but he also noted elsewhere that these coalitions were in general rare. I think it's hard to interpret Molotch's work separate from Stone's theory on regime theory in general.
-
-
That is, regimes are not permanent even when they become dominant. Molotch's point is to note that major public institutions and elite interests tend to be pro-growth.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @drschweitzer @hanlonbt
Certainly this alliance is relatively rare but it does seem to show up with considerable frequency in a certain set of places that also happen to be, in 2018, the places of high growth and competition for housing.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Some people have argued that west coast cities don't have regimes--I don't buy it (and Trounstein finds a stable one in San Jose). I think the problem is that most of this regime theory material is better at explaining large developments, corporate developments
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Rather than housing, per se. It does a good job of explaining why cities are so susceptible to stadia development.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But isn’t all this a way to say that Molotch had a blind spot about growth? Focused mainly on large Moses style or corporate led projects. The growth machine theorists seemed to not have a good understanding of slow growth politics. Especially in context of reform institutions.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
no. He had no way of predicting Prop 13 and how it would change how cities viewed new residents
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Not criticizing for failure to predict, but rather failure to consider institutions. Prop 13 in 1978. L&M "City as gm" published in 1976. Urban Fortunes in 1987. They do note richer places more likely to pass "environmental" ballot propositions. But fail to think it through IMO.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It is all good—after all, Molotch I believe is a sociologist and defines institutions differently even them you or I would.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @drschweitzer @ValisJason and
I just think it is very inaccurate for people to think about Molotch w/o thinking about how city management has changed fundamentally
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
even constituencies that claim to be anti-growth, may end up being complicit in pro-growth policies, because their tax rates do not keep up w/ cost of providing services, & they laden their public institutions w/ liabilities/obligations that are impossible to pay for w/out growth
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.