3 ms·

I find it interesting that the majority of democrats were in favor of the duplexes, republicans were split, and the LA city council (14/15 democrats) were all o

I find it interesting that the majority of democrats were in favor of the duplexes, republicans were split, and the LA city council (14/15 democrats) were all opposed to the new law. This matches my experiences in SF and other parts of the country. I’ll ignore the irony that republicans are voting against expanded property rights and transparently are voting simply for class interests… I am not sure why democratic elected officials are so opposed to these rules, whether it’s not in the lawmakers’ best interests directly (ie maybe since they are on average much wealthier, they think the law will hurt them. Or result in redistricting, etc.), bog-standard graft and corruption, or whether they legitimately think the measures are unpopular and likely to result in non getting re-elected. NIMBYs are certainly loud but they actually aren’t the majority. I am so tired of hearing tortured, nonsensical explanations for why new housing must be denied or become onerously hard to get approved. So at this point I’m leaning less towards thinking politicians are (incorrectly) following what they think their constituents think, and more towards suspecting some kind of inherent conflict of interest between lawmakers and the prospect of expanded housing.

mixmastamyk 5y ago
Yes, and a lot of Democrats want open borders but no housing for them or existing younger generations. I understand some may not want to hear, but it is a direct aspect of the problem, and not unsubstantial. Nothing against immigrants of course, they'll surely need a place to live—just like everyone else. The "not in my backyard" strategy of (14/15) is not a solution.
- dang 5y ago
  Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? You've unfortunately been doing that a lot lately, and it's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Slow_Hand 5y ago
As you've suggested the dissonance between democrats largely polling in favor of the measure but city council democrats rejecting could be because the city council members have conflicting personal interests or are being influenced/lobbied by a minority who oppose the law. So perhaps the distinction of democrat is too broad and unhelpful in this situation and it should be broken down into finer demographics. 26% of Americans identify as democrat and there is bound to be a lot of diversity of opinion within such a large body of people.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Republicans should be in favor in theory because of property rights and the free market/consumer demand, but in practice they’re opposed to density for lifestyle reasons: they really like car-only lifestyles, and they’re not above using the government to force their neighbors to go along with it. They talk a lot about free market principles, but just like with Facebook or Twitter, the instant it goes against their interests, suddenly their principles are nowhere to be seen. Democrats aren’t as outright averse to density, and in theory should be for more housing because it would massively help the working class, but in practice they’re only okay with pre-existing density, because new density means redeveloping areas that probably already have people there, which means displacement. Plus, they hate the fact that new housing is more expensive than old housing, so every time a new development goes up you get a bunch of people yelling about “luxury condos”.
- x0x0 5y ago
  Renters vote at far lower rates than home owners. This leads to not particularly surprising outcomes...
q1w2 5y ago
Party line is a poor indicator of property interests. It is correlated, but not causal. The causal variable is property ownership vs renting. City council members are older (regardless of party membership) will be property owners, and thus because this issue impacts them personally and very directly, they will always vote to increase their property values (ie less construction / less supply). Democratic leaders are still usually older, and thus owners - and since this issue impacts them very very personally, they will vote against their constituency.

mixmastamyk 5y ago

Yes, and a lot of Democrats want open borders but no housing for them or existing younger generations. I understand some may not want to hear, but it is a direct aspect of the problem, and not unsubstantial. Nothing against immigrants of course, they'll surely need a place to live—just like everyone else. The "not in my backyard" strategy of (14/15) is not a solution.

dang 5y ago
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments? You've unfortunately been doing that a lot lately, and it's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Slow_Hand 5y ago

As you've suggested the dissonance between democrats largely polling in favor of the measure but city council democrats rejecting could be because the city council members have conflicting personal interests or are being influenced/lobbied by a minority who oppose the law. So perhaps the distinction of democrat is too broad and unhelpful in this situation and it should be broken down into finer demographics. 26% of Americans identify as democrat and there is bound to be a lot of diversity of opinion within such a large body of people.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
Republicans should be in favor in theory because of property rights and the free market/consumer demand, but in practice they’re opposed to density for lifestyle reasons: they really like car-only lifestyles, and they’re not above using the government to force their neighbors to go along with it. They talk a lot about free market principles, but just like with Facebook or Twitter, the instant it goes against their interests, suddenly their principles are nowhere to be seen. Democrats aren’t as outright averse to density, and in theory should be for more housing because it would massively help the working class, but in practice they’re only okay with pre-existing density, because new density means redeveloping areas that probably already have people there, which means displacement. Plus, they hate the fact that new housing is more expensive than old housing, so every time a new development goes up you get a bunch of people yelling about “luxury condos”.
x0x0 5y ago
Renters vote at far lower rates than home owners. This leads to not particularly surprising outcomes...

q1w2 5y ago

Party line is a poor indicator of property interests. It is correlated, but not causal. The causal variable is property ownership vs renting. City council members are older (regardless of party membership) will be property owners, and thus because this issue impacts them personally and very directly, they will always vote to increase their property values (ie less construction / less supply). Democratic leaders are still usually older, and thus owners - and since this issue impacts them very very personally, they will vote against their constituency.