All NIMBY power derives from the fact that authority is vested exclusively in the people who already live somewhere, and none is given over to people who could live there, or would like to, if policies could be changed.
The only thing that has eroded NIMBY power in California in my lifetime has been state laws, and only very recently, and only just barely.
NIMBY power is vested in those who vote. As long as its mostly older white homeowners voting in local elections, that will continue to be the only demographic local politicians cater to, without fail. If you want to fight NIMBYism, fight to make it easier for renters to be educated about local issues and vote in local elections. There really is no other way.
Interesting framing, because the history of anti-development is using government powers to take away private property rights. As an example I own an empty lot that is zoned for, say, up to four unit apartment building and then the voters all decide to reduce my zoning such that I can only build 1 house. This is a taking, right? That's NIMBYs taking what I have because they want something else.
Another example is a bunch of old ladies get together and have my house designated as a "historically significant" structure, thereby robbing me of my ability to build anything else, or even repaint the window sashes. You wouldn't believe that in Berkeley, California, this is perfectly legal without the agreement of the owner, right? In fact it's legal to do this without even _notifying_ the owner.
Finally, there's a pretty strong moral and ethical argument to be made that if I'm born and raised in a town and I live there my whole life but due to a housing crisis I am forced to move elsewhere, I should have had some input into the government of the original place. We shouldn't be saying that we divest our children in favor of their parents, just because they are the incumbents. That's just wrong.
Direct democracy yes. But direct democracy is a horrible way to govern (think: Prop 13) and something the US explicitly avoided at the national level
> Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
> [...]
> [A] pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Democracy means you have to contend with the whole community. It's not just the rich who get to vote on tax policy, not just the manufacturers who get to vote on environmental regulation, etc.
The only thing that has eroded NIMBY power in California in my lifetime has been state laws, and only very recently, and only just barely.