, legitimizing stagnancy as a means to preserve “heritage” and “character.” Is this the mentality driving much of Donald Trump’s support base, and America’s turn towards “Trumpism”? Surely it’s a factor. But at the urban level, it describes a group that generally hates Trump, yet mirrors his thinking; that is, progressives who preach openness, yet keep new people out of their neighborhood through NIMBYism.”

"Many U.S. cities are suffering a housing affordability crisis, thanks to regulations that prevent unit supply from meeting demand. The problem is the worst precisely in progressive cities–New York, San Francisco, Seattle, et al—where a faith in government bureaucracy created this regulatory state. And it is a condition maintained most zealously by self-described progressives within these cities’ interior neighborhoods. As homeowners, the group has reaped the benefits–but sometimes the burdens–of urban America’s two-decade renaissance, watching their neighborhoods grow expensive, gentrified, and in their minds, over-populated. Their response has been identical, say, to a Trump supporter in some small town who feels menaced by America’s growing diversity. "

“They have taken tribal possession of their neighborhoods, speaking poorly of inbound transplants–and developers who house them–while using restrictive zoning to stop it. Such regulations don’t materialize physically, in the form of a wall or a deportation task force, but they have the same effect, keeping people from moving in, while forcing poorer long-time residents, namely renters, out. As with Trump supporters, these NIMBYs may have some legitimate concerns–regarding, in this case, traffic, noise, crime and so forth. But often their stances are motivated by plain nativism, and a territorial possessiveness that prevents their cities from addressing larger concerns.”

"…Other times they will use code phrases like “historic preservation” or “community character” to prevent denser housing types that, not coincidentally, are affordable to lower-income groups. "