i mean... maybe? I'm all for big initiatives and the idea that government can be doing more, but like, actually working out how this would happen seems extremely important, esp considering our status quo is that we can't effectively maintain the public housing we have now
-
-
And if we're talking the acute crisis in supply-constrained high-cost metro areas, doing so is unnecessary to fixing the crisis so it feels like adding a bunch of risky extra steps unnecessarily vs like, building public housing in Detroit where the case is prob a lot stronger
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @mtsw @ryanlcooper
i think you've just picked one politically difficult solution (which requires you to team up with libertarians) and have decided to die hard for it instead of considering alternative solutions (which are more successful in an international context and are libertarian-free)
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @peterjgowan @mtsw
and anyway, the yimby political approach flopped badly in California. the main point of my article is that social housing will fly better in a deep blue state
6 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Ahahahahahaha. You don’t know our state. We’re only blue on the coasts.
3 replies 0 retweets 18 likes -
...where the people and large cities are?
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
i think there's a really weird tendency among CA yimbys to insist that they're the real ones who support social housing but also to compulsively insist that CA is basically texas whenever someone suggests it's an important part of the strategy
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Who was pushing SB2 and SB3? Not the anti 827 crowd.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
i'm not "the anti 827 crowd" i live in ireland. i'm just saying social housing is a crucial part of any truly effective housing strategy and that people should try to take opponents at their word instead of assuming the state is irretrievably lost to reactionaries
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
California has a $3-400B in unfunded liabilities which are gradually cannibalizing the rest of the budget. It has a progressive but highly volatile taxation structure, which can wipe out $40-100B in a range of recession scenarios. In its Constitution, voters put in place a
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Requirement that any new taxes had to be approved by a two-thirds super majority of the electorate. In all practical sense, this means Californians are politically unable to pass new broad based taxes. Narrow taxes that affect small constituencies are easier to pass, but this
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @peterjgowan and
Perversely augments the revenue volatility problem.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @peterjgowan and
Much easier to pontificate on the subject to Californians than learn or digest these circumstances.
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.