5 ms·

I find it strange that this article defines relaxing zoning codes as "progressive." I suppose that the author is writing for an audience that equates "progressi

I find it strange that this article defines relaxing zoning codes as "progressive." I suppose that the author is writing for an audience that equates "progressive" and "good" but in any other context supporting strict regulation that restricts property rights isn't really "conservative."

almost_usual 6y ago
Didn’t know rich gated communities were all about up-zoning.
throwaway9980 6y ago
Not sure how the article is using the terms because it’s paywalled. Generally “conservative” means maintaining the status quo. You could see how “progressive” might be the opposite if that. It’s interesting when you apply the older “liberal” label which would mean generally permissive. Obviously that label makes no sense whatsoever when describing San Francisco. In this case it sounds like they are describing entrenched interests as conservative because they want to conserve the current state of affairs. They are opposed to progress. Therefore the people opposite them must be progressive.
cheriot 6y ago
Wanting to keep things they way they are or go back to the way they once were is a conservative cause. Otoh, progressives pushing to allow change are motivated by environmental and social justice causes.
- phendrenad2 6y ago
  That assumes a liberal policy has never been passed. Wanting to keep a liberal policy in place obviously isn't conservative. Seems obvious, but point is, we can't work backwards and say that if someone wants to keep something the same, that thing must be conservative. Of course, this assumes that we're talking about the usual political definitions of "conservative" vs "liberal", which more or less correspond to "right" and "left". If we're talking about "conservative" meaning "wants to status quo", then it gets really useless because the alternative is "wants to keep changing things", which isn't a political archetype that exists in reality.
  - cheriot 6y ago
    > Wanting to keep a liberal policy in place obviously isn't conservative. Prohibiting development was originally a progressive position because redevelopment policies were being used to displace poor and brown communities. Now people want to keep those prohibitions in place because they function as a way to keep neighborhoods exclusive and generally keep things the way they are. So defending them has become a conservative position. > the alternative is "wants to keep changing things", which isn't a political archetype that exists in reality. Progressive is about progress and "wants to keep changing" is the whole point. From voting rights to civil rights to economic opportunity, being progressive means demanding change. The American republic is 245 years old and still has a long way to go to live up to its ideals.
Gibbon1 6y ago
Having lived in SF for 25 years I think trying to inject banal partisan politics into this results in garbage. Doubly so when you start saying that letting developers rip with no restrictions will fix everything. Which seems to be the HN tech bro opinion. The city has close to 20,000 people per square mile, average. And has no greenfield left. You want to increase density? Well then make developers and tech companies pay for a subway. And another BART Tunnel. Like every other city with that sort of density.
- gms 6y ago
  They already do, in the form of taxes.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    There is no plans to build a subway or a second BART tunnel. In the US projects like that take 10-15 years to break ground. And ten years to finish. And I'll point out the VC funded tech industry is extremely hostile to mass transit projects.
    - mushbino 6y ago
      One of the major issues in California is that damn near every massive project is won by Tutor Perenni who always goes way over budget and way over schedule and ends with the final product falling apart and needing repair as soon as it's finished. I've always suspected that corruption has something to do with it considering how many times they've massively screwed things up.
    - astrange 6y ago
      The tech industry is extremely apathetic to local politics and mostly loses fights they try to get into.
caconym_ 6y ago
Relaxing zoning codes to allow new, higher-density development is a progressive idea in contemporary urbanism. In a lot (but not all) of cases, it literally comes down to wealthy landowners vs. young non-landowners, and the former group typically skews conservative in every sense. edit: And it also comes into conflict with political progressives for essentially not being progressive enough, since it allows for new housing to be built that some people are still priced out of. So I think the angle that they're trying to hand-wave zoning deregulation as being "good" by using the word "progressive" is doubly misguided.
- nickff 6y ago
  Zoning was a progressive idea! Zoning is a child of the administrative state. Removing zoning is a (classical) liberal move.
  - caconym_ 6y ago
    > Zoning was a progressive idea! Zoning is a child of the administrative state. Well, like I said, upzoning is still not super popular with progressives as in American progressives, because of the leftist crossover and social justice angle there. But I still think it’s correct to describe it as progressive in the context of contemporary urbanism. We just have to accept that these terms are overloaded and make sure we agree on what we’re talking about. “Conservative” has the exact same problem—there’s what the encyclopedia says it is, and what American conservatives say it is, and what American conservatives actually do (not such big fans of small government after all, I think).
    - nickff 6y ago
      You’re saying that what progressives championed in the early 1900s, and continue to support (as evidenced by the reality in progressive-dominated cities) is conservative. It doesn’t make much sense. The conservative movement never really had much to say about housing policy as far as I can tell. Classical liberals on the other hand, have been consistently anti-regulation.
jariel 6y ago
Whatever change an advocate wants is 'progressive and moral' everything else is not.
diebeforei485 6y ago
Keeping existing height limits in place is quite literally conservative, because it means things don't change.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 6y ago
Looks to me these terms - "progressive", "conservative", "liberal" - are very leaky abstractions. Maybe just resort to more basic representations - "dislikes blacks", "landowner", "dislikes authority", "consumes avocado toasts"
JeremyNT 6y ago
> I find it strange that this article defines relaxing zoning codes as "progressive." I suppose that the author is writing for an audience that equates "progressive" and "good" but in any other context supporting strict regulation that restricts property rights isn't really "conservative." This is quite amusing to watch. This kind of deregulation is now sold on the hand-wavey idea that it solves housing affordability (with incredibly limited evidence), and the unspoken premise is that government is too incompetent and the invisible hand of the free market is uniquely qualified to solve the problem. "Rent control doesn't fully solve the problem, so just let the market solve it instead!" is about as libertarian a position as one could possibly espouse, yet it's got a shiny coat of paint as the "YIMBY" movement. Now, if you push back with a suggestion that some combination of government initiated interventions might be more effective than just letting capital do whatever the hell it wants, you're just a conservative NIMBY who wants to keep the poors away out of their own self interest.

