Abundance, Strong Towns, and the real problems of change

A debate about strategies

Charles Marohn of Strong Towns and I recently had a thoughtful and spirited back-and-forth about his critique of Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson. To my pleasant surprise, he engaged with me generously, despite the size of his platform relative to mine—and despite the fact that I kind of came out of the gate swinging. Our exchange ended up resonating more than I expected—many readers liked, shared, and commented on it, and one suggested that I publish the whole thing as a standalone piece to make it easier to find and follow.

I reached out to Chuck to ask if he’d be OK with that, and he was gracious enough to say yes. So here it is—our conversation. I hope it sparks more fruitful dialogue!

First, be sure to read his review:

Here’s our exchange from there:

Stephanie: “elite progressivism that promises to solve hard problems with centralized intelligence and upgraded institutions” I do not get this criticism at all. How is “roll back bureaucracy and end the vested-interest, local veto points that are getting in the way of progress” a top-down approach? How is it a centralized approach? How is it an ‘upgraded institutions’ approach, whatever that means? Why can’t you just accept that there’s way more overlap between your vision and the abundance vision than there is conflict? It is not a zero-sum game where a good idea in one place takes away from your own pool of (also good!) ideas. I really admire Strong Towns so much and I’m confused by the needlessly competitive feeling of this review.

Chuck: Thank you for this response. I appreciate both the generosity and the admiration for Strong Towns, and I agree: this doesn’t need to be a zero-sum conversation. In fact, I think there’s a lot of value in highlighting where these visions overlap and where they don’t, because the nuances matter for how we approach change.

To your main question: the Abundance agenda often talks about “rolling back bureaucracy” and “breaking local veto points” as a way to unlock progress. That sounds bottom-up, but the mechanism is still primarily top-down. The theory of change is: the federal or state government needs to preempt local authority, or restructure how decisions are made, so that innovation (defined at a higher level) can proceed more efficiently. That’s a structural centralization of power—even if the intent is to empower others. It’s about redesigning the pipeline, not rethinking whether a pipeline is the right tool in the first place.

By contrast, the Strong Towns approach isn’t just about clearing blockages; it’s about re-localizing decision-making and financial accountability. It’s about shifting the center of gravity away from distant institutions and toward communities themselves. That’s not anti-government or anti-coordination. But it is deeply skeptical of the idea that systemic fragility can be overcome by better management from above.

So yes, there’s overlap, especially in the diagnosis. We both see ossified systems, perverse incentives, and rules that lock in bad outcomes. But the prescription is different. Abundance wants to tune up the machine. Strong Towns often finds that the machine itself is the problem.

I don’t see this review as competitive. I see it as part of a larger conversation about what kind of systems we should be building in a time of profound uncertainty and change. If Abundance gets more people thinking about these questions, that’s a win. But we should also be honest about where our intuitions pull us in different directions.

Thanks again for pushing me to say that more clearly.

Stephanie: Thank you for that thoughtful reply to my frustrated post. I should mention I'm a planning commissioner and local journalist dealing with these issues in practice—high housing costs, vacant storefronts, fatal crashes, kids in crisis.

I'm still confused about what “re-localizing decision-making” means operationally. You wrote in a Strong Towns piece that most public input is “useless” and that “most cities would be better off putting together a good vision statement and a set of guiding principles for making decisions, then getting on with it.” I agree completely! But it seems at odds with “re-localizing decision making.” As you know, decision-making is already happening parcel by parcel, neighbor by neighbor—and it’s horrible. The town says in survey after survey, “We want more housing,” but 5 old rich homeowners show up to kill it every time, and they’re like, “I vote for you, Councilor, obey me!” So I don’t really see “top down” or “distant institutions” as being our problem at all. I see minoritarianism. Narrow interests beating out community interests.

Klein and Thompson see this same dysfunction. When they talk about breaking local veto points, they’re responding to the gap between what communities say they want in e.g. comprehensive plans and what actually gets built through endless public review.

So what am I supposed to do? We have a plan that says we want more housing, but every project gets bogged down in process. Should I defer to five vocal neighbors or the broader democratic mandate? If you say that’s still centering the machine, which needs to be thrown out, that’s great but I have no idea what that means in practice.

