The Yes in God’s Backyard (YIGBY) Movement: Land Use, Legislative Reform, and the Future of Faith-Based Affordable Housing

Introduction and Macroeconomic Context

The United States is currently navigating two distinct but intersecting structural crises: a severe nationwide shortage of affordable housing and a profound demographic contraction within organized religion. As housing costs dramatically outpace wage growth, median home prices have reached all-time highs, frequently exceeding median incomes by a multiple of five¹. Data from the National Low Income Housing Coalition highlights the severity of this deficit; nationally, there are merely 35 affordable and available rental homes for every 100 extremely low-income renter households, resulting in a nationwide shortage of 7.2 million rental units². Simultaneously, the American religious landscape is experiencing a historic contraction. An estimated 100,000 houses of worship are projected to close in the coming decades due to declining membership, with a 2023 national survey revealing that the median church congregation now consists of merely 60 regular participants³. These institutions frequently find themselves land-rich but cash-poor, struggling to maintain aging, oversized structures where building maintenance constitutes the second-largest organizational budget item³.

Out of this convergence, the “Yes in God’s Backyard” (YIGBY) movement has emerged. A specialized offshoot of the broader “Yes in My Backyard” (YIMBY) pro-housing movement, YIGBY advocates for the repurposing of underutilized property owned by faith-based organizations (FBOs)—such as surplus parking lots, vacant land, and aging rectories—into affordable housing and community assets³. The movement operates on the premise that religious institutions possess both the moral imperative to shelter the vulnerable and the physical land necessary to make a measurable impact on the housing supply¹.

However, realizing this potential requires navigating a labyrinth of restrictive local zoning laws, complex real estate financing mechanisms, environmental liabilities, and fierce neighborhood opposition. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the YIGBY movement, examining the scale of developable faith-owned land, the evolving landscape of state and federal legislative preemption, the financial architecture of affordable housing development, and the socio-political friction inherent in neighborhood transformation.

The Genesis of the Movement

The modern iteration of the YIGBY movement originated in San Diego, California. In 2019, local housing advocates and religious leaders, seeking immediate solutions to a burgeoning homelessness crisis, began collaborating to remove municipal barriers to housing development on church properties³. Key early proponents included Clairemont Lutheran Church, local housing advocates Tom Theisen and Monica Ball, and the civic group UPLIFT³. Theisen noted at the time that San Diego County contained roughly 1,100 churches situated on over 3,000 acres of property, arguing that if a mere ten percent of those institutions constructed 20 to 30 units each, thousands of affordable homes could be rapidly introduced into the market⁸.

This advocacy culminated in December 2019, when the San Diego City Council unanimously approved a series of “Housing SD” reforms proposed by then-Mayor Kevin L. Faulconer. The updated municipal Land Development Code eliminated rigid, capacity-based parking mandates for religious institutions, officially allowing qualifying churches to construct affordable housing units directly within their sprawling, typically underutilized parking lots³. This municipal victory catalyzed a national movement, demonstrating that strategic zoning reform could unlock vast reserves of private, mission-driven land for public benefit.

The Scale of the Opportunity: Spatial and Asset Analysis

The physical footprint of religious institutions in the United States represents one of the largest untapped reservoirs of developable urban and suburban land. Because religious institutions were historically central to community planning, their properties are frequently situated in highly desirable, transit-accessible locations that are otherwise entirely built out. Recent geospatial analyses have quantified the staggering volume of land held by FBOs and nonprofit educational institutions across various jurisdictions.

Jurisdiction	Estimated Developable Land	Theoretical Housing Yield	Geographic and Spatial Context
California (Statewide)	171,000 acres	Hundreds of thousands of units	An area nearly five times the size of Oakland. Over 16,000 acres are located in the highest resource opportunity areas, with 65% situated within a half-mile of high-quality transit stops10.
San Diego County, CA	4,400 acres (across 2,700 FBOs)	~5,000 units (assuming 10% development at 40 units/acre)	62% of this acreage is located within the City of San Diego and unincorporated county areas. The average parcel size is 2.62 acres11.
Massachusetts (Statewide)	203 million square feet	140,000 units	FBOs hold massive swaths of vacant or underutilized parcels, representing a highly viable pathway to close the state’s 194,000-unit shortfall for low-income households1.
Hawaii (Statewide)	3,000 acres	Unquantified	Faith-based entities collectively rank among the state’s top ten largest landholders, presenting a critical resource in a market where the median home cost is 2.7 times the national average4.

In traditional affordable housing development, land acquisition is often the most prohibitively expensive line item, particularly in coastal markets. By utilizing land already owned by FBOs, developers can effectively eliminate or drastically reduce land acquisition costs from the capital stack¹¹. Rather than executing fee-simple sales, FBOs typically execute long-term ground leases. This financial structure allows the congregation to retain ownership of the underlying asset, secure a sustainable long-term revenue stream to fund their ministries and deferred maintenance, and ensure the land continuously serves a civic purpose¹.