almost_usual 6y ago

Didn’t know rich gated communities were all about up-zoning.

throwaway9980 6y ago

Not sure how the article is using the terms because it’s paywalled. Generally “conservative” means maintaining the status quo. You could see how “progressive” might be the opposite if that. It’s interesting when you apply the older “liberal” label which would mean generally permissive. Obviously that label makes no sense whatsoever when describing San Francisco. In this case it sounds like they are describing entrenched interests as conservative because they want to conserve the current state of affairs. They are opposed to progress. Therefore the people opposite them must be progressive.

cheriot 6y ago

Wanting to keep things they way they are or go back to the way they once were is a conservative cause. Otoh, progressives pushing to allow change are motivated by environmental and social justice causes.

phendrenad2 6y ago
That assumes a liberal policy has never been passed. Wanting to keep a liberal policy in place obviously isn't conservative. Seems obvious, but point is, we can't work backwards and say that if someone wants to keep something the same, that thing must be conservative. Of course, this assumes that we're talking about the usual political definitions of "conservative" vs "liberal", which more or less correspond to "right" and "left". If we're talking about "conservative" meaning "wants to status quo", then it gets really useless because the alternative is "wants to keep changing things", which isn't a political archetype that exists in reality.
- cheriot 6y ago
  > Wanting to keep a liberal policy in place obviously isn't conservative. Prohibiting development was originally a progressive position because redevelopment policies were being used to displace poor and brown communities. Now people want to keep those prohibitions in place because they function as a way to keep neighborhoods exclusive and generally keep things the way they are. So defending them has become a conservative position. > the alternative is "wants to keep changing things", which isn't a political archetype that exists in reality. Progressive is about progress and "wants to keep changing" is the whole point. From voting rights to civil rights to economic opportunity, being progressive means demanding change. The American republic is 245 years old and still has a long way to go to live up to its ideals.

