3 ms·
Alright, please see this as an olive branch to YIMBYs. The results are pretty clear. The YIMBYs do not have the votes on their own to get this done. Unless you
by cf 7y ago
Alright, please see this as an olive branch to YIMBYs. The results are pretty clear. The YIMBYs do not have the votes on their own to get this done. Unless you are some suburban retiree you probably recognize that the solution is building more housing.
I think based on the voting records YIMBYs should join forces with PHIMBYs and make the next iteration of SB50 really take public and affordable housing seriously. The existing provisions added to SB50 already got the bill much closer. Why not add some provisions from AB1279? Maybe repeal article 34 in the constitution? Maybe repeal Costa-Hawkins? There are NIMBYs that are pretty clearly hiding behind affordable housing that we know are insincere. We know their cities and counties aren't doing enough to help poor folks. But the evidence suggests there are enough people that want to upzone and build housing to get this done.
Does this strike others here are a reasonable path forward?
- Areading314 7y agoThe reasonable path forward is to write off SF as a good place to live or do business. Tech badly needs a new economic zone, one where it is actually welcome.
- ratfaced-guy 7y agoThis has been obvious to me for years. Also because the most affordable dynamic places always have a combination of PHIMBY and YIMBY. YIMBY was started by libertarian market urbanists. I agree govt intervention limiting land use rights is the main problem, but you’ll never get support for deliberalizing land use without guaranteeing protections to the lower and working classes. There’s plenty of ways to make this stuff work (see abroad) without having it turn into another Cabrini Green