4 ms·

It's always been "progress for me, not for thee" type of thing. "Let's solve homelessness, but keep them out of my neighbourhood!" When conservatives complain a

It's always been "progress for me, not for thee" type of thing. "Let's solve homelessness, but keep them out of my neighbourhood!" When conservatives complain about the "coastal left" this is what they're talking about. People who are wealthy and hypocritical in the extreme.

tjr225 4y ago
The coastal left, especially those that are wealthy, do not care whatsoever what these “conservatives” think about them.
isatty 4y ago
This is not an issue that can be summarized in a HN comment, but you're not going to get anyone to agree to the extreme end of either spectrum (peak NIMBY or peak progressive), it just won't work.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  YIMBY is not a synonym for progressive. I'm not sure I know any YIMBYs who aren't relatively wealthy libertarians.
  - wk_end 4y ago
    waves I consider myself a YIMBY, and I also consider myself pretty progressive on most issues and certainly not a libertarian...so you know at least one now.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 4y ago
What blows my mind traveling around the country is that, on the ground, Iowa or Texas are egalitarian paradise compared to NYC or SF. I can’t stand to be in those cities these days because of the yawing wealth and racial divides. I really wonder how much of the progressive drama results from these highly educated folks working in overwhelmingly white/Asian industries and living in places like SF or NYC where nearly all the Black or brown people they meet are working service jobs for them.
- ryanobjc 4y ago
  There's been a lot of articles lately talking about how all those previously easy to live areas have become less livable due to... well people moving there. The root cause is demand > supply. That's it. Everything gets more expensive, and those who can get paid a lot do, and everyone else has to make do. Texas yes, but tell me about Austin... and how it has all the same problems of the bay area now, entirely because people moved there.
  - keneda7 4y ago
    Do you think it is people moving or do you think it is people moving and then voting in people to enact the same policies as the location they moved from? If person A leaves a location because of crap/idiotic policies/laws, moves to a new location, then votes in people that will institute those same crap/idiotic policies/laws the just fled again, is person A not the problem?
    - rrix2 4y ago
      could you point to some examples of this happening?
      - keneda7 4y ago
        Off the top of my head, Texas. Texas was a majority solid red for a long time. Now a massive influx of has made multiple seats that historically have been safely red, competitive, or even flip to blue. Look at the places people are moving to in Texas then look at those locations elections.
        rrix2 4y ago
        I understand that there is a demographic shift in urban centers outside of the coasts. I meant: can you point to any policy changes after these demographic shifts which have lead to an up-tick of NIMBY/anti-housing regulations in these areas like what is seen in SF?
s1artibartfast 4y ago
There is nothing contradictory about wanting to solve homelessness and wanting them out of your neighborhood. In fact, that is exactly why many people want to end it
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  > There is nothing contradictory about wanting to solve homelessness and wanting them out of your neighborhood Yes there is. If you want them housed, but not in your neighborhood, then you either want them out in a forest somewhere, or you want them in someone else's neighborhood. The former isn't actually housing them, and the latter is the contradiction.
  - isatty 4y ago
    Then build housing that is accompanied by parking, mental health facilities and rehab facilities. Building _only_ housing, and leaving it derelict when the mentally ill eventually trash it leads to a drop in quality of life and safety for the entire neighborhood.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      I don't think any proposals have been obstructed on the grounds that opposed neighborhoods felt like more facilities should accompany the shelters in their neighborhood. I'd be satisfied to see that though.
  - lokar 4y ago
    Just look at the SRO scene in the tenderloin. Owned by non-profits funded by the knob hill crowd to keep the chronically homeless (mental illness, drug addition) warehoused in one small area.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      Hence the need to spread the population out into everyone's neighborhood, rather than strong arming under represented, low-income populations, and forcing them to take the entire burden in their neighborhood.
cheriot 4y ago
I've found SF is nothing like what conservative pundits describe. I don't mean better or worse, just different. It doesn't fit the narratives of national politics.

tjr225 4y ago

The coastal left, especially those that are wealthy, do not care whatsoever what these “conservatives” think about them.

isatty 4y ago

This is not an issue that can be summarized in a HN comment, but you're not going to get anyone to agree to the extreme end of either spectrum (peak NIMBY or peak progressive), it just won't work.

pessimizer 4y ago
YIMBY is not a synonym for progressive. I'm not sure I know any YIMBYs who aren't relatively wealthy libertarians.
- wk_end 4y ago
  waves I consider myself a YIMBY, and I also consider myself pretty progressive on most issues and certainly not a libertarian...so you know at least one now.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 4y ago

What blows my mind traveling around the country is that, on the ground, Iowa or Texas are egalitarian paradise compared to NYC or SF. I can’t stand to be in those cities these days because of the yawing wealth and racial divides. I really wonder how much of the progressive drama results from these highly educated folks working in overwhelmingly white/Asian industries and living in places like SF or NYC where nearly all the Black or brown people they meet are working service jobs for them.

ryanobjc 4y ago
There's been a lot of articles lately talking about how all those previously easy to live areas have become less livable due to... well people moving there. The root cause is demand > supply. That's it. Everything gets more expensive, and those who can get paid a lot do, and everyone else has to make do. Texas yes, but tell me about Austin... and how it has all the same problems of the bay area now, entirely because people moved there.
- keneda7 4y ago
  Do you think it is people moving or do you think it is people moving and then voting in people to enact the same policies as the location they moved from? If person A leaves a location because of crap/idiotic policies/laws, moves to a new location, then votes in people that will institute those same crap/idiotic policies/laws the just fled again, is person A not the problem?
  - rrix2 4y ago
    could you point to some examples of this happening?
    - keneda7 4y ago
      Off the top of my head, Texas. Texas was a majority solid red for a long time. Now a massive influx of has made multiple seats that historically have been safely red, competitive, or even flip to blue. Look at the places people are moving to in Texas then look at those locations elections.
      - rrix2 4y ago
        I understand that there is a demographic shift in urban centers outside of the coasts. I meant: can you point to any policy changes after these demographic shifts which have lead to an up-tick of NIMBY/anti-housing regulations in these areas like what is seen in SF?

s1artibartfast 4y ago

There is nothing contradictory about wanting to solve homelessness and wanting them out of your neighborhood. In fact, that is exactly why many people want to end it

BobbyJo 4y ago
> There is nothing contradictory about wanting to solve homelessness and wanting them out of your neighborhood Yes there is. If you want them housed, but not in your neighborhood, then you either want them out in a forest somewhere, or you want them in someone else's neighborhood. The former isn't actually housing them, and the latter is the contradiction.
- isatty 4y ago
  Then build housing that is accompanied by parking, mental health facilities and rehab facilities. Building _only_ housing, and leaving it derelict when the mentally ill eventually trash it leads to a drop in quality of life and safety for the entire neighborhood.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    I don't think any proposals have been obstructed on the grounds that opposed neighborhoods felt like more facilities should accompany the shelters in their neighborhood. I'd be satisfied to see that though.
- lokar 4y ago
  Just look at the SRO scene in the tenderloin. Owned by non-profits funded by the knob hill crowd to keep the chronically homeless (mental illness, drug addition) warehoused in one small area.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Hence the need to spread the population out into everyone's neighborhood, rather than strong arming under represented, low-income populations, and forcing them to take the entire burden in their neighborhood.

cheriot 4y ago

I've found SF is nothing like what conservative pundits describe. I don't mean better or worse, just different. It doesn't fit the narratives of national politics.