12 ms·

>Ro Khanna is my hometown progressive. So..obviously..I distrust the politician representing us. As someone not from the Bay Area, will you please explain why

>Ro Khanna is my hometown progressive. So..obviously..I distrust the politician representing us. As someone not from the Bay Area, will you please explain why this is obvious? > Why can’t he do a better job with our multitude of problems? Perhaps because he has only been in Congress since 2016 and in that time, the Democrats have been in the minority and mostly powerless to do much of anything

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
Because local constituents have a front row seat wherein we hear what politicians say and what they do and how they do it. In any average Silicon Valley town(or college town for that matter) where there are more non voting residents than those who can vote, the policies are geared towards everyone and usually not in the interest of those who are long term residents and have voted and have paid taxes. So politicians have to deliver for both the voting and non voting constituents, but they have to convince the voters to choose what’s sometimes not in their best interest. This is the reason most politicians lie or back track. It is a most superior skill to be able to convince people to choose what isn’t in their best interest. In California..and especially the Silicon Valley mega region, politicians of all stripe have honed this skill to a fine art form.
- nindalf 8y ago
  > So politicians have to deliver Why do they have to deliver for people who don't vote for them? If they're some altruist who wants to do the Right Thing (TM), wouldn't they get replaced real quick by someone who knows who their constituents really are? But even assuming that they do, why is that so wrong? You make it sound like it's terrible to think about our neighbours, whether they can vote or not.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    They deliver promises to people who can’t vote because they spend money and earn money and pay taxes anyways. An elected politician is not a monarch or a benevolent dictator or an altruistic philanthropist. He is a representative of those who voted for him. And re: why is this wrong? Because the politicians necessarily have to lie and or fudge facts or back track on promises because there is a fundamental conflict of interest. A great example of this is California Proposition 1A aka Governer Brown’s bullet train to nowhere. Voters approved $9 billion bond money in 2008. The estimate is 77 billion now. And nothing is done. That’s money we could have spent locally and to improve our roads and infrastructure. There is no more local governance and only the tyranny of regional governance. We are not homogenized constituents and our needs vary greatly. Another example is school funding and LCFF..local control funding formula. Which is anything but as it’s a melting pot of school funding and then redistribution. Schools in highly taxed..high density cities are deteriorating with their infrastructure crumbling. With education tied to property taxes, there is so much pressure to create more and more housing stock in Silicon Valley towns that are already beyond carrying capacity. Afterall, a 2 million $ matchbox condo home sold in Cupertino delivers more tax $$$ to the state coffers than a home in Manteca..so why build roads and maintain freeways and create networked public transport to allow the work force to move freely?
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      I see that you're not a fan, but there are many among us who support HSR and more housing in places like Cupertino. The fact that it's $2 million indicates it's desperately needed. Though I agree that HSR has been suboptimal. I'd have preferred to have a massive improvement in medium speed rail than a focus on HSR specifically - just make the Coast Starlight take 8 hours from downtown SF to DTLA, not 13, and you'd have a reasonably viable service.
      - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        I voted for HSR. I am utterly disillusioned now. I don’t trust anything coming out of Sacramento now.
      - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        Do you have any example of higher density real estate development leading to affordable housing? High density only seems to stress existing resources and infrastructure while making cost of living more unaffordable. It’s baffling. And yet, we keep buying the myth of high density sustainability. This year is going to be the year I give up all delusions and stop being naive.
        zozbot123 8y ago
        It's a complex question. Higher-density areas are more affordable, other things being equal. They're also a lot more desirable and appealing than the lower-density alternative, and this is what can make them "less affordable" to some, while still being quite easily affordable to others. They have inbuilt gentrification potential. But gentrification is a great thing - it directly translates into a better quality of life! And if it spreads sufficiently, to the point that "higher density" is not a rarity anymore, it doesn't even have to mean high rents.
        jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        Can you give an example?

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

Because local constituents have a front row seat wherein we hear what politicians say and what they do and how they do it. In any average Silicon Valley town(or college town for that matter) where there are more non voting residents than those who can vote, the policies are geared towards everyone and usually not in the interest of those who are long term residents and have voted and have paid taxes. So politicians have to deliver for both the voting and non voting constituents, but they have to convince the voters to choose what’s sometimes not in their best interest. This is the reason most politicians lie or back track. It is a most superior skill to be able to convince people to choose what isn’t in their best interest. In California..and especially the Silicon Valley mega region, politicians of all stripe have honed this skill to a fine art form.

nindalf 8y ago
> So politicians have to deliver Why do they have to deliver for people who don't vote for them? If they're some altruist who wants to do the Right Thing (TM), wouldn't they get replaced real quick by someone who knows who their constituents really are? But even assuming that they do, why is that so wrong? You make it sound like it's terrible to think about our neighbours, whether they can vote or not.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  They deliver promises to people who can’t vote because they spend money and earn money and pay taxes anyways. An elected politician is not a monarch or a benevolent dictator or an altruistic philanthropist. He is a representative of those who voted for him. And re: why is this wrong? Because the politicians necessarily have to lie and or fudge facts or back track on promises because there is a fundamental conflict of interest. A great example of this is California Proposition 1A aka Governer Brown’s bullet train to nowhere. Voters approved $9 billion bond money in 2008. The estimate is 77 billion now. And nothing is done. That’s money we could have spent locally and to improve our roads and infrastructure. There is no more local governance and only the tyranny of regional governance. We are not homogenized constituents and our needs vary greatly. Another example is school funding and LCFF..local control funding formula. Which is anything but as it’s a melting pot of school funding and then redistribution. Schools in highly taxed..high density cities are deteriorating with their infrastructure crumbling. With education tied to property taxes, there is so much pressure to create more and more housing stock in Silicon Valley towns that are already beyond carrying capacity. Afterall, a 2 million $ matchbox condo home sold in Cupertino delivers more tax $$$ to the state coffers than a home in Manteca..so why build roads and maintain freeways and create networked public transport to allow the work force to move freely?
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    I see that you're not a fan, but there are many among us who support HSR and more housing in places like Cupertino. The fact that it's $2 million indicates it's desperately needed. Though I agree that HSR has been suboptimal. I'd have preferred to have a massive improvement in medium speed rail than a focus on HSR specifically - just make the Coast Starlight take 8 hours from downtown SF to DTLA, not 13, and you'd have a reasonably viable service.
    - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
      I voted for HSR. I am utterly disillusioned now. I don’t trust anything coming out of Sacramento now.
    - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
      Do you have any example of higher density real estate development leading to affordable housing? High density only seems to stress existing resources and infrastructure while making cost of living more unaffordable. It’s baffling. And yet, we keep buying the myth of high density sustainability. This year is going to be the year I give up all delusions and stop being naive.
      - zozbot123 8y ago
        It's a complex question. Higher-density areas are more affordable, other things being equal. They're also a lot more desirable and appealing than the lower-density alternative, and this is what can make them "less affordable" to some, while still being quite easily affordable to others. They have inbuilt gentrification potential. But gentrification is a great thing - it directly translates into a better quality of life! And if it spreads sufficiently, to the point that "higher density" is not a rarity anymore, it doesn't even have to mean high rents.
        jelliclesfarm 8y ago
        Can you give an example?