3 ms·

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

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.

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.