3 ms·

Hmm. I think we may be parsing that last sentence differently. I read "making it easier for Democrats and Republicans to live side by side [by addressing public

• js2 5y ago
  The article makes this specific claim, > Democrats, surveys have shown, are more likely than Republicans to prioritize walkable neighborhoods with good public transit. Republicans, on the other hand, prize neighborhoods with more Christians and larger houses. Followed by the graph lifted from the paper, with the intro "When deciding where to live, Democrats were more likely to prioritize ..." The article is implying these lifestyle choices are why Democrats and Republicans live in different places. But that is contradicted by the study which says that while Democrats and Republicans do indeed express those preferences, those are low priority and that the higher priority things which predict where people will move, Democrats and Republicans agree on. That's my first issue, that the article is misstating the study. Separately, the article claims: > Middle-income Democrats who can’t afford a single-family home should still be able to raise their children in a duplex with a front yard. And young, lower-income Republicans shouldn’t be priced out of the cultural amenities that city life provides. But, I don't follow this reasoning. Is there evidence of Republicans who would live in cities but for the cost? Isn't it more likely there are Democrats who would rather live in cities but for the cost? Similarly, aren't there likely to be more middle-income Republicans interested in those duplexes? The article seems poorly reasoned to me. I think Biden should try to help Democrats and Republicans alike and not worry about how this influences where folks end up living. Partisan districting is a whole separate issue that needs to be addressed separately, independent of housing policy.