Legislative Reform: State Preemption and Zoning Overrides

Historically, the primary barrier to housing development on religious land has been exclusionary local zoning. Many houses of worship are located in neighborhoods strictly zoned for single-family residential use, which explicitly prohibits the construction of multi-family housing or denser mixed-use facilities¹⁷. Rezoning these parcels through local municipal channels is a highly discretionary, expensive, and politically fraught process that can take years and is frequently derailed by neighborhood opposition leveraging environmental or historical review laws². To circumvent these local bottlenecks, the YIGBY movement has aggressively pursued state-level legislation that preempts local zoning authority, granting FBOs the “by-right” (ministerial) ability to develop housing.

The Vanguard Policy: California’s Senate Bill 4 (SB 4)

Signed into law in October 2023 and effective January 2024, California’s SB 4—the Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act, authored by Senator Scott Wiener and Assemblymember Tina McKinnor—is the most comprehensive YIGBY legislation enacted to date¹⁰. Passing with overwhelming bipartisan support (73-1 in the Assembly and 33-2 in the Senate), SB 4 forces local municipalities to ministerially approve affordable housing projects on land owned by FBOs or independent higher education institutions, thereby overriding local zoning codes⁴.

The mechanics of SB 4 are highly specific, designed to balance development viability with stringent labor standards and environmental protections. To qualify for by-right streamlining, projects must bypass discretionary local reviews, which consequently exempts them from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), eliminating a primary vector for neighborhood lawsuits¹⁸. The affordability mandates require that 100% of the units (excluding manager units) be affordable to lower-income households, though up to 20% can be reserved for moderate-income households and 5% for institutional staff. These affordability covenants must be deed-restricted for 55 years for rentals and 45 years for homeownership²⁰.

SB 4 also addresses the physical limitations of development by introducing density and height multipliers. In residential zones, projects are permitted the greater of the adjoining parcel density or the state’s “Mullin densities” (up to 30 units per acre in urban areas). In non-residential zones, projects are allowed up to 40 units per acre and may exceed local height limits by one story¹⁷. To secure political support from trade unions, the legislation mandates prevailing wages for construction workers on projects exceeding 10 units. For projects with 50 or more units, contractors must provide healthcare for workers and utilize state-approved apprenticeship programs¹⁸. Finally, land is deemed ineligible if it is adjacent to heavy industrial uses, near active oil wells, on prime farmland, in wetlands, or located within very high fire hazard severity zones, ensuring environmental safety¹².

The National Legislative Landscape

The momentum generated by California’s SB 4 has inspired a wave of similar legislation across the United States. State-level efforts can be categorized into those that successfully established zoning overrides and those that stalled due to intense political resistance regarding “home rule” and historic preservation.

State	Legislation	Status	Policy Mechanisms and Outcomes
Washington	HB 1377 / SB 5413	Passed (2023)	Increases density allowances for FBO housing and requires a 50-year affordability period for households earning up to 80% AMI. Unlike California, local jurisdictions retain the power to scale the density bonus consistent with local needs4.
Oregon	SB 8 & HB 3395	Passed (2023)	Acts as a zoning override eliminating the need for conditional use permits. Doubles allowable density on smaller parcels, increases density heavily on larger parcels, allows additional height, and mandates 60-year affordability27.
Virginia	SB 233	Passed	Allows housing by-right on faith-owned land up to 40 units per acre and an extra 15 feet of height. Mandates a 99-year affordability period2.
Illinois	SB 3187 / HB 5083	Pending	Sponsored by Sen. Sara Feigenholtz, this bill proposes a 60-day “shot clock” for local government approvals; failure to act results in automatic by-right approval. It prohibits municipalities from imposing unreasonable setbacks, height limits, or parking mandates2.
Massachusetts	S. 1430	Pending	Allows by-right multi-family housing. Requires a 20% affordability set-aside (at 80% AMI) for projects over 30 units, and a 25% set-aside for projects over 50 units. Brings tax-exempt parcels onto municipal tax rolls unless locally exempted15.
New York	S3397 / A3647	Failed	The Faith-Based Affordable Housing Act proposed up to 50 units per acre in smaller jurisdictions and high Floor Area Ratios (FAR) in New York City. The bill failed twice due to fierce opposition over state preemption of local zoning and backlash from historic preservationists who argued it threatened centuries-old architectural heritage4.
Colorado	HB 1169	Failed	Passed the House but was killed in the Senate. Local planning officials successfully argued that overriding zoning would lead to housing in industrial or remote areas lacking sidewalks, transit, and infrastructure, violating “home rule” constitutional powers. The governor’s office criticized the failure as the bill becoming a “midnight bargaining chip”1.
Texas	HB 3172	Failed	Attempted to create a highly protective framework allowing FBOs to sue cities for damages if denied. It became embroiled in partisan politics and controversies surrounding a Muslim community’s specific development plan, leading to its defeat2.

