3 ms·

"What we need is the next higher level of government to set basic ground rules." (to the parallel discussion, further upthread ...) Here is a very good exampl

by rsync 6y ago

"What we need is the next higher level of government to set basic ground rules." (to the parallel discussion, further upthread ...) Here is a very good example of the state of the current debate that I was referring to. Democratic processes that produce undesirable outcomes are rejected. Or, as I said: "Democracy for me but not for thee."

jeffbee 6y ago
Cities in California are creatures of the state. The state can usurp any of their powers, your thoughts about ideal, spherical, frictionless democracy notwithstanding. It's the same principle under which the state of Georgia is unable to simply vote that black people aren't humans, because the federal government forbids it.
- rsync 6y ago
  Did you support non-federal legalization of Marijuana in California ? I did. I hope you'll continue to forgive me if it seems, to me, that many people are very excited about local control when it produces results they agree with.
  - Ao7bei3s 6y ago
    The difference is that the legalization only affects the people in that region, whereas exclusionary housing policies affect other people who would like to move to the region, but cannot (because they did not get into the region fast enough, for example, because they are young) and therefore cannot vote on this issue. That is literally "Democracy for me but not for thee." - people who made it there early ("me") can vote, and do (effectively) vote to keep newcomers ("thee") out and therefore not voting on those "local" policies. Yet somehow you turn it on its head. I think policies should be decided at the level at which they affect people. As an example that I think we can both agree on: Foreign policy -> federal. Noise ordinances -> county. Would you consider this "Democracy for me not thee" as well? I don't care whether I convince you, but I would really like to understand how your viewpoint interacts with my argument. If I understand it right, the core of our disagreement seems to be that I consider everyone who wants to move somewhere a stakeholder who should be able to vote, and you only consider people who already are somewhere. The rest follows from that.
    - frongpik 6y ago
      Well, their wish to move into a desireable area has no power over those who already live there. The bay area problem is easy to solve, though: tie the number of office space permits to the number of single family houses. With such a law, a big corp won't be able to build another tower and bring 5k more employees there. What prevents such a law from happening is greed: the SF city council understands that there's no room there for another 50k office workers, but it can't resist the payroll taxes those will bring.
    - rsync 6y ago
      "If I understand it right, the core of our disagreement seems to be that I consider everyone who wants to move somewhere a stakeholder who should be able to vote, and you only consider people who already are somewhere." I don't know if that's the core of our disagreement but I certainly do disagree with that. I think that I need a new term - I continue to use the word "stakeholder" but I am open-minded to the idea that someone who works in a place or consumes services in a place ... or even vacations in a place could be considered a stakeholder, of sorts. I, on the other hand, am trying to distinguish people who have skin in the game - who have dedicated their life energies and life savings to a particular community. We need to draw that line somehow and I think the purchase of real property is a decent candidate.
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    I did too, but that’s obviously not contradictory unless I supported the federal prohibition, which I did not.
- runako 6y ago
  > the same principle under which the state of Georgia is unable to simply vote that black people aren't humans, because the federal government forbids it. I think in this context, it's fair to note that this situation is itself something that can be changed by a minority of voters nationwide + another minority in Georgia.
sobellian 6y ago
Fortunately in the US, it's democracy all the way down (up?). The issue is that while municipal zoning boards are great at producing good outcomes for homeowners they are terrible at producing good outcomes for the region's residents. Unless we're going to start arguing for the abolition of state / federal governments then it's perfectly reasonable to discuss which democratic body best encompasses all the stakeholders. We don't let towns vote to secede from the US either.

by rsync 6y ago

jeffbee 6y ago

Cities in California are creatures of the state. The state can usurp any of their powers, your thoughts about ideal, spherical, frictionless democracy notwithstanding. It's the same principle under which the state of Georgia is unable to simply vote that black people aren't humans, because the federal government forbids it.

rsync 6y ago
Did you support non-federal legalization of Marijuana in California ? I did. I hope you'll continue to forgive me if it seems, to me, that many people are very excited about local control when it produces results they agree with.
- Ao7bei3s 6y ago
  The difference is that the legalization only affects the people in that region, whereas exclusionary housing policies affect other people who would like to move to the region, but cannot (because they did not get into the region fast enough, for example, because they are young) and therefore cannot vote on this issue. That is literally "Democracy for me but not for thee." - people who made it there early ("me") can vote, and do (effectively) vote to keep newcomers ("thee") out and therefore not voting on those "local" policies. Yet somehow you turn it on its head. I think policies should be decided at the level at which they affect people. As an example that I think we can both agree on: Foreign policy -> federal. Noise ordinances -> county. Would you consider this "Democracy for me not thee" as well? I don't care whether I convince you, but I would really like to understand how your viewpoint interacts with my argument. If I understand it right, the core of our disagreement seems to be that I consider everyone who wants to move somewhere a stakeholder who should be able to vote, and you only consider people who already are somewhere. The rest follows from that.
  - frongpik 6y ago
    Well, their wish to move into a desireable area has no power over those who already live there. The bay area problem is easy to solve, though: tie the number of office space permits to the number of single family houses. With such a law, a big corp won't be able to build another tower and bring 5k more employees there. What prevents such a law from happening is greed: the SF city council understands that there's no room there for another 50k office workers, but it can't resist the payroll taxes those will bring.
  - rsync 6y ago
    "If I understand it right, the core of our disagreement seems to be that I consider everyone who wants to move somewhere a stakeholder who should be able to vote, and you only consider people who already are somewhere." I don't know if that's the core of our disagreement but I certainly do disagree with that. I think that I need a new term - I continue to use the word "stakeholder" but I am open-minded to the idea that someone who works in a place or consumes services in a place ... or even vacations in a place could be considered a stakeholder, of sorts. I, on the other hand, am trying to distinguish people who have skin in the game - who have dedicated their life energies and life savings to a particular community. We need to draw that line somehow and I think the purchase of real property is a decent candidate.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  I did too, but that’s obviously not contradictory unless I supported the federal prohibition, which I did not.
runako 6y ago
> the same principle under which the state of Georgia is unable to simply vote that black people aren't humans, because the federal government forbids it. I think in this context, it's fair to note that this situation is itself something that can be changed by a minority of voters nationwide + another minority in Georgia.

sobellian 6y ago

Fortunately in the US, it's democracy all the way down (up?). The issue is that while municipal zoning boards are great at producing good outcomes for homeowners they are terrible at producing good outcomes for the region's residents. Unless we're going to start arguing for the abolition of state / federal governments then it's perfectly reasonable to discuss which democratic body best encompasses all the stakeholders. We don't let towns vote to secede from the US either.