5 ms·

If it actually worked well, people might use it, especially the undesirables. It’s also because the Bay Area is stupidly split up into dozens and dozens of sma

If it actually worked well, people might use it, especially the undesirables. It’s also because the Bay Area is stupidly split up into dozens and dozens of small-medium sized municipalities spread over multiple counties. So every little group acts in their own locally optimal, shortsighted interests. Most of the people affected worst by the lack of public transportation and housing can’t vote in the areas that can actually fix the problem. I’ve been thinking the past couple of years you should be able to vote in local elections in the area you work in, even if you don’t live there.

jcims 7y ago
>I’ve been thinking the past couple of years you should be able to vote in local elections in the area you work in, even if you don’t live there. Makes sense to me, especially if you are paying local income taxes in that area. I seem to recall from high school that 'taxation without representation' caused a big kerfluffle a couple hundred years ago.
- opportune 7y ago
  I don’t think there are local income taxes (at least visible to the employee) but they are IMO a part of the community, pay taxes indirectly (property taxes where they work, sales taxes, etc.) and should have a say because of that.
  - jcims 7y ago
    Ahh, maybe in CA. In Ohio you have to pay income taxes where you work and where you live. If they are different places then there are usually some kind of weird commuter credits that never actually offset the difference.
BorgHunter 7y ago
> I’ve been thinking the past couple of years you should be able to vote in local elections in the area you work in, even if you don’t live there. In many areas this would effectively lead to the suburbs being able to dictate urban policy to the inner city, where suburban commuter interests like parking override the interests of the actual residents. The 1998 amalgamation of Toronto is a good example of this happening, and I think a lot of Old Toronto voters are quite unhappy with this, given how it led to mayors like Rob Ford who would never have been elected with the old boundaries. Other areas try to solve this by creating an uber transit authority which theoretically directs and coordinates the smaller agencies for the greater regional good. A good example of this is the Regional Transportation Authority in Chicago. It often doesn't work out the way it's intended (in Chicago, the CTA [city proper transit] and Metra [commuter rail] still have very poor coordination, although Pace [suburban buses] and CTA do have somewhat good coordination). A third approach is to (try to) make the whole region's transit the responsibility of one single agency. Picking Atlanta as an example here (MARTA), it tends to lead to affluent suburbs (Cobb and Gwinnett Counties) trying to stay out of the system because of concerns like "transit brings crime" and "it's too expensive and no one will use it" and other assorted nonsense. So that approach has its problems too. In short, this is a very thorny problem and there honestly aren't a lot of places in North America that do it very well, although some are worse than others (the SF Bay Area may seem like a mess, and it is, but it's inarguably better than the dozens of barely-funded, not-at-all-sufficient systems that exist in most large and medium cities in the U.S.). I think the right solution is probably specific to each region and it still won't solve every problem, at least not without a level of funding that transit simply does not get on this continent.
- derefr 7y ago
  > In many areas this would effectively lead to the suburbs being able to dictate urban policy to the inner city Then perhaps "urban policy" is an unnatural category, combining conflicting interests. Why not just have two municipal governments—one elected by those whose business interests lie within the city, which would be in charge of the city's business policy (e.g. corporate taxe and grants, arterial infrastructure, commercial zoning); and a separate one, elected by the city's urban residents, which would be in charge of the city's civic policy (e.g. estate taxes and VATs, non-arterial infrastructure, residential zoning, etc.)? These are essentially orthogonal problems that don't really "run into" each-other much; you could have two separate sets of people working on solving them without those groups needing to communicate all that much. Municipal government is already somewhat factored this way, insofar as e.g. school boards and park boards are separately elected rather than being appointments of the municipal executive; and some of those elections are defined by different political boundaries (e.g. catchment areas for schools) than the election of the municipal executive is. Why not just go one step further?
  - iudqnolq 7y ago
    What happens when the business govt wants low corp tax, and the residents govt wants high corp tax to fund programs? What happens when they disagree over zoning, ie which side gets to build somewhere? I don't think you can segment that way. One related idea that might work a little better (I think it comes from libertarian circles, can't remember exactly where) is representation by profession. So eg x% of the legislature is elected by residents, and other percentages by other groups like business people.
    - mehhh 7y ago
      Representation by industry has worked really poorly for Hong Kong, its a key part of why they have the majority of thr population protesting and demanding real democracy, not the corporate controlled legislature that currently presides over HK.
      - 7y ago
dmead 7y ago
literally everyone who commutes into a city for work wants to also vote there. good luck with that.
fossuser 7y ago
Aren't there enough of us to leverage power by voting as a block? I know Palo Alto Forward was trying to do this a while back - it'd be nice if we could block vote in people that could massively upzone housing (or make whatever change is necessary to increase housing supply). Myself and a lot of my friends live in these towns with roommates - I'd think if there was a clear group to vote for and clear policy to push to increase housing we'd have a lot of votes. It's hard to even find what the existing law around building housing is, is it online anywhere?
- zpallin 7y ago
  You should look into supporting https://www.transformca.org https://www.transformca.org which works with Bay Area governments already to solve transportation policy. They have already contributed immensely to transportation accessibility in the region, and have been at the forefront of the BRT fight, but it's an uphill battle and they need more support.

