4 ms·

They are attributing it to a pattern of claims and declarations regarding one's own beliefs and desires that so-called progressives in places like SF and Berkel

They are attributing it to a pattern of claims and declarations regarding one's own beliefs and desires that so-called progressives in places like SF and Berkeley make, which directly contradict their behaviors. Here's a great example: https://www.johnlocke.org/good-for-thee-not-for-me-robert-reich-edition/ https://www.johnlocke.org/good-for-thee-not-for-me-robert-re... "Robert Reich, a left-wing professor at the University of California Berkeley who served as labor secretary during the Clinton administration, is very concerned about income inequality. He urged Wall Street executives to “invest” in cities by funding low-income housing projects. He also praised a “promising initiative” to promote the construction of affordable housing units in San Francisco. Reich is not so keen, however, on a proposal to tear down a dilapidated building in his Berkeley neighborhood and replace it with a 10-unit development that would include low-income housing. Reich and some of his wealthy neighbors are imploring the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to designate the dilapidated structure, known as the Payson House, as a Berkeley landmark in order to stop the proposed development. In a letter to the commission, Reich said the proposed housing units would destroy the “charm of an older era of Berkeley” and likened the developers’ actions to “the illegal practices and corrupt politics of the late nineteenth century.”

jacobolus 5y ago
“Dilapidated building” is a loaded description. The house is the oldest in the neighborhood, from 1889, and the neighbors claim it is of both architectural and local-historical significance. (I don’t have enough local knowledge to weigh in.) Here is the neighbors’ landmark application: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_LPC/2020-08-06_LPC_ATT%201A_1915%20Berryman_Landmarks%20Application.pdf https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_D... Insisting that they are just saying that as an excuse because they don’t like town houses seems uncharitable at best. Considering the sources pushing this story I’d call it more like a bad-faith political hit job vs. Prof. Reich. E.g. your link is from a far-right “think tank” in North Carolina full of climate denialists, funded by Art Pope, GOP megadonor and close friend of the Koch brothers. Not exactly the people I would trust to fairly evaluate Berkeley’s decisions on which buildings should be landmarks. In any case, the city council decided that the house isn’t important enough to qualify as a landmark, and the project is going through; the building will be torn down.
- deburo 5y ago
  Did you have a look at the house? It’s pretty funny to think it might have been considered a landmark by some.
- epistasis 5y ago
  > the neighbors claim it is of both architectural and local-historical significance. The neighbors will say whatever they can to stop the building without regard for truth or basic decorum. Their class interests are extremely conflicted, and such duplicitous bad-faith use of law is endemic in wealthy white neighborhoods like this. See, for example: https://twitter.com/cselmendorf/status/1468608996185501700?s=21 https://twitter.com/cselmendorf/status/1468608996185501700?s... The lying about true causes is so ingrained that a power-broker wrote it all out publicity in a local magazine, and thought it was self defense.
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    Every neighbor who signs the petition to make a local building a landmark isn’t always and inevitably acting in bad faith. Developers will also often happily tear down irreplaceable historical landmarks if they can profit, but that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily acting in bad faith. Which is why there is a city process involved. (In this case, deciding in favor of the developer.)
    - epistasis 5y ago
      Of course they are. Neighbors don't determine historical significance, they determine their financial and aesthetic best interests. Not really sure what "developers" have to do with this. I thought it was about history? Or is any sort of justification ok if it stops housing that's more affordable than the rest of the multi-million dollar homes of the neighborhood?
      - jacobolus 5y ago
        If you have decided a priori that all historical preservation is just bad-faith NIMBYism, that’s kind of the end of the conversation. Personally I think it is fine to leave to some kind of city process to decide which 19th century buildings to tear down, case by case, rather than just tearing them all down. In this case, the historical preservationists made their petition, but the city decided that their case wasn’t strong enough. Seems fine. But if the process is working poorly in some places, then people in the city should press for fixes. (And if city officials are violating the law, they should be sued or prosecuted, as appropriate.) Finding Bob Reich’s signature on a historical preservation petition for a 19th century building in his already mixed neighborhood (from what I can tell 2/4 corners at this intersection already have large multi-unit buildings) seems like an especially flimsy reason to write a screed attacking him for hypocrisy.
avgcorrection 5y ago
Ah, the famed super-progressive Clinton administration…

jacobolus 5y ago

“Dilapidated building” is a loaded description. The house is the oldest in the neighborhood, from 1889, and the neighbors claim it is of both architectural and local-historical significance. (I don’t have enough local knowledge to weigh in.) Here is the neighbors’ landmark application: https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_-_LPC/2020-08-06_LPC_ATT%201A_1915%20Berryman_Landmarks%20Application.pdf https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Planning_and_D... Insisting that they are just saying that as an excuse because they don’t like town houses seems uncharitable at best. Considering the sources pushing this story I’d call it more like a bad-faith political hit job vs. Prof. Reich. E.g. your link is from a far-right “think tank” in North Carolina full of climate denialists, funded by Art Pope, GOP megadonor and close friend of the Koch brothers. Not exactly the people I would trust to fairly evaluate Berkeley’s decisions on which buildings should be landmarks. In any case, the city council decided that the house isn’t important enough to qualify as a landmark, and the project is going through; the building will be torn down.

deburo 5y ago
Did you have a look at the house? It’s pretty funny to think it might have been considered a landmark by some.
epistasis 5y ago
> the neighbors claim it is of both architectural and local-historical significance. The neighbors will say whatever they can to stop the building without regard for truth or basic decorum. Their class interests are extremely conflicted, and such duplicitous bad-faith use of law is endemic in wealthy white neighborhoods like this. See, for example: https://twitter.com/cselmendorf/status/1468608996185501700?s=21 https://twitter.com/cselmendorf/status/1468608996185501700?s... The lying about true causes is so ingrained that a power-broker wrote it all out publicity in a local magazine, and thought it was self defense.
- jacobolus 5y ago
  Every neighbor who signs the petition to make a local building a landmark isn’t always and inevitably acting in bad faith. Developers will also often happily tear down irreplaceable historical landmarks if they can profit, but that doesn’t mean that they are necessarily acting in bad faith. Which is why there is a city process involved. (In this case, deciding in favor of the developer.)
  - epistasis 5y ago
    Of course they are. Neighbors don't determine historical significance, they determine their financial and aesthetic best interests. Not really sure what "developers" have to do with this. I thought it was about history? Or is any sort of justification ok if it stops housing that's more affordable than the rest of the multi-million dollar homes of the neighborhood?
    - jacobolus 5y ago
      If you have decided a priori that all historical preservation is just bad-faith NIMBYism, that’s kind of the end of the conversation. Personally I think it is fine to leave to some kind of city process to decide which 19th century buildings to tear down, case by case, rather than just tearing them all down. In this case, the historical preservationists made their petition, but the city decided that their case wasn’t strong enough. Seems fine. But if the process is working poorly in some places, then people in the city should press for fixes. (And if city officials are violating the law, they should be sued or prosecuted, as appropriate.) Finding Bob Reich’s signature on a historical preservation petition for a 19th century building in his already mixed neighborhood (from what I can tell 2/4 corners at this intersection already have large multi-unit buildings) seems like an especially flimsy reason to write a screed attacking him for hypocrisy.

avgcorrection 5y ago

Ah, the famed super-progressive Clinton administration…