4 ms·

In the scenario you described, the majority of voters in those areas must be land owners, based on how they voted. Assuming that the elections you are describin

In the scenario you described, the majority of voters in those areas must be land owners, based on how they voted. Assuming that the elections you are describing are genuinely democratic, why should people vote counter to their own interests? In general, candidates that promise to do things that benefit people who are not their constituency don't get elected. Personally, I want to live in an area where most of the residents own their own property rather than renting it. Why? Because people who own their own property are more invested (literally) in maintaining it than renters. I live in an area with recent massive flooding (in areas that are not historically flood zones). Lots of people are outside fixing their own properties but also hiring people to fix the problems, both functional and aesthetic. If they were all rental properties, the motivation of the landowner to fix the aesthetics would not exist until the current renter left. The problems in real estate are not primarily property ownership vs rental, but the financialization of the real estate market.

woodruffw 4y ago
This is overly simplistic: people regularly vote against their own interests in all domains, all the time. There are even semi-rational reasons for doing so: many Americans consider themselves "temporarily embarrassed millionaires," and vote in the interest of their hypothetical, wealthy future self rather than their current self.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  On the other hand, it's also perfectly rational to "altruistically" vote in favor of policies that decrease your financial wealth in the short term, but that benefit society as a whole, and/or benefits you in the long term.
lmm 4y ago
It's a race to the bottom, because the costs are concentrated and the benefits are distributed. If we allowed each district to vote their own income tax rate, everyone would vote for 0; what's happening with house-building is the equivalent for that. We need state- or national-level housing policy with no ability to override it locally, or at least to enforce some minimums. (Interestingly California at least already has that law on the books, although so far they're only enforcing it against towns they don't like rather than the general enforcement that we need).
- bombcar 4y ago
  California could vote for a 0% tax rate today via their ballot referendum system and yet it hasn’t happened. I think people are a bit smarter than we give them credit for n
  - lmm 4y ago
    > California could vote for a 0% tax rate today via their ballot referendum system and yet it hasn’t happened. For the state as a whole, sure; I think people can see the problem with that. If you let people vote for an 0% tax for just their town, with the rest of the state staying the same, it'd be a different story.
  - shagie 4y ago
    California got into the problem they're currently in by doing exactly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
pcthrowaway 4y ago
I'm not the person you responded to, but the exact same thing played out where I live (Vancouver) recently. We also have a massive crisis of homelessness here, which has led to more crime, theft, etc. The party's solution? Make the city safer (for the homeowners, interpretation mine) by hiring more police. The winning party (ABC, which had all of their candidates claim seats) did not have majority support, they were just one of the only parties that wasn't campaigning heavily on building more affordable housing (8 other parties committed to affordable housing likely split the vote) So the homeowners largely supported them, and that class of people are also more likely to have time to research the confusing election. ABC's mayoral candidate had the highest voter support of any of their candidates, and it was still only 86,000 of 172,000 voters. I think the percentage of adults renting vs. owning their home in Vancouver is about 50/50, but I can't imagine how people who didn't already enter wealth through real estate appreciation could afford to buy a home here now. If prices don't fall, I would never be able to buy a home here.

woodruffw 4y ago

This is overly simplistic: people regularly vote against their own interests in all domains, all the time. There are even semi-rational reasons for doing so: many Americans consider themselves "temporarily embarrassed millionaires," and vote in the interest of their hypothetical, wealthy future self rather than their current self.

nerdponx 4y ago
On the other hand, it's also perfectly rational to "altruistically" vote in favor of policies that decrease your financial wealth in the short term, but that benefit society as a whole, and/or benefits you in the long term.

lmm 4y ago

It's a race to the bottom, because the costs are concentrated and the benefits are distributed. If we allowed each district to vote their own income tax rate, everyone would vote for 0; what's happening with house-building is the equivalent for that. We need state- or national-level housing policy with no ability to override it locally, or at least to enforce some minimums. (Interestingly California at least already has that law on the books, although so far they're only enforcing it against towns they don't like rather than the general enforcement that we need).

bombcar 4y ago
California could vote for a 0% tax rate today via their ballot referendum system and yet it hasn’t happened. I think people are a bit smarter than we give them credit for n
- lmm 4y ago
  > California could vote for a 0% tax rate today via their ballot referendum system and yet it hasn’t happened. For the state as a whole, sure; I think people can see the problem with that. If you let people vote for an 0% tax for just their town, with the rest of the state staying the same, it'd be a different story.
- shagie 4y ago
  California got into the problem they're currently in by doing exactly that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13

pcthrowaway 4y ago

I'm not the person you responded to, but the exact same thing played out where I live (Vancouver) recently. We also have a massive crisis of homelessness here, which has led to more crime, theft, etc. The party's solution? Make the city safer (for the homeowners, interpretation mine) by hiring more police. The winning party (ABC, which had all of their candidates claim seats) did not have majority support, they were just one of the only parties that wasn't campaigning heavily on building more affordable housing (8 other parties committed to affordable housing likely split the vote) So the homeowners largely supported them, and that class of people are also more likely to have time to research the confusing election. ABC's mayoral candidate had the highest voter support of any of their candidates, and it was still only 86,000 of 172,000 voters. I think the percentage of adults renting vs. owning their home in Vancouver is about 50/50, but I can't imagine how people who didn't already enter wealth through real estate appreciation could afford to buy a home here now. If prices don't fall, I would never be able to buy a home here.