The Ideological Conflict: State Preemption vs. Local Control

The legislative failures in Colorado, New York, and Texas underscore a profound ideological tension in modern urban planning. The American Planning Association (APA) and various local municipal leagues have frequently opposed YIGBY zoning overrides, arguing that centralized state preemption strips communities of their democratic right to govern their own neighborhood character and infrastructure planning¹. Critics argue that a one-size-fits-all approach allowing by-right development on any faith-owned land could inadvertently place vulnerable populations in remote areas lacking sidewalks, public transit, or essential social services¹. Furthermore, critics of these policies note fundamental differences between YIGBY legislation and other preemption laws. For instance, while Florida’s Live Local Act mandates upzoning exclusively on commercial, industrial, or mixed-use land, YIGBY laws explicitly target residentially zoned neighborhoods, altering the established fabric of single-family subdivisions³⁰.

Conversely, YIGBY and YIMBY advocates frame state preemption as a necessary mechanism to correct decades of exclusionary Euclidean zoning, which they argue was historically designed to enforce racial segregation and protect incumbent property values at the expense of the general welfare¹. From an intersectional policy perspective, overriding local zoning to build dense, transit-adjacent affordable housing is increasingly viewed as vital climate policy. Urban infill reduces sprawl and drastically lowers the per-capita greenhouse gas emissions associated with long, auto-dependent commutes¹⁹.

Federal and Municipal Interventions

While state-level legislative battles command significant attention, vital policy shifts are occurring simultaneously at the municipal and federal levels to facilitate holy redevelopment.

Municipal Ordinances and Pre-Development Support

Recognizing the unique hurdles faced by FBOs—namely, an acute lack of real estate expertise and the high risk of early-stage pre-development costs—several municipalities have implemented localized YIGBY ordinances paired with direct financial assistance. In Atlanta, Georgia, the city launched the Faith-Based Development Initiative utilizing the local affordable housing trust fund in partnership with Invest Atlanta. This program offers forgivable loans of up to $25,000 for critical pre-development expenses, such as architectural plans, environmental surveys, and appraisals, removing the initial financial barrier that prevents many congregations from exploring development²⁷.

Similarly, in San Antonio, Texas, the Mission-Driven Development Pilot program uses city funds to provide congregations with free access to zoning experts, architects, and financing consultants²⁷. In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams introduced the “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity” zoning reform. Although state-level preemption failed in New York, this municipal proposal seeks to lift arbitrary “campus” restrictions, allowing landmarked religious institutions to transfer unused development rights to nearby sites or convert underused convents and schools into housing without excessive regulatory friction³.

Federal Legal Frameworks

At the federal level, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) has served for decades as a powerful legal shield. RLUIPA prevents local governments from placing substantial burdens on land use intended for religious exercise unless they can prove a compelling government interest using the least restrictive means¹⁷. YIGBY advocates increasingly argue that sheltering the needy constitutes a core theological mandate and “religious exercise,” providing a legal basis to challenge exclusionary zoning in federal court when municipal authorities deny housing permits⁵.

Legislatively, the Yes in God’s Backyard Act, introduced by former Senator Sherrod Brown in 2024, sought to scale these efforts nationally. The bill aimed to provide federal technical assistance and competitive grants to faith-based developers while pushing localities to reduce restrictive zoning¹. Though the bill failed to pass the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, it garnered unprecedented, unified support from major denominations—including the Presbyterian Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the United Church of Christ—signaling a permanent shift in national religious policy priorities toward real estate activation³.

The Financial Architecture of Faith-Based Development

Transforming land into housing requires sophisticated capital structuring that extends far beyond the traditional operational capacity of religious clergy. To execute these visions, FBOs generally partner with experienced non-profit developers, establish joint venture entities, or utilize specialized intermediaries to navigate the complexities of affordable housing finance.

Navigating Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)

The financial engine of nearly all affordable housing in the United States is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, established under the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The program subsidizes development costs in exchange for strict, long-term rent limits³². YIGBY projects depend heavily on securing these credits, which are sold to private investors to generate massive upfront project equity³³. To qualify, a building must meet specific thresholds, such as the “20/50 rule” (reserving 20% of units for tenants earning 50% or less of the area median income) or the “40/60 rule” (reserving 40% of units for tenants at 60% AMI)³².

The LIHTC system is bifurcated into two distinct tracks, which fundamentally dictate the physical scale and financial strategy of any YIGBY development.

Financial Feature	9% LIHTC (Competitive Track)	4% LIHTC (Non-Competitive Track)
Internal Revenue Code Subsidy Level	Yields roughly a 70% subsidy of eligible construction costs over ten years32.	Yields roughly a 30% subsidy of eligible construction costs over ten years.
Allocation Mechanism	Highly competitive and scarce. Allocated by state housing finance agencies via a scoring system outlined in an annual Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP)33.	Statutorily tied to the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds. Often considered automatic if bond requirements and volume caps are met32.
Optimal Project Application	Deep affordability projects, typically smaller scale (under 100 units) due to strict state allocation caps on total credits awarded to a single project33.	Large-scale new construction or major acquisition/rehabilitation projects. Because the subsidy is lower, it requires layering multiple “soft” funding sources to fill the remaining capital gap33.

