Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

inpractice.yimbyaction.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 539 posts

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#31

Post by wormlord »

Probably gonna get downvoted for quoting Lenin on this site -- but he nailed this 120 years ago in "What is to be done?".

We are witnessing the collapse of Liberalism in real-time. Liberalism has outlived its usefulness as a tool of containing class conflict. The US ruling class has nearly consolidated absolute power and is disposing of Liberalism because it was only ever a tool used for their benefit. This is not just some Commie "zero-sum" perspective, the Silicon Valley E/ACC guys like Thiel have admitted this.

Because of this, there is no liberal/reformist solution to our current crisis because Liberalism denies the existence of class struggle -- the root cause of our current crisis. It is like trying to model quantum gravity with classical mechanics. It cannot be done, you will never arrive at the truth.

"Denied was the fact of growing impoverishment, the process of proletarisation, and the intensification of capitalist contradictions ... Denied was the theory of the class struggle, on the alleged grounds that it could not be applied to a strictly democratic society governed according to the will of the majority, etc."

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#32

Post by amanaplanacanal »

woah wrote: post #20

A popular view in the YIMBY community is that restrictive zoning and other policies that limit housing are pushed by homeowners who are benefitting from a housing shortage, in some kind of long-range Machiavellian conspiracy to alter macroeconomics in their favor. But this doesn't really hold up when you think about it. Restrictions on housing expansion are generally very local, with projects being blocked on the mun…

I suspect fear of change is a big part of it, people choose where they want to live then want it to stay exactly like that forever.

Another big part is people not wanting the poors in their neighborhood. The more exclusive it is, the better.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#33

Post by senderista »

ModernMech wrote: post #8
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #4

Instead of getting tangled up in social issues, liberal politicians should be prioritizing housing, infrastructure and government services supporting people's economic activity of all kinds. Delivering better lives for people, and having the courage to stand up to vested interests, from house owners to corporations, would create a huge and lasting political win across a broad section of the electorate.

It always comes back to social issues because some people have a problem with policies that support all kinds of economic activities.

This is the GOP "wedge strategy" that squashes potentially-popular economic policies that the oligarchy opposes by distracting the electorate with culture-war issues.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#34

Post by cortesoft »

avidiax wrote: post #9

I think the author has it quite backwards, at least as it comes to housing. Politicians are beholden to the members of their district, not would-be members. Sure, more affordable housing would benefit many people, but it wouldn't benefit the members of the district, particularly the wealthy and powerful, since more affordable housing is very nearly equivalent to real estate values decreasing (at the very least, as pe…

> real estate prices aren't rental rates

Sure, but they are heavily correlated. Price changes in real estate are reflected in rental rates (not 1 to 1, but still reflected)

Also, many of those renters in each politician’s district would like to purchase a home in the same district if the prices came down enough, so the politicians should (in theory) be beholden to their interests, too.

Of course, in reality, real estate owners are a much more powerful (per capita) political force than renters are, so politicians are not automatically catering to the larger majority of their constituents that are not real estate owners.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#35

Post by loeg »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #3

> In many ways, Jerry was ahead of the curve. He was lamenting “everything bagel liberalism” and “process over outcomes” before it was cool. Process over outcomes is a great way of putting it. For example, California has a well known environmental law, often referred to as its acronym, CEQA. Intended to protect the environment, it was certainly well intentioned, and surely much of what it accomplishes is good. But as…

Yeah, the entire result of NEPA/CEQA/SEPA legislation is mandated process rather than any specific environmental goals or regulation. They should be scrapped and replaced with specific goals and/or a government regulatory authority (like the EPA).

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#36

Post by JadeNB »

woah wrote: post #20

A popular view in the YIMBY community is that restrictive zoning and other policies that limit housing are pushed by homeowners who are benefitting from a housing shortage, in some kind of long-range Machiavellian conspiracy to alter macroeconomics in their favor. But this doesn't really hold up when you think about it. Restrictions on housing expansion are generally very local, with projects being blocked on the mun…

> A popular view in the YIMBY community is that restrictive zoning and other policies that limit housing are pushed by homeowners who are benefitting from a housing shortage, in some kind of long-range Machiavellian conspiracy to alter macroeconomics in their favor. But this doesn't really hold up when you think about it.

