4 ms·

This is an interesting idea; it would certainly appeal to Bay Area NIMBYs. They find themselves in essentially the opposite position as what you describe. They

This is an interesting idea; it would certainly appeal to Bay Area NIMBYs. They find themselves in essentially the opposite position as what you describe. They are more organized and actually vote, despite being (presumably) vastly outnumbered by transplants in the Bay Area. But, this is theoretically the process "working". Power goes to people who show up. So it doesn't really matter what people want if they don't bother to take part in the political process. (Or if they vote fair and square and are just not in the majority) There are minority protections in our system. But, it's really tough to get them right. For example, rules that were supposed to protect the minority in the Bay Area are now being used to block any housing development or infrastructure projects. But, I'm honestly interested to hear your thoughts. Why should we weigh living in a place for a long time heavier? Isn't the retirees voting down infrastructure serving the needs of the majority of residents (by keeping taxes low)?

mcculley 9y ago
You make a good point that it is the will of the majority. I just think it isn't fair to the children who attend overcrowded schools and the people who have to get to jobs and want better roads.
- neuland 9y ago
  The same (concerns) can be said of other ways of life though. For example, I live in an area that used to be basically all farmland. Slowly but surely, city people have moved out and crowded out all the farmers. Those new suburbanites voted/continue to vote to increase taxes for roads, rail, great schools, etc. But from the perspective of the farmer, I can imagine many of them are bitter that they had to sell their multi-generational family farm. Given that and many other similar scenarios (ex. gentrified city neighborhoods), the broader problem is that... - Different groups of people have different interests (some want low taxes, some high. some want single family houses with nice back yards, others mixed use walkable urban utopias) - Groups (mostly ones with more money) can swiftly move to a new area and disrupt the previous political power structure It's definitely possible that the old residents can move to a new place. In fact, I think that this is the only real answer. Anything else comes off as a violation of people's basic rights. You can't really expect to take people's votes away. You can't really prevent people from selling their property to who they want (except in an HOA scenario). Actually, maybe that is a way out. More aggressive HOA communities that make sure residents have a shared vision for their town.
  - mcculley 9y ago
    That is a great counterexample. My inclination is to agree with you that the only equitable way to resolve such issues is more local government and less power at the state level.

mcculley 9y ago

You make a good point that it is the will of the majority. I just think it isn't fair to the children who attend overcrowded schools and the people who have to get to jobs and want better roads.

neuland 9y ago
The same (concerns) can be said of other ways of life though. For example, I live in an area that used to be basically all farmland. Slowly but surely, city people have moved out and crowded out all the farmers. Those new suburbanites voted/continue to vote to increase taxes for roads, rail, great schools, etc. But from the perspective of the farmer, I can imagine many of them are bitter that they had to sell their multi-generational family farm. Given that and many other similar scenarios (ex. gentrified city neighborhoods), the broader problem is that... - Different groups of people have different interests (some want low taxes, some high. some want single family houses with nice back yards, others mixed use walkable urban utopias) - Groups (mostly ones with more money) can swiftly move to a new area and disrupt the previous political power structure It's definitely possible that the old residents can move to a new place. In fact, I think that this is the only real answer. Anything else comes off as a violation of people's basic rights. You can't really expect to take people's votes away. You can't really prevent people from selling their property to who they want (except in an HOA scenario). Actually, maybe that is a way out. More aggressive HOA communities that make sure residents have a shared vision for their town.
- mcculley 9y ago
  That is a great counterexample. My inclination is to agree with you that the only equitable way to resolve such issues is more local government and less power at the state level.