4 ms·

Yeah, like I said, these people all failed Econ 101. It's really bizarre, they never accept that they can't have things both ways. So we've ended up with a town

Yeah, like I said, these people all failed Econ 101. It's really bizarre, they never accept that they can't have things both ways. So we've ended up with a town that's shockingly beautiful and unique, but it's becoming more dysfunctional by the day because of the development ethos, and instead of doing something everyone just complains. It's great if you've got tons of money, and then it just gets harder and harder for those who don't. I mean, that's the most ironic part, is that the same hyper liberal people who are so against development have directly caused such wild living disparities across income brackets.

mywittyname 5y ago
> is that the same hyper liberal people who are so against development Kind of a weird statement. Having grown up in a small town, there's wasn't a "hyper liberal" person in sight. The elitist, anti-growth, outsiders-are-destroying-this-place attitude is pervasive everywhere. It's absolutely not a party thing. It just so happens that California has a lot of outsiders wanting to move there, and is left-leaning. That's it. You see the same exact attitudes in towns in Wyoming, Texas, and Florida too.
- bedhead 5y ago
  Perhaps injecting partisan into it was dumb of me, however, in my experience it was the very liberal people who were the ones who spearheaded some of our largest long-term planning blunders. But you're right, the pervasive attitude in most smaller communities is generally "Everything was great until a shortly after I moved here" which really drives me crazy. I suppose it's just more acute in a town of 3,000.
  - BeFlatXIII 5y ago
    If everything truly was great until shortly after you moved there, especially if it happens at several theres, that means that you were what made the places fall from greatness.
- Sr_developer 5y ago
  All those staunch conservatives in San Francisco, Seattle and Portland.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    ...Arizona, Texas, Nevada It's a very longstanding cliche to complain about people from California moving into the nearby states. Lots of that when I went to school in AZ in the 90s.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    Yes, as we all know, homeowners bias towards American liberalism. What political clarity coming from Sr_developer.
    - Sr_developer 5y ago
      > Interestingly, homeownership has a split effect on political party affiliation. Those who use private mortgages “polarize,” according to the authors, with some becoming Republican and others becoming Democrats. But homeowners who get mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration, so-called FHA loans, are much more likely to become Democrats. > By submitting my information, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. In fact, the authors point out, even those who were previously Republicans “shift markedly” toward the Democratic party once they receive an FHA loan. It could be that those who receive FHA-backed loans recognize the value of government in helping them obtain a low-interest mortgage or perhaps it is because FHA loans are only available for more modest loans, and are more likely to be taken by working- or middle-class people. At the same time, Republicans who do not use FHA loans become even more Republican. > It’s not just that becoming homeowners makes people more NIMBYish, or that homeownership locks people into place, but buying a home changes people’s political behavior writ large. Once someone buys a home, they act politically to protect its value. As the authors point out: “Overall, the results suggest that individual economic circumstances importantly influence political beliefs and behavior, and suggest that homeowners have special influence in American politics in part because their ownership motivates them to pay attention and to participate.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-28/how-homeownership-contributes-to-political-divides https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-28/how-homeo... Oh look, another HN commenter with 0 idea of what he is talking about, but all the bravado to support his dumb position.
qqqwerty 5y ago
> is that the same hyper liberal people who are so against development A bit of a nit pick here, but this issue does not fall cleanly across partisan lines. Some of the most vocal advocates for zoning reform are on the left. And at least in my town, a fair number of folks in the anti-development camp are traditionally right leaning well off suburbanites. If I could pick one issue that most scrambles the traditional partisan alignments, this would probably be it.
- reducesuffering 5y ago
  That's because there's three factions now. "woke"-left, center classical liberal, and "alt"-right. Both the "woke"-left and "alt"-right are generally NIMBY anti-development, for different mistaken reasons.
  - legerdemain 5y ago
    Why is the alt-right NIMBY? Homeowners are NIMBY because their home is their retirement fund, and housing scarcity boosts the value of their home. Anti-development is literally in homeowners' immediate self-interest.
    - reducesuffering 5y ago
      While some part of the issue is some homeowner's financial interest, I believe that it is mostly lifestyle/neighborhood preservation. They moved there because they like it exactly as it was when they moved there (or otherwise they would've moved to a more developed place), and over years and years things change because our world is dynamic and increasing population-wise. I characterize it as "alt"-right because the right has largely been taken over by Trumpian issues. And the right is generally anti-density and all that it comes with like, rural and suburban areas, cars, and keeping the undesirables away. Trump even had that bill that was about preventing zoning fixes that would "invade the suburbs."[0] [0]https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/23/trumplow-income-housing-suburbs-400155 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/23/trumplow-income-hou...
    - slt2021 5y ago
arcturus17 5y ago
> It's really bizarre, they never accept that they can't have things both ways It’s not really that bizarre when you accept that it’s part of the human condition. Then you start seeing the pattern all over the place, especially in politics. I have two degrees where the concept is pretty much taught in the first hour of 101 classes: economics (cost of opportunity) and software engineering (design trade-offs). And while I see through the pattern quite well, I wish I could say my behavior is always perfectly consistent with what I know.

