3 ms·
People should vote for whomever they feel best represents their concerns and interests, or whom they think will govern best for their society at large. If you
by tofof 8y ago
People should vote for whomever they feel best represents their concerns and interests, or whom they think will govern best for their society at large.
If you move, try and understand your neighbors, certainly, but that doesn't mean voting for the candidate that best represents them instead of best representing you.
- ip26 8y agoSpeaking as a transplant, it's not wrong to ask that transplants at least take a moment to consider why they left home and moved here, when making voting decisions. If you left because of high taxes, voting for tax increases in your new home at least appears misguided.
- alexanderwept 8y agoFair point. Let me try to steel man the parent comment and maybe you can respond: These people are fleeing the very predictable consequences of progressive governance, they should make an attempt to understand what made their origin so bad they wanted to leave and what made their destination so good that they decided to move there. If they vote for the policies that led them to flee, they might start the cycle over again.
- untog 8y agoI'd question using terms like "progressive" there. For instance, the reason SF is so expensive is that it's impossible to build more housing. That's not in any way a progressive policy.
- paleotrope 8y agoIt's really not "impossible".
- dkhenry 8y agoI don't want to say its _only_ because of "progressive" policies, but specifically affordability is hurt by lack of construction, and construction is hurt by things like low income housing units, high fee's for new construction, and rent control. Those are all marketed as progressive and they are choking supply. The entire reason why Senate Bill 827 failed was because progressives said it didn't protect the low income from gentrification.
- alexanderwept 8y agoBut it is progressive to hamstring development because the permitting process is a shake down for 'affordable housing'. It is progressive to hold environmental concerns as a valid reason to halt development.
- jeffbax 8y ago"Progressive" generally goes along with the mentality there's no problem that is not solvable by government, which is usually the least efficient and cost effective mechanism for most problems. This undoubtedly causes a ripple effect through the economy as all costs proceed to rise over time if not in check. Never mind how many preferred policies like rent control and micromanaged environmental laws that accumulate like technical debt and paralyze development have wrecked the housing market and soak the tech industry like a huge transfer tax that benefits those who got in the right place at the right time in the 80s/90s and shut everything down. "Affordable housing" is another misnomered policy that is shooting oneself in the foot. Instead of just having market pricing and allowing the city to grow as demanded you let a few poor people stay because they win a lottery and still drive the bulk of people far out. The syringe, shit laden road to hell is paved with good intentions still holds true today, and why I call myself a liberal but not a progressive in the political sense. There's a definite distinction, and certainly not unreasonable to hope that voters driven out by those policies take a moment to think of how things got there.