Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo • Hacker News Board

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

#481

Post by sidewndr46 » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:02 PM UTC

anon7000 wrote: post #73

legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

It’s more about long term, but I see what you mean about lighting a fire under butts. One of the most eye opening discoveries for me on my urbanism journey is how Amsterdam got better. It wasn’t always a bicycle paradise; its city center had massive parking lots, huge roads, and a poor pedestrian environment. But today it’s much different — because policies were enacted decades ago which ensure roads are re-configure…

This aligns with my observations. There's a huge amount of noise made about things like zoning reform. Politicians are usually smitten with themselves once reform is complete. In practice, it's hardly meaningful if applied to an area that has been extensively developed. Just for example: covenants on the deeds can render the zoning change moot. Likewise, it seems unlikely that existing residents are going to uproot their lives just to advance some specific concept of reform.

Some of this reform is also stupid, like Austin attempting (and failing) to mandate 9 ft ceilings in the name of "affordability".

My observation has been that if you're looking for an observable change in the next few years - just move somewhere else. It's less headache and the results are instant.

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

#482

Post by modo_mario » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:03 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #119

aSanchezStern wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Didn't even win the democratic primary" might be a bit of a misnomer if it's implying that winning the democratic primary should be much easier than winning the general. Bernie has positions that are popular outside of democrats, many people think that if he had won the primary, he would have had a much better chance of winning than Hilary or Biden, since he had less baggage and his policies were broadly popular.

Has this idea of Bernie positions being popular outside the Democratic Party gone anywhere? Has it survived an election? I’ve heard it frequently claimed, but where has a progressive Dem won where a moderate didn’t? They seem to lose badly. The Sanders people were all in on Paula Jean Swearengin in WV and even tried to primary Manchin with her. WV has all the supposed demographics Sanders appeals to. White working cl…

>I’ve heard it frequently claimed, but where has a progressive Dem won where a moderate didn’t?

I'm not american but i remember looking into this because of all the drivel and distinctly remember polling finding bernie was actually more popular in notable swing states than his dem counterpart but actually a bit less popular in states that were going to vote dem regardless.

If bernie would take more undecided voters and republicans over to his side where it actually mattered I think it's not conclusive that he would have win but no far stretch to say he would have had a better shot at winning.

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

#483

Post by pclmulqdq » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:04 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #450

Gareth321 wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In brief, “woke” means having awakened to having a particular type of “critical consciousness,” as these are understood within Critical Social Justice. To first approximation, being woke means viewing society through various critical lenses, as defined by various critical theories bent in service of an ideology most people currently call “Social Justice.” That is, being woke means having taken on the worldview of Cri…

> In brief, “woke” means having awakened to having a particular type of “critical consciousness,” as these are understood within Critical Social Justice. This is wildly wrong; for starters, “woke” predates critical theory; for another, there is no such thing as “Critical Social Justice”, which is just mashing together two terms right-wingers don’t like and misrepresent.

The word "woke" was first used in the 1930s, and critical theory began its intellectual popularity in the late 1800s. Marx and Clausewitz were early adopters of critical theory, but Engels, Gramsci, Hegel, and many others who popularized the movement did their work in the late 1800s and early 1900s. In other words, critical theory predates "woke" by a century.

The word "woke" only attached to critical theory long after both had come about.

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

#484

Post by MakersF » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:04 PM UTC

ReptileMan wrote: post #81

e40 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* There's a general fear of being a landlord. Tenants have a lot of legal rights, and the risk of inviting someone onto your property who could start squatting or doing drugs and not being able to evict them is beyond the pale for most families.* This is a big problem in a lot of places. It's really hard for cities to strike a good balance between renters and owners, and I think few do it well. Especially for the ed…

The balance simple - renters have total rights as long as they pay on time and there is no damage on the property except normal wear and tear and 0 when when not paying. You as landlord can't say anything as long as the property is not damaged for the duration of the contract. You always renegotiate at market rates. There is no concept of squatting and evictions are fast. That's it. Works like a charm. No bullshits l…

Not only that, after X months of not paying the landlord can request an eviction, and from the moment the eviction is requested to the moment its executed the government pays the rent to the landlord (I believe 3 is reasonable for X, but it can be higher or lower).

I'm a renter and always have been a renter, but it has always been crazy to me that the cost of people without a house is dumped on the unlucky landlord. If the decision is that this cost must be put on society, at least it should be spread among all citizens/landlords (e.g. with a tax on rent).

Not having the government paying while waiting for the eviction is the same as now: the government can just take ages.

The risk to landlords when the renters doesn't uphold the contract needs to be limited. This is also the reason why an insurance would be an inferior solution: there is still no incentive for the government to intervene fast.