Because securing 9% credits involves a high degree of competition and risk, some sophisticated affordable housing developers legally bifurcate massive projects into separate condominium structures. For example, in developments like Celadon at Ninth and Broadway or Bow Street Apartments, developers split the building legally by floor or by structure. This complex legal engineering allows one portion of the physical building to utilize 9% credits and the other to utilize 4% credits and tax-exempt bonds (often backed by HUD 223(f) or FHA 221(d)(4) loans), maximizing the total federal subsidy while adhering to state limits³².

Property Tax Welfare Exemptions and UBIT Mitigation

A critical operational concern for FBOs engaging in YIGBY projects is the preservation of their institutional property tax exemptions. If a church generates taxable commercial rental income, it risks triggering Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT) or losing its overarching property tax exemption, which could financially ruin the institution.

In states with mature YIGBY frameworks, such as California, property taxes are governed by the Board of Equalization (BOE) under the “Welfare Exemption,” which relieves properties used exclusively for religious, hospital, scientific, or charitable purposes from local property taxes³⁹. The operation of low-income rental housing legally qualifies as a charitable purpose under California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 214³⁹. However, compliance is notoriously rigorous. FBOs must obtain an Organizational Clearance Certificate (BOE-277 OCC) from the BOE, and their formation documents must prove that the housing entity—often structured as a limited partnership where a non-profit acts as the managing general partner—irrevocably dedicates its assets to charitable purposes even upon dissolution⁴⁰.

The county assessor reviews how the physical property is utilized. Any commingling of market-rate commercial activity, fundraising, or failure to file annual supplemental affidavits (such as the BOE-267-L1 for low-income housing properties owned by limited partnerships) can result in the partial or total revocation of the exemption and crushing retroactive tax liabilities⁴¹.

Philanthropic and Turnkey Intermediaries

Recognizing the vast gap between pastoral duties and real estate syndication, philanthropic intermediaries have stepped in to build institutional capacity, effectively acting as development engines for the movement.

Enterprise Community Partners has operated its Faith-Based Development Initiative (FBDI) for two decades. The program has invested over $6.6 million in pre-development grants and facilitated $211 million in loan capital, resulting in the creation of over 2,000 affordable homes nationally, with an additional 9,000 in the projected pipeline⁴⁵. Enterprise recently expanded its FBDI operations, launching a program in Chattanooga, Tennessee, backed by the Maclellan Foundation and Generosity Trust, to train eight houses of worship⁴⁷. Similarly, in Cleveland, Ohio, the KeyBank Foundation and Cleveland Foundation supported a cohort of six churches (including Antioch Baptist and Mt. Sinai Baptist) to receive pre-development dollars, market studies, and developer matchmaking⁷.

In Southern California, organizations like Wakeland Housing have partnered with congregations such as the Imperial Beach Neighborhood Center and El Cajon Presbyterian to deliver turnkey development services drawing upon their experience of developing nearly 10,000 homes¹⁶. Another highly specialized non-profit, YIGBY.org, operates heavily in San Diego. Rather than relying purely on the sluggish, complex LIHTC system, YIGBY.org leverages philanthropic capital, impact investing, and private financing (such as credit union lines of credit) to build rapid, modular housing. Their vertically integrated platform includes distinct operational arms: CoFi (Community First) for capital capitalization, VIP (Vertically Integrated Partnerships) for centralized construction oversight, and ReSi (Residential Services Initiatives) for long-term asset management¹⁴. With $16 million in capital formation underway, this model minimizes reliance on government subsidies, resulting in vastly accelerated timelines and reduced per-unit costs⁴⁸.

Real Estate Mechanics: Environmental Diligence and Historic Preservation

Before vertical construction can commence, YIGBY projects must survive rigorous physical, environmental, and architectural due diligence, a process frequently complicated by the historic nature and legacy locations of church properties.

Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) and Brownfields

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), property owners can be held strictly liable for historical environmental contamination, even if they did not cause the original pollution⁴⁹. Consequently, lenders and developers mandate adherence to ASTM Standard E1527-21 for environmental due diligence to secure “All Appropriate Inquiries” (AAI) protections.

The process is strictly phased. A Phase I ESA acts as a non-invasive historical review of the property. Environmental professionals review old maps, municipal records, historical photos, and databases to look for red flags, technically known as “Recognized Environmental Conditions” (RECs)⁴⁹. If a REC is identified—such as the historical presence of underground storage tanks, nearby dry cleaners, or illegal dumping—a Phase II ESA is triggered. Phase II is an intrusive process involving physical testing, such as soil borings, groundwater sampling, and vapor intrusion testing, which are analyzed in a laboratory to quantify the exact severity of the contamination⁴⁹.

Many older urban churches are situated on or near former industrial sites, classifying them as contaminated “brownfields.” However, environmental remediation presents a unique funding opportunity. For example, the Friendship Senior Housing project in West Oakland, California, spearheaded by Pastor Dr. Gerald Agee and the Community Housing Development Corporation (CHDC), utilized California State Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Equitable Communities Revitalization Grant (ECRG) funds. These environmental grants financed the demolition of a defunct, contaminated funeral home and remediated the site, transforming a toxic environmental liability into 50 units of healthy, low-income senior housing located directly across from a local library⁸.

