3 ms·

Magic? Serious answer: trying to get the US to move away from single owner cars, detached homes, meat or the 2nd amendments is a near impossibility in the curr

by moate 9y ago

Magic? Serious answer: trying to get the US to move away from single owner cars, detached homes, meat or the 2nd amendments is a near impossibility in the current social paradigm. Continued removal of non-urban economics (consolidation of farms, slow death of retail, etc) will probably force that to change in the next 30 years, but if you're trying to get today's people to buy into that, seems difficult.

SlowBro 9y ago
So then you would conglomerate farms, reduce retail (and replace with what? Edit: Oh, you must mean the shift to online retail.) and I suppose also work on changing what is taught in classrooms, so that the next generation willingly sells their cars and moves into tall buildings? These are not hostile questions by the way, I'm genuinely curious.
epistasis 9y ago
There are plenty of people that want to live in dense housing with walkable (retail, groceries, etc) neighborhoods, but there's nowhere near enough supply to meet that demand. This is because people living in sparse communities want to prevent others from living in dense communities. So if, for example, somebody proposes building an apartment building, the planning commisssion meeting will be filled with people who don't even live near the proposed building coming up with whatever laundry list of reasons they can to prevent it from being built.
- SlowBro 9y ago
  Today I learned that California has more of a direct democracy. Is what you described maybe a side-effect of that? Where a tiny minority can out-voice a majority?
  - epistasis 9y ago
    Yes, in many ways it's a direct democracy where only a tiny percentage of people participate. Who has time at 11:00 AM on a Tuesday to give feedback about a random building proposal? Not those who have the most to gain from a larger housing supply, those who need to work or have families to raise. Those who do show up want massive financial gains on their property because they artificially restrict the housing supply. Or they want less traffic on streets. Basically, when they moved in, things were perfect, and now that they got to move in, they don't see why anybody else should ever get to. It's a tragedy of the commons type of thing: self-interest by a few ends up harming the majority in large ways. For the type of person that stops housing, the only way to get them to listen is to speak in terms that benefit them personally. So, for example, saying that their children will never be able to afford to live nearby is not an argument for changing the system. However, shift that slightly and saying that they'll miss the first steps of their grandchildren because their children live too far away will convince them, becaue now it's about them again. Talking to these types of people, like reading the comments on newspaper websites, leads to a very dim view of humanity. However, just like newspaper comments, these meeting-attending NIMBYs are not representative of the population, they are just the ones that want to control things towards their own benefit.
    - SlowBro 9y ago
      How would you fix this?
      - epistasis 9y ago
        I'm not a policy maker, and I don't have enough experience to create wise and smart policy. But my general goal would be to let these small groups have less power. In the most extreme, all plans that meet codes and zoning would have to be approved within a short amount of time (6 months, perhaps?), without any local input on what gets built. This idea is called "by-right" development, where you only need to meet local laws. By-right development terrifies the older homeowner bloc that controls local politics, however, and is probably completely infeasible, politically. Another venue might be to have this streamlined permitting imposed by the state onto any municipality that has a jobs:housing ratio greater than, say, 2:1, or something like that? But again, I'm only an amateur policy maker, and that's the last thing that California needs. California's biggest problem is that its direct democracy has lead to all sorts of amateur policies like extremely restrictive residential zoning, or the terrible property tax laws that have starved municipalities and created perverse incentives for homeowners.
        SlowBro 9y ago
        Outcomes like these seem to be why the founders of the United States wanted to avoid setting up a direct democracy, instead opting for a constitutional republic.[1] [1] http://factmyth.com/why-did-the-founding-fathers-choose-a-republic/ http://factmyth.com/why-did-the-founding-fathers-choose-a-re...

by moate 9y ago

SlowBro 9y ago

So then you would conglomerate farms, reduce retail (and replace with what? Edit: Oh, you must mean the shift to online retail.) and I suppose also work on changing what is taught in classrooms, so that the next generation willingly sells their cars and moves into tall buildings? These are not hostile questions by the way, I'm genuinely curious.

epistasis 9y ago

There are plenty of people that want to live in dense housing with walkable (retail, groceries, etc) neighborhoods, but there's nowhere near enough supply to meet that demand. This is because people living in sparse communities want to prevent others from living in dense communities. So if, for example, somebody proposes building an apartment building, the planning commisssion meeting will be filled with people who don't even live near the proposed building coming up with whatever laundry list of reasons they can to prevent it from being built.

SlowBro 9y ago
Today I learned that California has more of a direct democracy. Is what you described maybe a side-effect of that? Where a tiny minority can out-voice a majority?
- epistasis 9y ago
  Yes, in many ways it's a direct democracy where only a tiny percentage of people participate. Who has time at 11:00 AM on a Tuesday to give feedback about a random building proposal? Not those who have the most to gain from a larger housing supply, those who need to work or have families to raise. Those who do show up want massive financial gains on their property because they artificially restrict the housing supply. Or they want less traffic on streets. Basically, when they moved in, things were perfect, and now that they got to move in, they don't see why anybody else should ever get to. It's a tragedy of the commons type of thing: self-interest by a few ends up harming the majority in large ways. For the type of person that stops housing, the only way to get them to listen is to speak in terms that benefit them personally. So, for example, saying that their children will never be able to afford to live nearby is not an argument for changing the system. However, shift that slightly and saying that they'll miss the first steps of their grandchildren because their children live too far away will convince them, becaue now it's about them again. Talking to these types of people, like reading the comments on newspaper websites, leads to a very dim view of humanity. However, just like newspaper comments, these meeting-attending NIMBYs are not representative of the population, they are just the ones that want to control things towards their own benefit.
  - SlowBro 9y ago
    How would you fix this?
    - epistasis 9y ago
      I'm not a policy maker, and I don't have enough experience to create wise and smart policy. But my general goal would be to let these small groups have less power. In the most extreme, all plans that meet codes and zoning would have to be approved within a short amount of time (6 months, perhaps?), without any local input on what gets built. This idea is called "by-right" development, where you only need to meet local laws. By-right development terrifies the older homeowner bloc that controls local politics, however, and is probably completely infeasible, politically. Another venue might be to have this streamlined permitting imposed by the state onto any municipality that has a jobs:housing ratio greater than, say, 2:1, or something like that? But again, I'm only an amateur policy maker, and that's the last thing that California needs. California's biggest problem is that its direct democracy has lead to all sorts of amateur policies like extremely restrictive residential zoning, or the terrible property tax laws that have starved municipalities and created perverse incentives for homeowners.
      - SlowBro 9y ago
        Outcomes like these seem to be why the founders of the United States wanted to avoid setting up a direct democracy, instead opting for a constitutional republic.[1] [1] http://factmyth.com/why-did-the-founding-fathers-choose-a-republic/ http://factmyth.com/why-did-the-founding-fathers-choose-a-re...