4 ms·

> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill wo

> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.

bendbro 6y ago
Biden; the wording is unfortunately sourced from a Trump talking point, but it flows well with the other two "abolitions," and Biden's actual proposed policy would have that effect. Some things in the policy that constitute its "abolition": 1. Ending of single family zoning [1][2]. A suburb by definition is single family zoned. I think Americans should be free to produce communities that live in a manner they desire- and if this is single-family zoned, so be it. 2. Fighting sprawl. Biden wants to implement policy that prevents and disincentivizes sprawl. A suburb is by definition not dense. People should be able to live in sprawl if they want to. [1] Biden plan citing HOME act: https://joebiden.com/housing/ https://joebiden.com/housing/ [2] The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning" https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/can-cory-booker-elizabeth-warren-and-u-s-cities-end-exclusionary-zoning https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...
- anonymoushn 6y ago
  We've already ended single family zoning in California! In most of the bay area, people live in sprawl who do not want to, because people are not allowed to live in dense housing with first floor retail if they want to. Should they be allowed to do that?
  - bendbro 6y ago
    Yes! California should be free to do what Californians want, but California's desires are not necessarily aligned with the rest of the nation's desires. Each part of the nation should be free to do what that part wants. And yes, this is a potentially unachievable ideal, but we should still strive for it when possible.
anonymoushn 6y ago
YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.
- bendbro 6y ago
  I would actually prefer this way of living to sprawl, but I see no reason to make it the only federally approved form of living.
- grandmczeb 6y ago
  This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.
  - bendbro 6y ago
    It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it will be interpreted the same. You are right though that "abolish the suburbs" is more rhetorical than fact.
    - grandmczeb 6y ago
      I mean, no one is advocating eliminating single family zoning nationally either. Your characterization of Biden’s plan is totally wrong.
      - bendbro 6y ago
        Why is it wrong? I am reading from his own platform. Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "exclusionary zoning" refers to "single-family zoning" as "exclusionary zoning." 1. Biden plan citing Home Act: https://joebiden.com/housing/ https://joebiden.com/housing/ 2. The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning": https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/can-cory-booker-elizabeth-warren-and-u-s-cities-end-exclusionary-zoning https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...

bendbro 6y ago

Biden; the wording is unfortunately sourced from a Trump talking point, but it flows well with the other two "abolitions," and Biden's actual proposed policy would have that effect. Some things in the policy that constitute its "abolition": 1. Ending of single family zoning [1][2]. A suburb by definition is single family zoned. I think Americans should be free to produce communities that live in a manner they desire- and if this is single-family zoned, so be it. 2. Fighting sprawl. Biden wants to implement policy that prevents and disincentivizes sprawl. A suburb is by definition not dense. People should be able to live in sprawl if they want to. [1] Biden plan citing HOME act: https://joebiden.com/housing/ https://joebiden.com/housing/ [2] The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning" https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/can-cory-booker-elizabeth-warren-and-u-s-cities-end-exclusionary-zoning https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...

anonymoushn 6y ago
We've already ended single family zoning in California! In most of the bay area, people live in sprawl who do not want to, because people are not allowed to live in dense housing with first floor retail if they want to. Should they be allowed to do that?
- bendbro 6y ago
  Yes! California should be free to do what Californians want, but California's desires are not necessarily aligned with the rest of the nation's desires. Each part of the nation should be free to do what that part wants. And yes, this is a potentially unachievable ideal, but we should still strive for it when possible.

anonymoushn 6y ago

YIMBYs I guess. People who want to be able to live near work without paying millions for the privelege, people who want to be able to use public transit, people who don't like subsidizing others' desire to drive and park everywhere, people who think coffee shops should be allowed to be built within walking distance of their homes.

bendbro 6y ago
I would actually prefer this way of living to sprawl, but I see no reason to make it the only federally approved form of living.
grandmczeb 6y ago
This is called “ending subsidies for suburbs” or “ensuring affordable access to housing” or “promoting livable neighborhoods” or even “removing onerous regulations preventing development in our nations most productive urban areas”. That’s very different than “abolish the suburbs”, which makes it sound like you’re going to ban single family homes.
- bendbro 6y ago
  It doesn't ban single family homes, but it would ban communities composed exclusively of single family homes. Whether it is called "abolish suburbs" or "promoting livable neighborhoods," once the veil is pierced, it will be interpreted the same. You are right though that "abolish the suburbs" is more rhetorical than fact.
  - grandmczeb 6y ago
    I mean, no one is advocating eliminating single family zoning nationally either. Your characterization of Biden’s plan is totally wrong.
    - bendbro 6y ago
      Why is it wrong? I am reading from his own platform. Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "exclusionary zoning" refers to "single-family zoning" as "exclusionary zoning." 1. Biden plan citing Home Act: https://joebiden.com/housing/ https://joebiden.com/housing/ 2. The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning": https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/can-cory-booker-elizabeth-warren-and-u-s-cities-end-exclusionary-zoning https://www.google.com/amp/s/psmag.com/.amp/social-justice/c...