mywittyname 5y ago

> is that the same hyper liberal people who are so against development Kind of a weird statement. Having grown up in a small town, there's wasn't a "hyper liberal" person in sight. The elitist, anti-growth, outsiders-are-destroying-this-place attitude is pervasive everywhere. It's absolutely not a party thing. It just so happens that California has a lot of outsiders wanting to move there, and is left-leaning. That's it. You see the same exact attitudes in towns in Wyoming, Texas, and Florida too.

bedhead 5y ago
Perhaps injecting partisan into it was dumb of me, however, in my experience it was the very liberal people who were the ones who spearheaded some of our largest long-term planning blunders. But you're right, the pervasive attitude in most smaller communities is generally "Everything was great until a shortly after I moved here" which really drives me crazy. I suppose it's just more acute in a town of 3,000.
- BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  If everything truly was great until shortly after you moved there, especially if it happens at several theres, that means that you were what made the places fall from greatness.
Sr_developer 5y ago
All those staunch conservatives in San Francisco, Seattle and Portland.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  ...Arizona, Texas, Nevada It's a very longstanding cliche to complain about people from California moving into the nearby states. Lots of that when I went to school in AZ in the 90s.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Yes, as we all know, homeowners bias towards American liberalism. What political clarity coming from Sr_developer.
  - Sr_developer 5y ago
    > Interestingly, homeownership has a split effect on political party affiliation. Those who use private mortgages “polarize,” according to the authors, with some becoming Republican and others becoming Democrats. But homeowners who get mortgages backed by the Federal Housing Administration, so-called FHA loans, are much more likely to become Democrats. > By submitting my information, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. In fact, the authors point out, even those who were previously Republicans “shift markedly” toward the Democratic party once they receive an FHA loan. It could be that those who receive FHA-backed loans recognize the value of government in helping them obtain a low-interest mortgage or perhaps it is because FHA loans are only available for more modest loans, and are more likely to be taken by working- or middle-class people. At the same time, Republicans who do not use FHA loans become even more Republican. > It’s not just that becoming homeowners makes people more NIMBYish, or that homeownership locks people into place, but buying a home changes people’s political behavior writ large. Once someone buys a home, they act politically to protect its value. As the authors point out: “Overall, the results suggest that individual economic circumstances importantly influence political beliefs and behavior, and suggest that homeowners have special influence in American politics in part because their ownership motivates them to pay attention and to participate.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-28/how-homeownership-contributes-to-political-divides https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-28/how-homeo... Oh look, another HN commenter with 0 idea of what he is talking about, but all the bravado to support his dumb position.

qqqwerty 5y ago

> is that the same hyper liberal people who are so against development A bit of a nit pick here, but this issue does not fall cleanly across partisan lines. Some of the most vocal advocates for zoning reform are on the left. And at least in my town, a fair number of folks in the anti-development camp are traditionally right leaning well off suburbanites. If I could pick one issue that most scrambles the traditional partisan alignments, this would probably be it.

reducesuffering 5y ago
That's because there's three factions now. "woke"-left, center classical liberal, and "alt"-right. Both the "woke"-left and "alt"-right are generally NIMBY anti-development, for different mistaken reasons.
- legerdemain 5y ago
  Why is the alt-right NIMBY? Homeowners are NIMBY because their home is their retirement fund, and housing scarcity boosts the value of their home. Anti-development is literally in homeowners' immediate self-interest.
  - reducesuffering 5y ago
    While some part of the issue is some homeowner's financial interest, I believe that it is mostly lifestyle/neighborhood preservation. They moved there because they like it exactly as it was when they moved there (or otherwise they would've moved to a more developed place), and over years and years things change because our world is dynamic and increasing population-wise. I characterize it as "alt"-right because the right has largely been taken over by Trumpian issues. And the right is generally anti-density and all that it comes with like, rural and suburban areas, cars, and keeping the undesirables away. Trump even had that bill that was about preventing zoning fixes that would "invade the suburbs."[0] [0]https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/23/trumplow-income-housing-suburbs-400155 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/23/trumplow-income-hou...
  - slt2021 5y ago

arcturus17 5y ago

> It's really bizarre, they never accept that they can't have things both ways It’s not really that bizarre when you accept that it’s part of the human condition. Then you start seeing the pattern all over the place, especially in politics. I have two degrees where the concept is pretty much taught in the first hour of 101 classes: economics (cost of opportunity) and software engineering (design trade-offs). And while I see through the pattern quite well, I wish I could say my behavior is always perfectly consistent with what I know.