5 ms·

> because they have alienated many lower-income voters. How so?

• twblalock 8y ago
  They think the YIMBYs are dismissing their concerns about gentrification and displacement. I'm not sure that's true, but either way, the YIMBY movement's image is of a bunch of affluent white tech workers who don't care about low-income, minority residents whose neighborhoods might get gentrified. That image will need to change if the YIMBYs want to succeed.
  • wbl 8y ago
    Minorities in CA are more likely to support building more homes than whites.
    • abalone 8y ago
      Yes but not necessarily market-rate developments that accelerate gentrification and displacement. BMR housing, for sure.
  • hunter23 8y ago
    I don't know why you are being downvoted - SFgate recently published an article talking about Yimby members yelling over minority groups and those minority groups basically called Yimby a bunch of "affluent white tech workers". So it's definitely a problem of Yimby not managing it's image and forming alliances well.
    • ng12 8y ago
      I think anyone who's trying to shout down another group based on their race doesn't deserve to be allied with.
• hunter23 8y ago
  Because they don't have low income leaders in their organization and they've been dismissive of minority concerns. See: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-rallies-end-yimbys-shouting-protesters-color/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-rallies-end-yimbys-shouting... While I support the Yimby approach the truth is it is largely led by upper middle class white people. To get things done in politics, you don't to have the best argument, you need to have the best consensus of citizens and $$ supporting you. The yimby org doesn't realize this - they think they can steam roll over minority groups to get things done, but frankly they need to a better job building bridges with these groups. This is how politics work.
  • cavisne 8y ago
    A hilariously biased article... how anyone could dream of linking that as a reference astounds me
  • smallnamespace 8y ago
    The fundamental interests of the various groups aren't necessarily fully aligned, are they? E.g. it may be the case that rent control and other roadblocks increase the cost of housing in the long run (bad for anyone new moving to the Bay Area), but it certainly benefits the current occupants of rent-controlled housing. That's one reason to be slightly skeptical of the label 'minority' organizations—it's unclear whether all minorities have the same interests at stake. In particular, minorities who currently live in below-market cost housing have markedly different expected payoff from a change in policy than minorities who currently live outside of the city. Certainly, good politics and making nice can smooth over some amount of disagreement, but is there really a mechanism right now that could make everyone better off? I, too, would like to live in a world where: - Minorities and/or lower income people aren't priced out of the city - ... and will have enough units to live in in the future - and widespread construction so tech workers or other immigrants have cheaper rent - the character of our neighborhoods aren't gentrified away - and it isn't too expensive to build ...but experience as engineers tells us that there is always a compromise to be made when you ask for everything. The political fight here is who is will end up compromising, and how much.
    • hunter23 8y ago
      I agree with everything you said. I also support the YIMBY solution (building more housing to drive down prices). However, my only point (which HN seems to downvote) is that the YIMBY party in San Francisco has an image / branding issue. They are perceived as being techies out of touch with lower income and minority groups. As you have rightly pointed out this is probably a flawed view, but it is a branding issue.