That's a new term to me -- I like it! I agree ADUs get a bit too much focus, but I suspect they play a sort of gateway drug role into bigger, more impactful reforms. I've also drawn a lot of lessons about what makes for successful reforms from ADU policymaking.
The little ecosystem of small local builders building ADUs can be leveraged into those same builders building 3-5 townhouses or a few small lot detached houses on infill lots.
I fear the NIMBYs use them to avoid change. Just an excuse to shove housing growth in the back alley by the trash can, keep the house in front, and don’t change the height of the neighborhood.
this is not my experience at all in 10+ years of working with this stuff; many of the most desirable plalces to live in this city are places where we *should not* be building density, but ADUs don't accelerate the problem so severely; NIMBYs don't like them because it increases parking scarcity
They're 100% used for that purpose, but I also don't see many advocates for ADUs who pack up and go home after getting them legalized. Like a lot of stuff in housing reform (and all policy and advocacy, I'm sure), it's important to speak to people at different stages in that journey.
Which isn't to say that everyone needs to be speaking to that audience -- it's not something I talk about much. But I'm glad we have people out there who are, and I try to see them as complementing those working on other, arguably higher-impact issues.