I think Abundance is a bit of a Rorschach test, where we project a lot onto it, and I’m not sure top-down v. bottom-up is quite the right framework. Or if it is, I don’t see how, as someone on the ground, I deal with the weaponization of “bottom-up.”

Chuck: Let me start with where we agree: I’ve said that most public input is useless, and I stand by that. Not because I don’t value democratic engagement, but because our current public process is structured to reward narrow, self-interested vetoes over meaningful, broad-based feedback. It’s not bottom-up in any meaningful sense. It’s hyper-performative, where power doesn’t reflect need, and where outcomes are distorted by who has the time and leverage to show up.

So when I talk about re-localizing decision-making, I don’t mean giving even more power to the five loudest people in the room. I mean restoring local systems that are capable of acting on community values, not just responding to noise. That’s what I think we’ve lost.

Right now, our local governments are overbuilt for input and underbuilt for action. Everyone has a chance to speak, but nobody feels heard. We process every decision like it’s a Supreme Court case, rather than building systems that allow small, incremental development to happen by right, so long as it’s aligned with a coherent vision and set of principles. That’s what I mean when I say: adopt a vision, codify your values, and get on with it.

So when Klein and Thompson talk about breaking local veto points, I think they’re partly right, but I get nervous when that critique turns into: “We need state-level mandates to bulldoze through the mess.” Because then you’ve just centralized the power again, only now it’s more brittle, less accountable, and often even further removed from the nuance of place. What’s broken isn’t just the local process, it’s the system architecture that makes every decision high-stakes, discretionary, and litigable.

To your real, practical question: what are you supposed to do? I’d say: work to shift the default. If you have a comp plan that says “more housing,” then the next step is to reform your code so that small-scale, by-right development that aligns with that plan doesn’t need a permission slip every time. You’re not ignoring the neighbors, you’re respecting their voice in the plan, not privileging it at the podium.

We released a toolkit for the top six reforms every local government should do.

Re-localizing means building systems that allow more people to participate by acting, not just by testifying. It’s not about mob rule, and it’s not about central mandates. It’s about making sure your local process isn’t so gummed up with discretion and gatekeeping that even good ideas die in committee.

My hope is that we build systems that don’t just solve the dysfunction temporarily, but make better decisions inevitable over time.

Stephanie: Chuck - I really appreciate you taking the time to walk through this with me. What you say about "overbuilt for input and underbuilt for action" is exactly the problem I see. I love the vision of by-right development following clear community values rather than case-by-case political battles.

But I'm still stuck on the bootstrapping problem. As you know, one can’t just legalize “small, incremental development by right” like Thanos snapping his fingers. Any change to land use has to go through a political process—I have not seen a way out of that in your toolkit or any similar toolkits, please let me know if I missed it. Our planning commission has been trying for a while to get recommendations of reforms like those in your toolkit to council. But our staff won’t champion it because they get beat up by council, council won’t lead because they're scared of political blowback, and we commissioners have the knowledge but no power.

Meanwhile, our governor's housing advisor spent two years trying to create a modest “office of housing” but that ALSO had to go through a political process, and it got blocked by committee chairs protecting turf. Then the advisor got fired for failing to deliver. The governor (Democrat, this is NM) is not interested in state preemption so that is not the spectre looming around these parts. Nothing happening at all is the spectre. I think we’re not alone in this.

So when you say “make better decisions inevitable over time,” I'm genuinely curious: what breaks these cycles when the dysfunction goes all the way up? At what point does external pressure become necessary to create space for the kind of local institutional change you're advocating? I’ve been doing your “start small” strategy for years and it has come to naught.

I worry we're waiting for organic reform that political incentives make impossible.

Chuck: Thank you for sticking with this conversation and for sharing what it’s actually like to try to do this work from inside the system. What you’re describing is a brutally familiar pattern, and I think your phrase “paralysis all the way up” might be one of the most accurate summaries I’ve ever heard.

You’re absolutely right that there’s no Thanos snap to legalize small-scale, by-right development. Everything goes through a political process, and every step invites resistance from those who benefit from the status quo. Or who fear being punished for rocking the boat.