The Historic Preservation Dilemma: Razing vs. Refurbishing

A profound structural tension exists within the YIGBY movement regarding architectural preservation. More than 70% of religious buildings in the U.S. were constructed before 1975³. While the public and local historical boards often demand that historic sanctuaries be adaptively reused as housing, the engineering realities make this financially disastrous.

Retrofitting centuries-old masonry structures to meet modern building codes, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility requirements, seismic standards, and modern plumbing/HVAC layouts frequently exceeds the cost of ground-up new construction³. As a result, non-profit developers often conclude that razing ancillary structures (like aging fellowship halls) or selling the property for total demolition is the only financially viable path to achieving deep housing affordability³.

This reality places YIGBY advocates in direct conflict with historic preservation boards. In New York, state assembly members explicitly cited the threat to centuries-old religious architecture as a primary reason for opposing the state’s Faith-Based Affordable Housing Act. Critics argued that the financial incentives to build high-density apartments would result in the irreversible erasure of cultural heritage, effectively incentivizing congregations to destroy historic landmarks to balance their budgets²⁷.

Typologies of Transformation: Project Case Studies

Examining completed and ongoing projects reveals the highly diverse typologies of YIGBY development, demonstrating how physical architecture adapts to local needs and financing constraints.

Project Name & Location	Development Partners	Physical and Financial Typology
Brown Family House (Brookline, MA)	Congregation Kehillath Israel & 2Life Communities (Zoe Weinrobe)	Physical Integration: Developers demolished an adjacent social hall and constructed a physical internal walkway connecting the new 62-unit senior residential building directly to the synagogue’s sanctuary. Residents share an event space, commercial kitchen, and courtyard3.
Bethel AME Church (San Diego, CA)	Rev. Harvey Vaughan, YIGBY.org	Modular & Non-LIHTC Financing: Predating SB 4, the church utilized philanthropic lines of credit to bypass the sluggish LIHTC system. Using prefabricated modular construction, they are developing 16 units (400 sq. ft. each) for low-income seniors and veterans. This brought total costs down to $4 million, roughly half the regional per-unit average11.
Lakeview Landing (Chicago, IL)	Lakeview Lutheran Church, Over the Rainbow Association, City of Chicago	Accessibility Specialization: A six-story, 37-unit building explicitly custom-designed for non-ambulatory people utilizing wheelchairs who can live independently. Rents are capped for households at 30% AMI ($25,200). Financed via $5.8 million in municipal Department of Housing funds2.
The Village at West Jefferson (Louisville, KY)	St. Peter’s UCC (Rev. Dr. Jamesetta Ferguson), Molo Village CDC	Economic Hub (Non-Housing): Responding to community feedback in a historically redlined area, the church prioritized job creation over housing. Re-developing a parking lot, they built a mixed-use economic hub featuring business incubators, health clinics, and job training. An initial $7.9 million HUD investment generated a $27 million economic impact and created 102 jobs.
Grace Lutheran Church (Evanston, IL)	Pastor Luke Harris-Ferree, City of Evanston	Municipal Acquisition: The congregation is actively negotiating to sell its parking lot directly to the city for the construction of townhouses or two-flat affordable homes, bypassing standard zoning delays. The process has sparked municipal debates regarding conflicts of interest2.

Socio-Political Resistance and Civic Displacement

Despite the clear moral alignment of housing the poor, YIGBY projects face ferocious resistance at the neighborhood level, often culminating in tense civic battles.

NIMBY Backlash and Misinformation

Neighborhood opposition typically coalesces around concerns regarding parking scarcity, increased traffic, altered neighborhood character, and depressed property values⁴. In Laguna Beach, California, the Neighborhood Congregational Church proposed a 44-unit affordable housing complex on its underutilized campus. Even though the project is legally protected by SB 4’s by-right provisions—which explicitly strip the city of the power to deny the permit based on neighbor complaints—local residents launched a fierce opposition campaign, gathering over 2,000 signatures on an online petition²⁷. Opponents falsely characterized the permanent affordable housing as a “homeless shelter” and cited proximity to liquor stores to argue the development posed a danger to local high school students²⁷. While state preemption laws legally nullify these complaints at the permit counter, the resulting political toxicity can severely fracture congregations and permanently alienate the church from its immediate neighbors, leading some pastors to pause development efforts²⁷.

The Threat of Civic Displacement

A more nuanced, academic critique of the YIGBY movement involves the loss of secular civic space. Religious buildings inherently serve as subsidized social infrastructure for the broader community; research indicates that 87% of the beneficiaries of activities hosted in religious spaces—such as Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, food pantries, community childcare centers, credit unions, and health clinics—are not members of the host congregation¹. When a church is demolished to construct affordable housing, these vital secular nonprofits are frequently displaced, as they cannot afford commercial market rents³. Consequently, the transition of a property from an active religious community hub to strictly residential housing can trigger a painful grieving process for the neighborhood and result in a net loss of essential social services, even as it adds residential capacity³.

