5 ms·

Are you from San Francisco? I've noticed that "Progressive" has taken on an extremely weird meaning there, which is contrary or at least orthogonal to how it's

by nkoren 9y ago

Are you from San Francisco? I've noticed that "Progressive" has taken on an extremely weird meaning there, which is contrary or at least orthogonal to how it's used everywhere else in the world. Nowhere else that I know of is opposition to urban infill development billed as "progressive".

nostrademons 9y ago
It's non-uniform there, which is a little weird because "progressives" in the Bay Area are arguing strongly for more infill development while other "progressives" are arguing strongly against new development. I think it's because San Francisco was "progressive" back in the 60s, which means that there's been time for the past couple generations of progressives to become entrenched NIMBY's with a vested interest in the status quo while still maintaining their "progressive" identity. It's a very weird yet oddly lovable city.
- wahern 9y ago
  IME it's because SF homeowners have created a narrative that says any new development threatens (and can only ever threaten) rent control. There are many theories--induced demand, Ellis Act evictions, destruction of rent-controller properties--but the narrative is the same. Therefore, if you're worried about protecting the security of renters (who constitute about 2/3 of residents) and especially low-income renters then unless you know any better the predominate political narrative is to oppose new development. The narrative is deeply entrenched. For example, the narrative says (among other things) that new development destroys rent controlled properties as any building newer than 1995 is exempt from rent control under state law. But rather than lobby to change the state law to make it easier to expand rent control (i.e. some sort of quid pro quo--expand rent control at the same pace as new development so total rent-controlled units stay the same) people just reflexively oppose new development. Because homeowners have co-opted the disparate opposition groups, the potential for compromise and novel solutions is stonewalled and never communicated through normal channels (community groups, neighborhood papers, ballot initiatives, City Hall backrooms, etc). All the voters know is to oppose development. Full stop.
- rebuilder 9y ago
  Surely it's not that surprising that a single label can't describe all opinions people may have?

by nkoren 9y ago

nostrademons 9y ago

It's non-uniform there, which is a little weird because "progressives" in the Bay Area are arguing strongly for more infill development while other "progressives" are arguing strongly against new development. I think it's because San Francisco was "progressive" back in the 60s, which means that there's been time for the past couple generations of progressives to become entrenched NIMBY's with a vested interest in the status quo while still maintaining their "progressive" identity. It's a very weird yet oddly lovable city.

wahern 9y ago
IME it's because SF homeowners have created a narrative that says any new development threatens (and can only ever threaten) rent control. There are many theories--induced demand, Ellis Act evictions, destruction of rent-controller properties--but the narrative is the same. Therefore, if you're worried about protecting the security of renters (who constitute about 2/3 of residents) and especially low-income renters then unless you know any better the predominate political narrative is to oppose new development. The narrative is deeply entrenched. For example, the narrative says (among other things) that new development destroys rent controlled properties as any building newer than 1995 is exempt from rent control under state law. But rather than lobby to change the state law to make it easier to expand rent control (i.e. some sort of quid pro quo--expand rent control at the same pace as new development so total rent-controlled units stay the same) people just reflexively oppose new development. Because homeowners have co-opted the disparate opposition groups, the potential for compromise and novel solutions is stonewalled and never communicated through normal channels (community groups, neighborhood papers, ballot initiatives, City Hall backrooms, etc). All the voters know is to oppose development. Full stop.
rebuilder 9y ago
Surely it's not that surprising that a single label can't describe all opinions people may have?