3 ms·

It's less a political delineation and more of a class one. In nearly any city, whether it's left- or right- leaning, there's a class of landowners who intention

It's less a political delineation and more of a class one. In nearly any city, whether it's left- or right- leaning, there's a class of landowners who intentionally reject rezoning to artificially restrict the supply of homes. If we followed the logic in your comment, a millennial in a southern red city would reject the right, and choose the left, for your reasoning: their conservative leaders failed their ability to get on the housing ladder. Make no mistake, it's about wealthy protecting their wealth. Conservatives and liberals in cities nationwide block the construction of new housing. And it's perfectly rational for people to do so, without it being a judgment of their broader political beliefs. People like their private property and they want it to appreciate. You have to realize that ideal is present in both well-to-do left and right leaning areas.

mercy_dude 5y ago
No you totally missed my point. Places I was giving example as are places where you as a politician literally have to do nothing and you would still be winning elections. So my point was if millennials and GenZ are the victims of the policies or lack thereof and want these politicians to do something, why do they keep voting for them when these same politicians have fueled the price growth and continues to do nothing? The example I gave was SF which happens to be left (much like most of the HCOL cities) but the same would be applicable to right as well. My point is the moment politicians realize they don’t actually have to make any efforts to improve the quality of life for their constituents, and can rather keep them busy driving culture war outrage and making them single issue voters is the moment people as a whole lose. For example I don’t like Joe Manchin or Kristin Synema. But they are hell of a better choice for the people they are serving than Nancy Pelosi or Ted Cruz. Knowing your action can cost you elections is how democracy is supposed to work. > If we followed the logic in your comment, a millennial in a southern red city would reject the right, and choose the left If it means that the right is virtually winning every election cycle and not doing anything to improve their quality of life and major pressing issues, then yes they should. Democracy is all about keeping people in power in check so when it comes to re-election we can vote them Out if they didn’t do a good job. at least in my book.
- akiselev 5y ago
  With all due respect, it seems you're so deep into the culture war that you can't see the forest for the trees. The left vs right distinction hasn't existed in San Francisco for decades at this point - it barely exists in California metros at all anymore beyond the old party fundraising machinery. The Republican party is already practically irrelevant state wide. The same can be said of Democrats in rural California or even many states. In those scenarios, the second you make it about political ideology, you shut yourself out of the process, either by refusing to engage with it because they're the "others" or failing to understand what the constituents actually care about. For example, you're negatively comparing Nancy Pelosi, the House Rep of one of the wealthiest districts in the country, to three senators of diverse states. I don't see what led you to that conclusion other than a ideological blind spot - all the SF homeowners who put her in office for nearly 40 years have benefited wildly from the national policies she has supported. She has so much power in Congress because she represents that district so well that she can spend all her time fundraising for other members of Congress and fighting the culture war (which, in my experience, rarely bleeds into her actual campaign because her constituency doesn't give one shit as long as their two bedroom condo is worth 7 figures). These are the "wealthy" that the GP is talking about and they've stuck with her for nearly four decades through several boom and bust cycles. Say all you want about her politics, but her constituents overwhelmingly chose her over and over again. Are they idiots? Most striking is that all of your complaints seem to be about the local politics of San Francisco - so what do Pelosi, Cruz, Sinema, or Manchin have to do with it? If they had any more than a passing, indirect influence on San Francisco decision makers, it would be a major breach of the Federal/state/local separation of powers. Likewise with monetary policy. A focus on national politics makes one completely blind to what's actually going on at a local level.
- ProfessorLayton 5y ago
  >So my point was if millennials and GenZ are the victims of the policies or lack thereof and want these politicians to do something, why do they keep voting for them when these same politicians have fueled the price growth and continues to do nothing? That's actually the problem! Spoiler: They don't vote (enough, compared to older cohorts). Older people are generally wealthier, and they also tend to vote in greater numbers and for their own interests, but younger people don't. It really is tragic, but not for the reasons you listed.
zionic 5y ago
There are no “southern red cities”. Every major population center is blue, even Alaska.
- 88913527 5y ago
  There are exceptions. In a blue state: you have San Clemente and Newport Beach (Orange County), Huntington Beach (Los Angeles County). In red states: Bismarck, North Dakota (2nd largest city in ND); Provo, Utah; and Cape Coral, Florida. and if you dissect further you'll find red neighborhoods in blue cities like University Park in Dallas.
tarsinge 5y ago
> there's a class of landowners who intentionally reject rezoning to artificially restrict the supply of homes I don't understand this, where I live rezoning means your land becomes 3x more valuable overnight and every house landowner dream of it. Opposition is either sentimental or for environmental concerns (which can be justified).
- 88913527 5y ago
  If you'll indulge me, I have a concrete story on this. In San Diego County, in the city of Del Mar, there is one final plot of 17.45 acres of oceanfront land. What was to happen to it? The proposal was the "Marisol Specific Plan". It was to developed into a resort, easily a high 9-figure project, producing revenue, creating jobs, economic activity. When voters unsurprisingly rejected it, the land was subdivided into 5 ultra-luxury lots, each going for $10-20 million. The inadequate zoning is leaving hundreds of millions dollars gone because the land can't be put to its full productive use.
adam_arthur 5y ago
Zoning in right leaning states seems much more permissive on average. In Austin they are tearing down old homes left and right and replacing with 2-3 on same plot. Never seen this done in Maryland, California or New York when I lived there. Construction and zoning seems much less of an issue in Texas vs California. I believe it's the same in Arizona, Florida etc. But no firsthand experience in those markets. Simply rezoning SFH plots to allow for multi-family construction and allowing the free market to work will very quickly produce new housing stock. It also immediately benefits existing homeowners by increasing the utility/value of their land. e.g. you now own a plot that can produce a 4 unit home, inherent value is higher
- defterGoose 5y ago
  Yet Texas (one of the leading energy economies in the nation I'll add) can't seem to figure out having an energy grid that doesn't shut off when it gets dangerously cold. Let's just be honest that no single political alignment has a monopoly on good ideas.