We might find out that it's preferable to build social housing rather than paying rent to landlords, and the government starts actually doing something about it

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

#485

Post by dventimi » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:11 PM UTC

wormlord wrote: post #31

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 j…

You'll get at least one up-vote from me. Meanwhile, "time is a flat circle" and "all of this has happened before."

"Overly restrictive rules (zoning) and elaborate process (permitting and planning) create chronic shortages driving prices higher and creating an angry populace. That’s the TLDR thesis of a lot of the abundance books.

This is just the same concern-trolling anti-government neoliberalism that's been "eating state capacity" since at least the 1970s.

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

#486

Post by insane_dreamer » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:12 PM UTC

legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

It takes a pretty specific type of property to accommodate an ADU and it has to be in a specific location to make the ADU worthwhile. If you're in the suburbs you also have HOA rules to contend with. The only place we could put an ADU in our suburban house is to build out our 4-car garage -- it's large enough (and we onyl need 1 car), but we'd have to build a bathroom and a kitchenette. But even if we could afford the initial substantial outlay, I don't think we'd have a lot of takers as people who are likely to rent an ADU typically need to live closer to the city.

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

#487

Post by modo_mario » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:15 PM UTC

ideashower wrote: post #414

norir wrote: post #233

For me, the abundance/yimby movement is an ok answer to the tantalizing but wrong question: what can do to make people's lives better through technology or public policy? For me, there is a deeper problem that this framing can't answer: the pervasive sense among all people that things have gone wrong and a lack of any kind of stable sense of identity. The maga right has been successful because they speak to that sens…

I think you're right. There's another thing, too, where the opposition is unable to provide a coherence that speaks to the pervasive sense of 'wrong' and provide stability in identity that you mention. Indeed, their idea of being coherent is not only maintaining the status quo that enables those two things, but doubling down. When challenged, they nest in the politics that the Republicans once espoused and have left…

I feel like the dems in the US (and many like them elsewhere in current times) struggle with purity politics whereby they either ditch those who could provide them vital support in their quest for purity on some fronts and espouse a pure stance on other fronts but drastically undermine that image.

It's hard to be the party that is aligned with opposing large capital in the public consciousness whilst at the same time bending over and pushing these purists out of the way for donations from said wealth. A party with a subset of oppose police or wants to see it's role redefined with a kamala as a frontrunner. A party that on occasion tries to make itself seen as having the stance and solution regarding things like housing but then not adequately doing so where they have an uncontested stronghold.

etc,etc

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

#488

Post by insane_dreamer » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:16 PM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #347

throw4847285 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been a renter since I was born, and I have rented from both mom and pop landlords and bigger corporations, and I can tell you that whether or not the "small landlords" were good people or not, our financial interests were diametrically opposed. If I did not live in cities with good tenant protections, there would be no incentive whatsoever for the people who owned the place where I lived from providing basic ser…

> I would love to purchase a home, but even 10 years of a software engineering salary are not enough for that in NYC. Imagine a 1M USD studio apartment. Is 10% (100K USD) down payment feasible? Usually, banks are happy to lend 90% to people with good jobs and a good credit score.

Another factor is the apartment maintenance fees can be steep.

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

#489

Post by dventimi » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:17 PM UTC

scoofy wrote: post #149

The problem here is talk is cheap. I've lived in SF and have heard a decade of talking heads prattling on about building housing, and then looking at the plans and they all end up being gobbledygook about "well if you do 20% Affordable, you can do 50% more units, but if it's 40% Affordable, you can do three more floors," and I keep staring at it and just think... why not just let people build more without doing anyth…

I can't agree with this. I've also lived in SF for the last 30 years and by my lights a simpler, more effective policy would be to roll up the red carpet that was rolled out to tech companies. I don't consider the problem to be one of inadequate supply. I consider the problem to be one of excessive demand from one class of higher-compensation workers more-insulated from market forces (tech workers) out-competing another class of lower-compensation workers less-insulated from market forces (everyone else).

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

#490

Post by grandempire » Fri, Mar 28, 2025, 5:17 PM UTC

packetlost wrote: post #475

grandempire wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another factor for me is there is risk to hiring contractors. If i could just pay money and have confidence things on my house would be fixed I would do it in a heartbeat. But you have to become a lawyer and project manager to make sure they do it. > There's a general fear of being a landlord. Tenants have a lot of legal rights Yes, these laws also increase the cost of housing.

Laws that protect individuals vs corporations usually hurt small businesses vs individuals a lot. Maybe not more than the harm caused by big corps, but it certainly has unfortunate side-effects.

Yes. I agree. It could still be a net benefit. But it does have cost.