3 ms·

I am not an expert in California but I don't love this concept in general. Here in New York, the Governor is attempting to drive higher housing density in certa

I am not an expert in California but I don't love this concept in general. Here in New York, the Governor is attempting to drive higher housing density in certain places regardless of what the local people think and want. I think this is a sort of obvious effort at a form of gerrymandering - if the assumption is that the residents of higher-density dwellings are more likely to vote Democrat on average vs the current home owners, spreading high density housing around districts (vs concentrating them in the already-super Blue cities) locks democratic control over those districts with more probability/certainty. There are obvious concerns being raised about - traffic, ability of utilities to handle the extra density, school capacity, not to mention wishes of those (like me) who explicitly chose a suburban lifestyle for our family - when viewed through the cynical electoral lens these concerns aren't relevant to the decision which optimizes for power concentration at the expense of everything else. No idea if the same dynamics are at play in Cali.

darth_avocado 4y ago
I generally agree with what you’re saying, but things have swung so hard in California that’s it’s impossible to build here. It’s only natural when everything boils over and it swings hard in the other direction. Eventually there will be equilibrium.
kevinburke 4y ago
If the Governor is wildly successful your town's housing supply will grow by about 2% per year. That is not enough to do a gerrymander and it's not going to change your "suburban lifestyle." It will let more people afford to live close to one of the world's great cities though, instead of moving to a lower opportunity area like Jacksonville.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  // our town's housing supply will grow by about 2% per year. That is not enough to do a gerrymander and it's not going to change your "suburban lifestyle." I don't get your math. If the town is very closely split as many of NY suburbs are, they may go 49/51 red or blue depending on the year. 2% a year is 8% growth (ignoring compounding..) between two presidential elections. That's enough to lock in the outcome if you can predict that incoming residents are bluer or redder (in this case, bluer) than the existing given how close it is.
closeparen 4y ago
The local people in every place want to live in rural towns 5 minutes from the big city. It’s built into the human psyche. The problem is it’s geometrically impossible. So it comes down to how important you think “finders keepers” is - do the people who got there first have the right to lock everyone else out forever? However justified they may be in wanting this, it’s hard to deny that the costs imposed on everyone else from being locked out of (or trying to squeeze into) the inadequate housing supplies in high-opportunity regions are massive.
- xyzelement 4y ago
  // So it comes down to how important you think “finders keepers” is - do the people who got there first have the right to lock everyone else out forever? I get the point you're making and it's not illogical, it's just what do you prioritize? In many situations honoring the existing relationships and the wishes of people in it is the more humane choice. When your dad married your mom, he locked everyone out from marrying her. We honor the exclusivity of their relationship even if there are like 5 single guys in town. We don't force your parents to let 5 additional men into the relationship because it's not fair that they are locked out. Why should your dad have some special status with your mom - why "finders keepers?" But in reality, we honor that because we understand that forcing equity here would be horrific. Obviously I am making assumptions about your fam and that's just an example, and obviously your marriage is an even more intimate topic than the nature of your town, but you can see the continuum I think. If I upended my life to live in a certain type of town, it's very turbulent to have that town completely change by government decree. Also - there's no finders keepers here. Like 20% of my town is families that moves from the city during covid. There's constant turnover as older folks move out and younger families move in. What stays constant is the nature of town - those who want that nature move here, those who don't, stay in NYC.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - closeparen 4y ago
    Men and women are naturally born in equal proportion, and government policies that have created big structural imbalances are generally considered awful mistakes.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
Honestly that’s some pretty complex calculus. I think it has more to do with the fact there are Hoovervilles all over the west coast due to the extreme cost of housing. Being in NY I get it, you don’t really see them there. But but you should come visit the best coast and check it out - the homelessness problem is like a Great Depression scene. Literally every public open space in seattle is encamped, every road is lined with broken down RVs that folks are living in, etc. It’s gotten worse over the last 5 years to the point there’s something obviously wrong. While the insane and drug dependent are the most visible my understanding is this new wave of homeless are simply priced out of housing. The only solution is to build more homes. It doesn’t get more complicated. Note, these homeless already live here and are entitled to vote. Putting them in a home won’t change the demographics. That said, I’m generally not in favor of radical housing and zoning reform. I think there are middle path solutions. But it’s not a gerrymandering induced issue, it’s an extreme homelessness induced issue.
hemloc_io 4y ago
The deadlock in the bay area is much worse than than NYC, not sure about new york state. E.g. NYC has a maximum amount of time you're allowed to argue about some new development, the bay area doesn't. Generally speaking in the Northeast there's way more inbuilt density so this is less of an issue imo. Things are so spread out over here that trains literally don't exist.
outworlder 4y ago
> regardless of what the local people think and want. NIMBY has caused so many issues that I'm not sure the people who already live in a place should have this much power. They bought the land their property sits on and nothing else. > if the assumption is that the residents of higher-density dwellings are more likely to vote Democrat on average vs the current home owners Citation needed. > There are obvious concerns being raised about - traffic You know the great thing about higher density areas? You can have effective public transportation. Low density zoning connected by highways is the main driving force for traffic. > ability of utilities to handle the extra density It's much cheaper to do that versus low density. > school capacity Might require more schools. Or larger schools since one can serve more people. Certainly easier to do than having many schools spread across a large area. > not to mention wishes of those (like me) who explicitly chose a suburban lifestyle for our family You should book a trip with your family and visit an european country, with their walkable cities. And then come back and let us know if a suburb – which you can only reach via car and people are mostly inside their houses because there's nothing to do outside – is really preferable to a city where you can actually walk around (and, for kids, actually socialize)
- xyzelement 4y ago
  // You should book a trip with your family and visit an european country, with their walkable cities. And then come back and let us know if a suburb – which you can only reach via car and people are mostly inside their houses because there's nothing to do outside – is really preferable to a city where you can actually walk around (and, for kids, actually socialize) (I am the person you're responding to.) I grew up in Europe and then lived in NYC. So I am extremely familiar with this model. I am also someone who chose to live in the burbs once we had kids. In Manhattan, my neighbors had ~0 kids on average. In my current town, my neighbors are by and large former NYC residents who have ~3-4 kids on average. Very clearly people with kids are choosing the burbs, despite plenty of experience with the other model, and I expect that most of my neighbors have been to Europe plenty. We know the options. Also, have you ever been to Europe outside the big cities? You need a car. And also also, do you have kids? I was much more enthused about city life before I had a family, now I get it.
AnnikaL 4y ago
The entire SF Bay Area votes strongly Democratic already; the most Republican county in the Bay Area is Solano County, where Trump got 34% of the vote in 2020.
jurassic 4y ago
I don't think Democrats are worried about losing control of California any time soon, it's basically a one party rule situation. The political divide is primarily rural parts of the state vs everyone else. The entire Bay Area, including the suburban parts, consistently votes Democrat about 2:1.
pvarangot 4y ago
Around California cities which is where this discussion is relevant, everyone already votes Democrat. The thing is which Democrat. So, it's a little bit of this, a little bit of that regarding gerrymandering. For example the article talks about Atherton getting high-rises. Those apartments would probably be occupied by transplants from another city like San Francisco, and those voters would be more familiar with the "left" Democrats and maybe turn Atherton less conservative (which is honestly not that hard, it's a city that's literally against public transport). The units those people vacate on San Francisco would get squeezed in by lower income voters upgrading their living conditions which is something very functional to the current SF government. That's just a theory of course. In my opinion most of this more aggressive stance at fixing the California housing emergency is motivated either by true commitment and vocation, which is not hard to find regarding housing since the situation is really bad. In the case of Wiener he's been doing this for a while and sounds like a true believer. Of course some legislators supporting this may just be thinking about using it as a platform to run for executive or federal positions, but honestly looking at the track record of most people pushing this you can see they legitimately have been tackling hard problems in all of their political careers.
ladberg 4y ago
As someone who grew up in California and is now in NY, I don't think that hypothesis is correct at all. And even if it was, isn't it actually less gerrymandering? Uniformly spreading the different populations is much fairer than artificially restricting them to an "already-super Blue city".
- xyzelement 4y ago
  // artificially restricting them to an "already-super Blue city". I think the idea is that people are choosing how to live. When I was younger, I chose to live in Manhattan because that made sense for work and dating. If Manhattan was rezoned to single-family homes, I'd be pissed. Now I chose to live in an a medium density area (.15 acre lots, way less dense than the city, much more dense than the 2 acre lots in other towns) because of the lifestyle it affords. We know all our neighbors, the streets are quiet, etc. Everyone who lives here owns here. Everyone in this town chose this town for these attributes. To stick in a high-rise here despite the desires of every resident would be the "artificial" thing. In the city, you can always build higher and nobody can really object to the extra density because that was always part of the equation.