Gibbon1 6y ago

Having lived in SF for 25 years I think trying to inject banal partisan politics into this results in garbage. Doubly so when you start saying that letting developers rip with no restrictions will fix everything. Which seems to be the HN tech bro opinion. The city has close to 20,000 people per square mile, average. And has no greenfield left. You want to increase density? Well then make developers and tech companies pay for a subway. And another BART Tunnel. Like every other city with that sort of density.

gms 6y ago
They already do, in the form of taxes.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  There is no plans to build a subway or a second BART tunnel. In the US projects like that take 10-15 years to break ground. And ten years to finish. And I'll point out the VC funded tech industry is extremely hostile to mass transit projects.
  - mushbino 6y ago
    One of the major issues in California is that damn near every massive project is won by Tutor Perenni who always goes way over budget and way over schedule and ends with the final product falling apart and needing repair as soon as it's finished. I've always suspected that corruption has something to do with it considering how many times they've massively screwed things up.
  - astrange 6y ago
    The tech industry is extremely apathetic to local politics and mostly loses fights they try to get into.

caconym_ 6y ago

Relaxing zoning codes to allow new, higher-density development is a progressive idea in contemporary urbanism. In a lot (but not all) of cases, it literally comes down to wealthy landowners vs. young non-landowners, and the former group typically skews conservative in every sense. edit: And it also comes into conflict with political progressives for essentially not being progressive enough, since it allows for new housing to be built that some people are still priced out of. So I think the angle that they're trying to hand-wave zoning deregulation as being "good" by using the word "progressive" is doubly misguided.

nickff 6y ago
Zoning was a progressive idea! Zoning is a child of the administrative state. Removing zoning is a (classical) liberal move.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  > Zoning was a progressive idea! Zoning is a child of the administrative state. Well, like I said, upzoning is still not super popular with progressives as in American progressives, because of the leftist crossover and social justice angle there. But I still think it’s correct to describe it as progressive in the context of contemporary urbanism. We just have to accept that these terms are overloaded and make sure we agree on what we’re talking about. “Conservative” has the exact same problem—there’s what the encyclopedia says it is, and what American conservatives say it is, and what American conservatives actually do (not such big fans of small government after all, I think).
  - nickff 6y ago
    You’re saying that what progressives championed in the early 1900s, and continue to support (as evidenced by the reality in progressive-dominated cities) is conservative. It doesn’t make much sense. The conservative movement never really had much to say about housing policy as far as I can tell. Classical liberals on the other hand, have been consistently anti-regulation.

jariel 6y ago

Whatever change an advocate wants is 'progressive and moral' everything else is not.

diebeforei485 6y ago

Keeping existing height limits in place is quite literally conservative, because it means things don't change.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 6y ago

Looks to me these terms - "progressive", "conservative", "liberal" - are very leaky abstractions. Maybe just resort to more basic representations - "dislikes blacks", "landowner", "dislikes authority", "consumes avocado toasts"

JeremyNT 6y ago

> I find it strange that this article defines relaxing zoning codes as "progressive." I suppose that the author is writing for an audience that equates "progressive" and "good" but in any other context supporting strict regulation that restricts property rights isn't really "conservative." This is quite amusing to watch. This kind of deregulation is now sold on the hand-wavey idea that it solves housing affordability (with incredibly limited evidence), and the unspoken premise is that government is too incompetent and the invisible hand of the free market is uniquely qualified to solve the problem. "Rent control doesn't fully solve the problem, so just let the market solve it instead!" is about as libertarian a position as one could possibly espouse, yet it's got a shiny coat of paint as the "YIMBY" movement. Now, if you push back with a suggestion that some combination of government initiated interventions might be more effective than just letting capital do whatever the hell it wants, you're just a conservative NIMBY who wants to keep the poors away out of their own self interest.