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 -
Replying to @ryanlcooper @kimmaicutler and
I don't think wealthy, property-owning white people are functionally left-wing even if, as in California, they strongly identify as such. Buy a home, turn into a pretty damn reactionary person no matter how many Bernie signs you have in your yard
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @stephenjudkins @ryanlcooper and
I think it would be instructive to come to my neighborhood association, where people recently fought an upzoning of a lot owned by an affordable housing developer, limited to affordable housing. These were people who all said they support social housing *just not this housing*
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @stephenjudkins @kimmaicutler and
well, could be that no policy of any kind will get past this sort of sublimated selfishness. I just reckon that a good dose of social housing will be better for lining up the people who do have similar values on the same side
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ryanlcooper @stephenjudkins and
The reason politicians shifted toward inclusionary 15 years ago was their constituents kept saying they wanted “affordable housing” but they didn’t actually want to pay taxes to fund it so it was easier to offload this onto “developers” which actually means taxing new housing.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
Which adds another like $81K onto new units in costs. But anyway, this is the way California has worked for the last generation: http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674868366 …
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.