5 ms·

Another example of how "progressives" in Berkeley are all for progressive policies (and driving a Prius) until they conflict with their NIMBY attitude towards t

Another example of how "progressives" in Berkeley are all for progressive policies (and driving a Prius) until they conflict with their NIMBY attitude towards their home values. Holdovers from the 60's and 70's who have seen their home values skyrocket and now want to prevent building of newer rental units (the "Missing Middle", 3-8 unit, smaller apartment buildings).

orblivion 9y ago
My favorite was seeing a "Bernie Sanders: breaking the class ceiling" sign in front of someone's house in the damn hills.
- zhemao 9y ago
  During the primary season, I saw a Bernie Sanders sign in a window (I think it was their local campaign HQ) and a homeless man sleeping in front of it.
- unclesaamm 9y ago
  There is a broad coalition of people who are excited about socialist ideas. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - orblivion 9y ago
    Fine, but if they're honest, it should be the "class floor" coming from them.
davidw 9y ago
Very relevant: http://marketurbanism.com/2017/01/27/the-disconnect-between-liberal-aspirations-and-liberal-housing-policy-is-killing-coastal-u-s-cities/ http://marketurbanism.com/2017/01/27/the-disconnect-between-...
- inostia 9y ago
  Thanks for this. Also relevant, recent article about this issue in Oakland: http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/May-2017/The-Real-Cause-of-Gentrification/ http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/May-2017/The-Real-Cause-of-Ge...
- closeparen 9y ago
  A reasonable person could argue that the people who move to cities for high-paying jobs do not need government assistance with access to opportunity: with our college degrees and in-demand skills, we have more than almost anyone else. Similarly, we have little in common with immigrants from poor countries fleeing extreme poverty and dysfunctional violence. In the immigration analogy, we are more like the plutocrats buying access through investor visas. Even the most pro-immigration liberals don't think immigration should be for sale to the rich. So why should cities be forced to remake themselves for our benefit? The simple answer is, it's not for our benefit. The highly skilled, well educated, and well employed will happily take over every existing housing unit, no matter how poor its previous occupant. We might even prefer to live in beautiful, low-rise cities with only fellow elites for neighbors. Increasing scale until there's enough for everyone is the alternative to just replacing existing residents in existing homes.
Spooky23 9y ago
Nobody in their right mind would support 3-8 unit apartments going up next door. Those type of buildings are not very profitable to build now with modern building requirements like ADA. Once the economy goes south, the rent and quality of tenant will plunge. Real estate is always boom-bust. Having a conservative outlook about building is pragmatic.

orblivion 9y ago

My favorite was seeing a "Bernie Sanders: breaking the class ceiling" sign in front of someone's house in the damn hills.

zhemao 9y ago
During the primary season, I saw a Bernie Sanders sign in a window (I think it was their local campaign HQ) and a homeless man sleeping in front of it.
unclesaamm 9y ago
There is a broad coalition of people who are excited about socialist ideas. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- orblivion 9y ago
  Fine, but if they're honest, it should be the "class floor" coming from them.

davidw 9y ago

Very relevant: http://marketurbanism.com/2017/01/27/the-disconnect-between-liberal-aspirations-and-liberal-housing-policy-is-killing-coastal-u-s-cities/ http://marketurbanism.com/2017/01/27/the-disconnect-between-...

inostia 9y ago
Thanks for this. Also relevant, recent article about this issue in Oakland: http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/May-2017/The-Real-Cause-of-Gentrification/ http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/May-2017/The-Real-Cause-of-Ge...
closeparen 9y ago
A reasonable person could argue that the people who move to cities for high-paying jobs do not need government assistance with access to opportunity: with our college degrees and in-demand skills, we have more than almost anyone else. Similarly, we have little in common with immigrants from poor countries fleeing extreme poverty and dysfunctional violence. In the immigration analogy, we are more like the plutocrats buying access through investor visas. Even the most pro-immigration liberals don't think immigration should be for sale to the rich. So why should cities be forced to remake themselves for our benefit? The simple answer is, it's not for our benefit. The highly skilled, well educated, and well employed will happily take over every existing housing unit, no matter how poor its previous occupant. We might even prefer to live in beautiful, low-rise cities with only fellow elites for neighbors. Increasing scale until there's enough for everyone is the alternative to just replacing existing residents in existing homes.

Spooky23 9y ago

Nobody in their right mind would support 3-8 unit apartments going up next door. Those type of buildings are not very profitable to build now with modern building requirements like ADA. Once the economy goes south, the rent and quality of tenant will plunge. Real estate is always boom-bust. Having a conservative outlook about building is pragmatic.