mercy_dude 5y ago

No you totally missed my point. Places I was giving example as are places where you as a politician literally have to do nothing and you would still be winning elections. So my point was if millennials and GenZ are the victims of the policies or lack thereof and want these politicians to do something, why do they keep voting for them when these same politicians have fueled the price growth and continues to do nothing? The example I gave was SF which happens to be left (much like most of the HCOL cities) but the same would be applicable to right as well. My point is the moment politicians realize they don’t actually have to make any efforts to improve the quality of life for their constituents, and can rather keep them busy driving culture war outrage and making them single issue voters is the moment people as a whole lose. For example I don’t like Joe Manchin or Kristin Synema. But they are hell of a better choice for the people they are serving than Nancy Pelosi or Ted Cruz. Knowing your action can cost you elections is how democracy is supposed to work. > If we followed the logic in your comment, a millennial in a southern red city would reject the right, and choose the left If it means that the right is virtually winning every election cycle and not doing anything to improve their quality of life and major pressing issues, then yes they should. Democracy is all about keeping people in power in check so when it comes to re-election we can vote them Out if they didn’t do a good job. at least in my book.

akiselev 5y ago
With all due respect, it seems you're so deep into the culture war that you can't see the forest for the trees. The left vs right distinction hasn't existed in San Francisco for decades at this point - it barely exists in California metros at all anymore beyond the old party fundraising machinery. The Republican party is already practically irrelevant state wide. The same can be said of Democrats in rural California or even many states. In those scenarios, the second you make it about political ideology, you shut yourself out of the process, either by refusing to engage with it because they're the "others" or failing to understand what the constituents actually care about. For example, you're negatively comparing Nancy Pelosi, the House Rep of one of the wealthiest districts in the country, to three senators of diverse states. I don't see what led you to that conclusion other than a ideological blind spot - all the SF homeowners who put her in office for nearly 40 years have benefited wildly from the national policies she has supported. She has so much power in Congress because she represents that district so well that she can spend all her time fundraising for other members of Congress and fighting the culture war (which, in my experience, rarely bleeds into her actual campaign because her constituency doesn't give one shit as long as their two bedroom condo is worth 7 figures). These are the "wealthy" that the GP is talking about and they've stuck with her for nearly four decades through several boom and bust cycles. Say all you want about her politics, but her constituents overwhelmingly chose her over and over again. Are they idiots? Most striking is that all of your complaints seem to be about the local politics of San Francisco - so what do Pelosi, Cruz, Sinema, or Manchin have to do with it? If they had any more than a passing, indirect influence on San Francisco decision makers, it would be a major breach of the Federal/state/local separation of powers. Likewise with monetary policy. A focus on national politics makes one completely blind to what's actually going on at a local level.
ProfessorLayton 5y ago
>So my point was if millennials and GenZ are the victims of the policies or lack thereof and want these politicians to do something, why do they keep voting for them when these same politicians have fueled the price growth and continues to do nothing? That's actually the problem! Spoiler: They don't vote (enough, compared to older cohorts). Older people are generally wealthier, and they also tend to vote in greater numbers and for their own interests, but younger people don't. It really is tragic, but not for the reasons you listed.

zionic 5y ago

There are no “southern red cities”. Every major population center is blue, even Alaska.

88913527 5y ago
There are exceptions. In a blue state: you have San Clemente and Newport Beach (Orange County), Huntington Beach (Los Angeles County). In red states: Bismarck, North Dakota (2nd largest city in ND); Provo, Utah; and Cape Coral, Florida. and if you dissect further you'll find red neighborhoods in blue cities like University Park in Dallas.

tarsinge 5y ago

> there's a class of landowners who intentionally reject rezoning to artificially restrict the supply of homes I don't understand this, where I live rezoning means your land becomes 3x more valuable overnight and every house landowner dream of it. Opposition is either sentimental or for environmental concerns (which can be justified).

88913527 5y ago
If you'll indulge me, I have a concrete story on this. In San Diego County, in the city of Del Mar, there is one final plot of 17.45 acres of oceanfront land. What was to happen to it? The proposal was the "Marisol Specific Plan". It was to developed into a resort, easily a high 9-figure project, producing revenue, creating jobs, economic activity. When voters unsurprisingly rejected it, the land was subdivided into 5 ultra-luxury lots, each going for $10-20 million. The inadequate zoning is leaving hundreds of millions dollars gone because the land can't be put to its full productive use.

adam_arthur 5y ago

Zoning in right leaning states seems much more permissive on average. In Austin they are tearing down old homes left and right and replacing with 2-3 on same plot. Never seen this done in Maryland, California or New York when I lived there. Construction and zoning seems much less of an issue in Texas vs California. I believe it's the same in Arizona, Florida etc. But no firsthand experience in those markets. Simply rezoning SFH plots to allow for multi-family construction and allowing the free market to work will very quickly produce new housing stock. It also immediately benefits existing homeowners by increasing the utility/value of their land. e.g. you now own a plot that can produce a 4 unit home, inherent value is higher

defterGoose 5y ago
Yet Texas (one of the leading energy economies in the nation I'll add) can't seem to figure out having an energy grid that doesn't shut off when it gets dangerously cold. Let's just be honest that no single political alignment has a monopoly on good ideas.