So let me be clear: when I say we want to “make better decisions inevitable over time,” I don’t mean inevitable like gravity. I mean inevitable like compound interest—tiny, persistent, visible pressure applied in the same direction until the math changes. It’s slow, messy, and often invisible at first.

This is why the Strong Towns approach matters even more in places like yours, where the problem isn’t preemption from above, but institutional entropy from within.

So what breaks the cycle?

Not a single lever. But here are a few that I think work together:

1. Narrative dominance. Most communities have no alternative story about why the current system fails. Our job is to provide that story, clearly, repeatedly, and with examples that show what’s possible. When councilmembers start hearing the same questions from multiple directions—“Why are we blocking gentle density that aligns with our values?”—they start to feel the pressure shift.

2. Create visible wins. If the system won’t legalize ADUs by right across the board, help one homeowner do it as a pilot. Or find one that is grandfathered in and working well. Document everything. Turn the story into a column, a workshop, a visual. Sometimes the clearest path is to de-risk the unfamiliar by showing that it’s already working, quietly. The housing toolkit I shared with you is full or boringly normal people doing these things we want to ultimately seem boringly normal.

3. Strategic allyship inside the bureaucracy. You don’t need your entire staff to champion reform, just one or two mid-level staffers willing to help shape internal proposals, provide cost estimates, or identify the least risky way to get started. Celebrate their efforts publicly to protect them institutionally.

4. Feedback loops that don’t require council. Consider embedding reforms inside budget decisions, infrastructure maintenance plans, or administrative manuals. If you can’t change zoning directly, can you change how capital improvements prioritize walkable areas? Can you bake small wins into how staff scopes repairs?

5. Pressure from organized outsiders. Not state preemption, but organized citizen campaigns. If your commissioners and staff are stuck, outside groups (like a Strong Towns Local Conversation) can bring energy and legitimacy to the push. Don’t make it a demand for radical change; make it a call to implement the next smallest step.

This is exactly why we’ve invested so heavily in our Local Conversations program. We’re working directly with teams of people on the ground who are pushing and pulling on these levers every day. We’re helping local leaders, advocates, and citizens build durable coalitions that can outlast a single council vote or staff shakeup. Narrative change is essential, but it has to be paired with organized effort, strategic timing, and the ability to act when the window opens.

And, yes, sometimes none of this is enough. Sometimes the dysfunction is so deep that you're left shouting into the wind. I wish I had a cleaner answer.

You may not be able to fix it from where you sit, but you can make sure no one forgets what’s broken. And that’s not nothing.

I’m grateful you’re still showing up and doing what you do. You’re the kind of person we really want to help and support.

Stephanie: Those five concrete suggestions are very helpful, if a little overwhelming, thank you! I really appreciate that you're acknowledging how difficult the “just change the zoning” part actually is, and that you’re offering practical tactics rather than just institutional theory.

I think you’re right about celebrating visible wins, although we haven’t had any of those in so long in this town—but during the Manhattan Project and early Cold War, Los Alamos did build a lot of “missing middle” housing (well, the government did, in a big panic) and I point people to that, so they can see it’s not scary. It’s still the most affordable housing in town today.

I’m very interested in learning more about the Local Conversations program, since I’ve been working pretty solo on this for years! I really could use some help.

I also appreciate your honesty that “sometimes none of this is enough.” That’s exactly what I'm grappling with … NIMBY power is so entrenched at every level.

This is why I keep coming back to state intervention, even though I know you are skeptical (as is our governor, apparently). When you say state preemption centralizes power, I see it differently. Current zoning rules were imposed top-down in the first place. A state law that says “just kidding, let’s go back to all housing types allowed by right” would actually decentralize decision-making back to individual property owners. It’s not imposing new restrictions, it’s returning to an older pre-Euclidean model, right? It removes restrictions and frees people up to build things.

If you ever come to Santa Fe (I’d invite you to Los Alamos but I can’t see why anyone would come here unless they were a nuclear or Cold War buff), we can have coffee and hash out that philosophical difference. For now, I’d love to hear anything about how Strong Towns might concretely support our local efforts. You can email me, too, at stephanie.nakhleh1@gmail.com if you or someone at ST has ideas for what we can do as a planning commission.