jcims 7y ago

>I’ve been thinking the past couple of years you should be able to vote in local elections in the area you work in, even if you don’t live there. Makes sense to me, especially if you are paying local income taxes in that area. I seem to recall from high school that 'taxation without representation' caused a big kerfluffle a couple hundred years ago.

opportune 7y ago
I don’t think there are local income taxes (at least visible to the employee) but they are IMO a part of the community, pay taxes indirectly (property taxes where they work, sales taxes, etc.) and should have a say because of that.
- jcims 7y ago
  Ahh, maybe in CA. In Ohio you have to pay income taxes where you work and where you live. If they are different places then there are usually some kind of weird commuter credits that never actually offset the difference.

BorgHunter 7y ago

> I’ve been thinking the past couple of years you should be able to vote in local elections in the area you work in, even if you don’t live there. In many areas this would effectively lead to the suburbs being able to dictate urban policy to the inner city, where suburban commuter interests like parking override the interests of the actual residents. The 1998 amalgamation of Toronto is a good example of this happening, and I think a lot of Old Toronto voters are quite unhappy with this, given how it led to mayors like Rob Ford who would never have been elected with the old boundaries. Other areas try to solve this by creating an uber transit authority which theoretically directs and coordinates the smaller agencies for the greater regional good. A good example of this is the Regional Transportation Authority in Chicago. It often doesn't work out the way it's intended (in Chicago, the CTA [city proper transit] and Metra [commuter rail] still have very poor coordination, although Pace [suburban buses] and CTA do have somewhat good coordination). A third approach is to (try to) make the whole region's transit the responsibility of one single agency. Picking Atlanta as an example here (MARTA), it tends to lead to affluent suburbs (Cobb and Gwinnett Counties) trying to stay out of the system because of concerns like "transit brings crime" and "it's too expensive and no one will use it" and other assorted nonsense. So that approach has its problems too. In short, this is a very thorny problem and there honestly aren't a lot of places in North America that do it very well, although some are worse than others (the SF Bay Area may seem like a mess, and it is, but it's inarguably better than the dozens of barely-funded, not-at-all-sufficient systems that exist in most large and medium cities in the U.S.). I think the right solution is probably specific to each region and it still won't solve every problem, at least not without a level of funding that transit simply does not get on this continent.

derefr 7y ago
> In many areas this would effectively lead to the suburbs being able to dictate urban policy to the inner city Then perhaps "urban policy" is an unnatural category, combining conflicting interests. Why not just have two municipal governments—one elected by those whose business interests lie within the city, which would be in charge of the city's business policy (e.g. corporate taxe and grants, arterial infrastructure, commercial zoning); and a separate one, elected by the city's urban residents, which would be in charge of the city's civic policy (e.g. estate taxes and VATs, non-arterial infrastructure, residential zoning, etc.)? These are essentially orthogonal problems that don't really "run into" each-other much; you could have two separate sets of people working on solving them without those groups needing to communicate all that much. Municipal government is already somewhat factored this way, insofar as e.g. school boards and park boards are separately elected rather than being appointments of the municipal executive; and some of those elections are defined by different political boundaries (e.g. catchment areas for schools) than the election of the municipal executive is. Why not just go one step further?
- iudqnolq 7y ago
  What happens when the business govt wants low corp tax, and the residents govt wants high corp tax to fund programs? What happens when they disagree over zoning, ie which side gets to build somewhere? I don't think you can segment that way. One related idea that might work a little better (I think it comes from libertarian circles, can't remember exactly where) is representation by profession. So eg x% of the legislature is elected by residents, and other percentages by other groups like business people.
  - mehhh 7y ago
    Representation by industry has worked really poorly for Hong Kong, its a key part of why they have the majority of thr population protesting and demanding real democracy, not the corporate controlled legislature that currently presides over HK.
    - 7y ago

dmead 7y ago

literally everyone who commutes into a city for work wants to also vote there. good luck with that.

fossuser 7y ago

Aren't there enough of us to leverage power by voting as a block? I know Palo Alto Forward was trying to do this a while back - it'd be nice if we could block vote in people that could massively upzone housing (or make whatever change is necessary to increase housing supply). Myself and a lot of my friends live in these towns with roommates - I'd think if there was a clear group to vote for and clear policy to push to increase housing we'd have a lot of votes. It's hard to even find what the existing law around building housing is, is it online anywhere?

zpallin 7y ago
You should look into supporting https://www.transformca.org https://www.transformca.org which works with Bay Area governments already to solve transportation policy. They have already contributed immensely to transportation accessibility in the region, and have been at the forefront of the BRT fight, but it's an uphill battle and they need more support.