Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not an assumption of hypocrisy. It genuinely is hypocrisy. A group of people are praising themselves for their inclusivity, while pushing for exclusionary policies. If they want to pursue these policies without being hypocritical then they need to change their messaging to be transparent about their desire for exclusion rather than inclusion.
Are you saying that unless one welcomes an infinity of people in their backyard, one cannot be inclusive? I think you should explain and defend the policy you wish, instead of critizing an imaginary adversary by putting words in their mouth. If you want more housing, hoping that prices will go down, say so. If you favor a SF Bay area looking progressively more like NY City, say so. Many people are very happy in NYC.…
> If you want more housing, hoping that prices will go down, say so. If you favor a SF Bay area looking progressively more like NY City, say so. Many people are very happy in NYC.
Yes, absolutely. Build more housing and build denser housing. This is what pro-housing people have been saying for years.
> And prices are also very high there.
There's 8 million people in NYC instead of 800,000 in San Francisco.
> Just expect some people to frankly disagree with that proposed evolution, and don't attack them by being non inclusive: this is not the question. Misrepresenting their arguments is not helping further your point of view.
Pointing out the contradiction of one's purported values with their actions is not an attack. When people support exclusory policies like rent control and curbing housing development with the goal of reducing the ability of people to move there, they are being exclusive. This is not a misrepresentation. People who support said policies while simultaneously purporting to foster an inclusive community are indeed being hypocritical. This is not an attack, this is a factually correct observation.