4 ms·

While it is fine to call out the City Council, I am surprised there wasn't an acknowledgment that the City Council is a reflection of the will of the people in

While it is fine to call out the City Council, I am surprised there wasn't an acknowledgment that the City Council is a reflection of the will of the people in the City. If it were really an issue to the community they would elect new Council persons. Since the majority of the stakeholders on this issue likely can't vote to change the Council because they don't live in the City, I would recommend a boycott. One thing the transit workers could do is organize to the extent they don't buy anything within the city limits. No gas, no food/lunch, no shopping, no entertainment, etc... Once you get local business behind a political issue the rest typically fall in line or they may find themselves ostracized within their own community.

lindenksv1 10y ago
The problem with the "will of the people" is outlined here pretty well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-cities-need-to-care-more-about-works-in-them-not-just-who-lives-in-them/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-c... A small minority of NIMBY homeowners can capture and control a city council fairly easily. When you are well off (and are retired or independently wealthy and don't work...) and you're in a town of 65,000, that really means there are maybe at most 1000 people actually going to City Council and paying any attention to it. That means that if you've lived there for 30 years, you know all of them and your networks are very deep. So, a small minority who has time and resources can effect a lot. And meanwhile young people, working people, people with young kids, people working 2-3 jobs, etc they're not paying attention, they don't have those deep networks, and frankly they only show up to vote in presidential elections. Plus, people who like how things are going, don't really dig into this stuff and have no reason to think anything is wrong. If you think Palo Alto "is on fire" and "going to hell in a hand basket" because you have to drive by a new apartment building, then you show up to council and you show up to vote. But if you have no issue with new buildings, you've got no reason to show up and you're far less concerned with voting. So, problem #1 is that people who are most affected are not paying attention or do not know that they should be paying attention. Problem #2 is as outlined in the article above. When every city council is captured by existing homeowners, no town decides to add housing. Every town prefers to add jobs that bring in tax revenues but thinks they have little to gain from allowing more housing, because of the attendant infrastructure costs (like new schools). And so collectively, they make choices that drive up the cost of housing, drive people away from jobs centers, create homelessness, and which contribute to income inequality as people spend more and more money on housing because of an artificial constraint on housing supply. Added together, this stuff hurts our economy and it's killing off the middle class.

lindenksv1 10y ago

The problem with the "will of the people" is outlined here pretty well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-cities-need-to-care-more-about-works-in-them-not-just-who-lives-in-them/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/10/why-c... A small minority of NIMBY homeowners can capture and control a city council fairly easily. When you are well off (and are retired or independently wealthy and don't work...) and you're in a town of 65,000, that really means there are maybe at most 1000 people actually going to City Council and paying any attention to it. That means that if you've lived there for 30 years, you know all of them and your networks are very deep. So, a small minority who has time and resources can effect a lot. And meanwhile young people, working people, people with young kids, people working 2-3 jobs, etc they're not paying attention, they don't have those deep networks, and frankly they only show up to vote in presidential elections. Plus, people who like how things are going, don't really dig into this stuff and have no reason to think anything is wrong. If you think Palo Alto "is on fire" and "going to hell in a hand basket" because you have to drive by a new apartment building, then you show up to council and you show up to vote. But if you have no issue with new buildings, you've got no reason to show up and you're far less concerned with voting. So, problem #1 is that people who are most affected are not paying attention or do not know that they should be paying attention. Problem #2 is as outlined in the article above. When every city council is captured by existing homeowners, no town decides to add housing. Every town prefers to add jobs that bring in tax revenues but thinks they have little to gain from allowing more housing, because of the attendant infrastructure costs (like new schools). And so collectively, they make choices that drive up the cost of housing, drive people away from jobs centers, create homelessness, and which contribute to income inequality as people spend more and more money on housing because of an artificial constraint on housing supply. Added together, this stuff hurts our economy and it's killing off the middle class.