Strategic Outlook and Future Implications

The data and legislative trends surrounding the YIGBY movement suggest several critical second- and third-order implications for the future of urban planning and religious institutions.

First, the YIGBY movement is fundamentally reshaping the operational and business models of the American church. As tithing revenue declines symmetrically with attendance, land development is shifting from a peripheral charitable endeavor to a core institutional survival strategy. Real estate asset management is becoming as critical to a diocese’s long-term sustainability as pastoral care. Organizations like Enterprise Community Partners and YIGBY.org are effectively functioning as outsourced real estate investment trusts (REITs) for denominations, moving capital across massive portfolios of religious land to generate sustainable net operating income. To support this paradigm shift, institutions like the Urban Land Institute (ULI) are increasingly expanding educational resources, such as the Foundations of Real Estate Development certificates, to bridge the severe knowledge gap between theology and real estate syndication⁵⁴.

Second, YIGBY acts as a highly effective, politically insulated mechanism for broader zoning reform. Pro-housing advocates face immense political difficulty convincing suburban homeowners to accept multi-family housing. However, by wrapping aggressive zoning overrides in the moral authority of a church’s charitable mission, state legislators can bypass traditional NIMBY defenses. Once the legal precedent is firmly established that state governments can preempt local zoning for faith-based affordable housing, the jurisprudential and political groundwork is laid to expand those overrides to commercial corridors and broader residential areas.

Third, the intersection of housing density and climate policy will likely accelerate federal and state support for these initiatives. The American Planning Association’s historical defense of exclusionary, low-density zoning is increasingly viewed as ecologically unsustainable¹⁹. Because transportation remains the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, state governments are recognizing that preempting local zoning to build dense, transit-adjacent YIGBY housing is not merely a social welfare policy, but an acute, intersectional climate mitigation strategy designed to curb suburban sprawl¹¹.

Strategic Alliances: Leveraging Moral Authority for Large-Scale Commercial Development

Beyond non-profit and internal church financing structures, there is profound potential for groups like the Rescue Mission Movement and broader YIGBY coalitions to leverage their moral authority to break down barriers hindering large-scale commercial housing development.

Commercial builders and real estate developers face immense regulatory hurdles in their efforts to increase the national housing supply. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) reports that regulatory requirements account for nearly 25% of the cost of constructing a single-family home and upwards of 40% for typical multifamily apartment developments⁵⁸. In response, several powerful national advocacy groups—including the NAHB, the National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC), and The Real Estate Roundtable (RER)—aggressively lobby for systemic supply-side reforms. These organizations actively seek to modernize federal housing programs, streamline excessive environmental reviews, limit parking requirements, and implement sweeping land-use and zoning reforms designed to encourage higher density, transit-oriented development⁵⁸.

However, despite their vast capital and political lobbying power, commercial developers frequently face severe “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) opposition. Community organizations often criticize pro-housing (YIMBY) and commercial development advocates as being antagonistic, self-interested, or purely driven by corporate profit, which easily stalls development²⁹.

This is where the Rescue Mission Movement and YIGBY organizations offer a mutually beneficial synergy. Faith-based institutions carry an unassailable moral mandate: to shelter the vulnerable, house the homeless, and serve the poor. By forming strategic alliances, commercial builders can essentially wrap their development goals and rezoning efforts in the moral authority of the church, effectively neutralizing traditional NIMBY arguments that rely on anti-developer sentiment. In return, cash-poor but land-rich faith organizations gain access to the massive private capital, construction expertise, and scalability that large commercial builder associations possess.

This concept of leveraging moral authority to attract immense commercial capital has strong historical precedent. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, global Christian leader John R. Mott successfully built alliances with some of the wealthiest commercial industrialists in American history, including John D. Rockefeller, the McCormicks, the Vanderbilts, and Andrew Carnegie. As detailed in John R. Mott, 1865-1955: A Biography, Mott utilized the moral imperative of Christian causes—particularly the expansion of the YMCA—to secure massive financial backing from corporate titans, enabling structural growth on a global scale. Today, by partnering with the NAHB, NMHC, or RER, the modern Rescue Mission Movement could similarly harness the power of national commercial builders to achieve monumental, mutually beneficial shifts in housing policy and production.

The Yes in God’s Backyard movement represents a profound spatial and economic realignment. Faced with an existential demographic crisis and overwhelming deferred maintenance, faith-based organizations are leveraging their most valuable remaining asset to address the nation’s severe housing shortage. Ultimately, the success of the YIGBY movement demonstrates that the future of affordable urban housing depends heavily on unlocking the vast, dormant potential of the land already held in the public trust by America’s religious communities, provided they can master the intricate financial, environmental, and political machinations required to build.

This report was generated by Google Gemini Deep Research using the prompt:

“Research the growing YIGBY (Yes in God’s Back Yard) movement. Identify the current state of YIGBY related efforts and policy proposals.” then “Identify potential national strategic alliances that the Rescue Mission Movement and YIGBY organizations could secure with housing developers to advocate for market based solutions to the housing supply shortfall. Provide a historic example.” (prompt shortened for brevity)

It was reviewed by Dr. Andrew Sears for accuracy.

