3 ms·
That’s my first instinct too, but things can get really messed up if the “haves” control the political process. What if they don’t like living near the “have-no
by djakjxnanjak 8y ago
That’s my first instinct too, but things can get really messed up if the “haves” control the political process. What if they don’t like living near the “have-nots”, and ban the construction of multi-family housing near downtown? Now that the supply of housing is constrained, prices start going up. Suddenly, the have-nots can barely afford rent.
I don’t think inequality is inherently evil, but it’s critical that we prioritize increasing the supply of all essential goods and services (housing, medical care, education) to create prosperity for everyone and prevent the have-nots from suffering. Via inequality, we can reward people for creating prosperity, but it’s important that this excess wealth only bids up the price of luxuries like yachts and art, not basic needs.
- manfredo 8y ago> That’s my first instinct too, but things can get really messed up if the “haves” control the political process. What if they don’t like living near the “have-nots”, and ban the construction of multi-family housing near downtown? Now that the supply of housing is constrained, prices start going up. Suddenly, the have-nots can barely afford rent. In my experience, the people that support these housing policies are the kind that would rather everyone have $20k instead of $30k/$50k. Opposition to building denser housing is generally more prevalent with "progressives". At least judging from my experience in San Francisco.
- djakjxnanjak 8y agoSan Francisco politics are controlled by wealthy landowners. Progressive opponents to development make a more sympathetic appeal, but it looks like a Baptist-bootlegger coalition to me.
- manfredo 8y agoIt's a bit more nuanced than that. A lot of the progressive housing obstructionists rent at a fraction of the market rate due to long term rent control (one of the more prominent anti-housing activists rents a 2 bedroom apartment for only $670 a month). Many of said residents are heavily nativist and disdain the "techies" and people from "flyover states" moving to "their city". Blatant nativism is not socially acceptable, so pursuing exclusionary policies under the guise of protecting renters makes it more palatable.
- User23 8y agoThis is a big motivation for California environmentalism. It’s not like rich Malibu landowners don’t want Tijuana levels of coastal density, it’s just think of the poor endangered amphibians so guess that mansion on the bluff will have to stay lonely.
- manfredo 8y agoI'm not sure I follow. Low density housing is much worse for the environment than high density housing. Lower density means more transportation burden, larger energy costs to deliver utilities, greater risk of those utilities breaking, and more wildernesses being paved for roads and housing. There's nothing environmentalist about low density sprawl.
- User23 8y agoLet me spell it out then. Low density housing is much better for seaside mansion owners who like their beautiful unimpeded views. Environmental concerns about some random newt are a fig leaf since they don’t want to come out and say don’t build high density low income housing next door.
- manfredo 8y agoAh, I didn't get that you were referencing how environmentalism was being abused as a political tool - I thought you were actually saying there was environmental concerns about greater density.
- refurb 8y agoWealthy land owners? Calle 24 wields a lot of influence and they are mostly community activists. Same with Rose Pak. Sure she maybe owned property, but she didn’t derive her power from it.
- User23 8y agoAll politics are controlled by wealthy landowners. Whether this is cause or consequence of landlords eventually capturing all income gains in the unlanded class is another question.