> Restrictions on housing expansion are generally very local, with projects being blocked on the municipal level, or on the neighborhood level. But actually, more housing in a neighborhood would tend to benefit homeowners there.

I think that "restrictive zoning ... [is] pushed by homeowners" and "actually, more housing in a neighborhood would tend to benefit homeowners there" can both be true. Arguing that someone would be acting counter to their interests by supporting a policy doesn't mean that they don't support it!

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#37

Post by TulliusCicero »

woah wrote: post #20

A popular view in the YIMBY community is that restrictive zoning and other policies that limit housing are pushed by homeowners who are benefitting from a housing shortage, in some kind of long-range Machiavellian conspiracy to alter macroeconomics in their favor. But this doesn't really hold up when you think about it. Restrictions on housing expansion are generally very local, with projects being blocked on the mun…

I agree that the motivating issue at the very local level is probably less finances and more the impact of having more housing: aesthetics, parking impacts, noise, increased crowding for local resources (parks/schools/libraries/etc), not wanting lower income people in your neighborhood*, etc.

But it should be noted that while what you say about land is probably true, many landowners are also landlords, and it benefits them for the rent to be higher.

* Yes, this one is real. I've even seen people here fully admit to it, though it makes you look rather classist and unreasonable, so most people aren't gonna say it out loud.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#38

Post by tasspeed »

avidiax wrote: post #9

I think the author has it quite backwards, at least as it comes to housing. Politicians are beholden to the members of their district, not would-be members. Sure, more affordable housing would benefit many people, but it wouldn't benefit the members of the district, particularly the wealthy and powerful, since more affordable housing is very nearly equivalent to real estate values decreasing (at the very least, as pe…

So the simple answer here seems to be removing our focus from satisfying property owners, no? It's okay to abandon a system when it no longer works for the community. Constituents having to move to capture the improvement in pricing is not the ideal outcome, the ideal outcome is protecting constituents and meeting them where they are. In the worst case scenario, constituents might end up homeless rather than stable in another district where prices are lower, whereas land owners might see the line on a chart go down if the value of their real estate drops. I am much more inclined to help the constituents...

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#39

Post by soco »

wwweston wrote: post #29
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #4

Instead of getting tangled up in social issues, liberal politicians should be prioritizing housing, infrastructure and government services supporting people's economic activity of all kinds. Delivering better lives for people, and having the courage to stand up to vested interests, from house owners to corporations, would create a huge and lasting political win across a broad section of the electorate.

That's pretty much where liberal politicians end up targeting most of their policymaking and even a sizable portion of their campaign platform (as demonstrated in the Harris platform). Yet "tangled up in social issues" remains a popular misconception. Why?

Because anything related to "delivering better lives" gets labeled as "tangled up social issues" and discarded in favor of "increasing profits". Maybe the majority only understands life through money? Like, a better life means more money, period - and has no concept that a better life could mean road safety, reliable healthcare, serious schooling, quiet retirement, and such.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#40

Post by Ericson2314 »

avidiax wrote: post #9

I think the author has it quite backwards, at least as it comes to housing. Politicians are beholden to the members of their district, not would-be members. Sure, more affordable housing would benefit many people, but it wouldn't benefit the members of the district, particularly the wealthy and powerful, since more affordable housing is very nearly equivalent to real estate values decreasing (at the very least, as pe…

> Since more affordable housing is very nearly equivalent to real estate values decreasing (at the very least, as perceived by voters)

Wrong!!

Please get this right, because telling people they need to loose wealth to fix society is a horrible place to be in.

They own the land and the land will appreciate in value (unless your house as a shit location, but then you area poor-ass republican anyways, statistically speaking).

This is the great positive some outcome:

- Housing unit costs go down

- Land values go up

So long as it is economical to density by a greater ratio than the ratio land prices grow by, this works out.

Post reply on HN