Works cited

1. The “Yes In God’s Backyard” Movement and the Preservation of Religious Spaces, https://studentreview.hks.harvard.edu/the-yes-in-gods-backyard-movement-and-the-preservation-of-religious-spaces/
2. How about in God’s backyard? – Abundant Housing Illinois, https://abundanthousingillinois.org/op-eds/how-about-in-gods-backyard/
3. Yes in God’s Backyard (YIGBY): An Opportunity for Housing in Maryland, https://preservationmaryland.org/yes-in-gods-backyard-yigby-an-opportunity-for-housing-in-maryland/
4. The YIGBY Movement—Unlocking Church-Owned Land for Affordable Housing, https://shelterforce.org/2025/02/28/the-yigby-movement-unlocking-church-owned-land-for-affordable-housing/
5. Churches want to build affordable housing. Why are cities stopping them? – Scott Peters, https://scottpeters.house.gov/in-the-news/churches-want-to-build-affordable-housing-why-are-cities-stopping-them
6. Majora Carter: Don’t leave! We can make low-status neighborhoods better – Thriving Congregations Coordination Program, https://thrivingcongregations.org/fandl_feed_topics/social-innovation/
7. ‘Yes in God’s Backyard,’ or YIGBY: Group Aims to Build Affordable Housing on Religious Land | KQED, https://www.kqed.org/news/11752804/yes-in-gods-backyard-or-yigby-group-aims-to-build-affordable-housing-on-religious-land
8. Holy Redevelopment! YIGBY with Brownfields in Action – www.cclr.org, https://www.cclr.org/expert-advice/holy-redevelopment
9. City Council Unanimously Adopts Mayor’s YIGBY Housing Reforms – City of San Diego, https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/housing/newsrelease191217
10. 2023 California Housing Legislative Round Up – Terner Center, https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/research-and-policy/legislative-recap-2023/
11. Center for Housing Policy and Design – SB4 Report 2025, https://housingalliance.ucsd.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/96/2025/05/Unlocking-Housing-Potential-The-Center-for-Housing-Policy-and-Design.pdf
12. The Housing Potential for Land Owned by Faith-Based Organizations and Colleges, https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Faith-Based-and-College-Lands-Housing-2023-.pdf
13. Yes In God’s Back Yard – California YIMBY, https://cayimby.org/blog/yes-in-gods-back-yard/
14. YIGBY – giv4, https://giv4.org/yigby/
15. Yes in God’s Backyard – CHAPA – Citizens’ Housing & Planning Association, https://chapa.org/advocates-and-policymakers/policy/state-legislation/yes-in-gods-backyard-yigby/
16. FAITH-BASED PARTNERS – Wakeland Housing, https://www.wakelandhdc.com/faith-based-partners
17. Senator Scott Wiener, 11th Senate District – Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, https://nonprofithousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Fact-Sheet-SB-4-Affordable-Housing-on-Faith-Lands-Act-2.23.23.pdf
18. SB 4 – California YIMBY, https://cayimby.org/legislation/sb-4/
19. State Preemption of Local Zoning Laws as Intersectional Climate Policy, https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-135/state-preemption-of-local-zoning-laws-as-intersectional-climate-policy/
20. “Yes in God’s Back Yard” Legislation Is the Next Tool to Battle the Housing Crisis | Insights, https://www.venable.com/insights/publications/2023/09/yes-in-gods-back-yard-legislation-is-the-next-tool
21. Support for SB 4: Affordable Housing on Faith Lands Act – The City of Berkeley, https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-01-17%20Item%2013%20Support%20for%20SB%204%20Affordable%20Housing.pdf
22. Governor Signs Long-Awaited Affordable Housing on Faith and Higher Education Lands Act of 2023 – Cox, Castle & Nicholson, https://www.coxcastle.com/publication-governor-signs-long-awaited-affordable-housing-on-faith-and-higher-education-lands-act-of-2023
23. SB 4: Housing on Religious or College Property | Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, https://www.bwslaw.com/news/sb-4-housing-on-religious-or-college-property/
24. Affordable Housing on Faith Lands Act – RPM Team, https://www.rpm-team.com/news/sb4-affordable-housing-religious-land
25. Governor Signs Senator Wiener’s Landmark Housing Bills, https://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/governor-signs-senator-wieners-landmark-housing-bills
26. SB 4 – Enacts Affordable Housing On Faith And Higher Education Lands Act Of 2023, https://www.lcwlegal.com/news/sb-4-enacts-affordable-housing-on-faith-and-higher-education-lands-act-of-2023/
27. THINK PIECE: Good Faith Actors and Affordable Housing Policy, https://churchproperties.nd.edu/news-events/think-piece-good-faith-actors-and-affordable-housing-policy/
28. Legislation Map Page | YIGBY® Platform, https://yigby.org/legislation-map
29. Yimby Movement – American Planning Association, https://planning.org/foresight/trend/9310293/
30. Florida’s Live Local Act and YIGBY Form Unified Affordable Housing Strategy, https://darroweverett.com/florida-live-local-act-vs-yigby-differences-legal-analysis/
