I’ve been thinking about the film I, Robot recently. Inspired by Isaac Asimov’s anthology, the 2004 Will Smith vehicle is mostly forgotten, but remains a personal favorite of mine.

Beginning in 2035 Chicago, the film establishes its temporal setting by incorporating computer-generated, “new” skyscrapers amongst well-known city landmarks. This cinematic choice grounds the film’s timeline in a not-so-distant future without cumbersome exposition. The filmmakers relied on audiences to apprehend that a city’s physical infrastructure will change over the course of decades, and leveraged this universal understanding to get moviegoers up-to-speed quickly.

But is such an understanding, that communities change over time, actually universal? Not in Connecticut.

Many Nutmeggers believe that the built environment in which they live must never be altered. Often referred to as NIMBYs (Not-In-My-Backyard), such folks react with unease, even hostility when physical alterations are proposed in their towns. Whether it’s senior housing, solar panels, or bike paths, Connecticut NIMBYs are there to say, “no!”

I appreciate the instinct for preservation that motivates some NIMBYs, but I believe NIMBYism is a regressive philosophy rooted in exclusionism, incapable of meeting Connecticut’s contemporary challenges. Because I oppose NIMBYism, I identify as a YIMBY (Yes-In-My-Backyard).

But if NIMBYism is a philosophy centered around saying, “no,” is YIMBYism simply a double-negative? Not necessarily. I am a YIMBY because I hold specific ideological principles and goals.

I am a YIMBY because I am a progressive. I believe that the government should act to improve the conditions of people’s lives, and that one’s identity should not be a barrier to advancement.

Housing affordability is a major challenge for Connecticut. The best way to lower housing costs is not through complicated equity-through-bureaucracy initiatives, but through simply building more housing. The regions that have managed to control home costs while still experiencing high demand are those where construction is facilitated rather than stifled.

In Connecticut, local authorities, dominated by NIMBYs, stonewall new builds through outdated zoning, excessive veto-points, and irresolvable “concerns.” If Connecticut’s leaders are serious about affordability, they need to get serious about supply and demand. That means saying “yes” to new homes now and then.

To suggest that town governments relinquish, or merely adjust, their zoning prerogatives invites backlash. It is true that, in principle, local voices should influence local development. But municipal organizations are sometimes run by imperfect people, capable of holding destructive biases.

America has a sordid record of using race-blind legalism to achieve racist ends. For some, local control is an anodyne, unobjectionable method of exclusion. NIMBYs sometimes characterize their opposition to housing reform as a desire to preserve something intangible: “character,” or “heritage.” It’s worth asking if the heritage they wish to preserve is one born out of bigotry.

Additionally, I am a YIMBY because I am an environmentalist. Connecticut must reduce its carbon footprint, and to do so, we must produce more renewable energy. That means building nuclear reactors, solar farms, and wind turbines. The green-energy transition cannot occur without change, but NIMBYs hate change. Consider the furor raised by the Revolution Wind project.

NIMBYs, maddeningly, cite environmental concerns when they obstruct green infrastructure. I have heard some insist that the energy produced by a turbine will never offset the emissions released as a result of its installation. This statement is false, and those expressing it are sourcing their arguments from a fictional TV show. Others oppose offshore wind due to its impact on marine ecosystems, ignoring the damage caused by burning fossil fuels. Mercifully, others admit that they just think turbines look weird.

Environmentalism isn’t just about energy generation, it’s also about transmission. As our reliance on renewable energy grows, we need to strengthen our electrical grid. Without robust infrastructure, green energy gets wasted because wires can’t handle the load. In Connecticut, NIMBYs oppose grid-strengthening on aesthetic grounds.

Lastly, I am a YIMBY because I am a patriot. Our nation’s history is littered with injustice, but there is progress and honor there too. Many NIMBYs rely on good-old-days rhetoric as an ideological bulwark, but the noble nation for which they wistfully pine was one that said, “yes,” not “no.” Yes, we will break away from foreign tyranny. Yes, we will liberate the enslaved. Yes, we will go to the moon. Yes, we can.  

YIMBYism isn’t about reflexively greenlighting every proposal. Some projects do lack merits. It’s about reacting to change with openness, rather than fear, to promote economic, environmental, and social renewal.

At the end of I, Robot, Will Smith’s character overcomes his anti-android prejudice, accepting a future in which humankind must coexist alongside newly autonomous robot neighbors. Today, Nutmeggers must do the same…kind of.

We can embrace uncertainty while rejecting inaction, abandoning old prejudices while striding boldly into the future. Change is scary, but paralysis is fatal. Let’s say, “yes” to better days ahead.