31. Residential Development on Faith-Owned Land – Local Housing Solutions, https://www.localhousingsolutions.org/housing-policy-library/residential-development-on-faith-owned-land/
32. What are 4% and 9% LIHTC Credits? | Janover – HUD 223(f) Loans, https://www.hud223f.loans/glossary/4-and-9-percent-lihtcs/
33. What’s the Difference Between 4% and 9% LIHTC—and Why It Matters – Compliance Prime, https://www.complianceprime.com/blog/2025/08/08/whats-the-difference-between-4-and-9-lihtc-and-why-it-matters/
34. The 2026-27 Budget: Streamlining California’s Affordable Housing Funding System, https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/5154
35. Types of Funding – Housing Toolbox, https://www.housingtoolbox.org/financing-and-funding/basics
36. Understanding the Differences Between 4% and 9% LIHTC Tax Credits – Hooker DeJong, https://hookerdejong.com/understanding-the-differences-between-4-and-9-lihtc-tax-credits/
37. Low Income Housing Tax Credits Explained: 4% vs 9% LIHTC for Affordable Housing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rxmwr8dtvc
38. Mixing 4% and 9% LIHTCs – Tax Credit Advisor, https://www.taxcreditadvisor.com/articles/mixing-4-9-lihtcs/
39. Welfare Exemption – Ventura County Assessor, https://assessor.venturacounty.gov/tax-savings/exemptions/welfare/
40. California’s Welfare Exemption Explained – Jonathan Grissom, Nonprofit Attorney, https://www.californianonprofitlaw.com/blog/2019/5/8/californias-welfare-exemption
41. Property Tax Payment & Relief – Welfare or Veterans’ Organization Exemptions Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/faqs/welfarevetsfaqs.htm
42. Property Tax Exemptions to Facilitate Affordable Housing: Lessons from California, https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/PropertyTaxExemptionsBrief2025.pdf
43. Institutional Exemptions – Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office, https://assessor.santacruzcountyca.gov/PropertyTaxSavings/InstitutionalExemptions.aspx
44. Welfare and Veterans’ Organization Exemptions Use Requirements and Exemption Claim Forms (Assessor) – State Board of Equalization, https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/welfareorgexemp.htm
45. Enterprise Faith-Based Development Initiative SM, https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/impact-areas/preservation-and-production/faith-based-development
46. Enterprise Selects 6 Houses of Worship for Faith-Based Development Initiative, https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/news/enterprise-selects-6-houses-worship-faith-based-development-initiative
47. Enterprise to Launch Faith-Based Development Initiative in Chattanooga, https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/news/enterprise-launch-faith-based-development-initiative-chattanooga
48. YIGBY® Platform, https://yigby.org/
49. Phase I vs. Phase II Environmental Site Assessments: What’s the Difference and When Do You Need Each? | Bick Law LLP, https://www.bicklawllp.com/our-insights/phase-i-vs-phase-ii-environmental-site-assessments-whats-the-difference-and-when-do-you-need-each/
50. Understanding Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (In Plain English), https://edge-es.com/phase-i-vs-phase-ii-environmental-site-assessments/
51. Differences Between Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site Assessments, https://nationalduediligenceservices.com/phase-1-esa-vs-phase-2-key-differences-and-when-each-is-necessary/
52. What you need to know about Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment (ESAs), https://www.enviroforensics.com/blog/what-you-need-to-know-about-phase-i-ii-environmental-site-assessment-esas/
53. Affordable Housing in God’s Backyard – Tax Credit Advisor, https://www.taxcreditadvisor.com/articles/affordable-housing-in-gods-backyard/
54. Foundations of the Development Process – ULI Learning – Urban Land Institute, https://learning.uli.org/courses/foundations-of-the-development-process
55. All Courses – Urban Land Institute – ULI Learning, https://learning.uli.org/collections/certificates-and-bundles
56. All Courses – Urban Land Institute – ULI Learning, https://learning.uli.org/collections
57. The American Planning Association calls “smaller, older single-family homes… the largest source of naturally occurring affordable housing” and has published a guide for its members on how to use zoning to preserve those homes. : r/yimby – Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/yimby/comments/190q69j/the_american_planning_association_calls_smaller/
58. Housing Affordability – National Association of Home Builders | NAHB, https://www.nahb.org/advocacy/top-priorities/solving-the-housing-affordability-crisis/housing-affordability
59. NAHB Urges Congress to Ease Regulatory Burdens to Help Housing Affordability, https://www.nahb.org/news-and-economics/press-releases/2026/01/nahb-urges-congress-to-ease-regulatory-burdens-to-help-housing-affordability
60. NMHC | Home, https://www.nmhc.org/
61. May 22, 2026 – The Real Estate Roundtable, https://www.rer.org/roundtable-weekly/may-22-2026/