darth_avocado 4y ago

I generally agree with what you’re saying, but things have swung so hard in California that’s it’s impossible to build here. It’s only natural when everything boils over and it swings hard in the other direction. Eventually there will be equilibrium.

kevinburke 4y ago

If the Governor is wildly successful your town's housing supply will grow by about 2% per year. That is not enough to do a gerrymander and it's not going to change your "suburban lifestyle." It will let more people afford to live close to one of the world's great cities though, instead of moving to a lower opportunity area like Jacksonville.

xyzelement 4y ago
// our town's housing supply will grow by about 2% per year. That is not enough to do a gerrymander and it's not going to change your "suburban lifestyle." I don't get your math. If the town is very closely split as many of NY suburbs are, they may go 49/51 red or blue depending on the year. 2% a year is 8% growth (ignoring compounding..) between two presidential elections. That's enough to lock in the outcome if you can predict that incoming residents are bluer or redder (in this case, bluer) than the existing given how close it is.

closeparen 4y ago

The local people in every place want to live in rural towns 5 minutes from the big city. It’s built into the human psyche. The problem is it’s geometrically impossible. So it comes down to how important you think “finders keepers” is - do the people who got there first have the right to lock everyone else out forever? However justified they may be in wanting this, it’s hard to deny that the costs imposed on everyone else from being locked out of (or trying to squeeze into) the inadequate housing supplies in high-opportunity regions are massive.

xyzelement 4y ago
// So it comes down to how important you think “finders keepers” is - do the people who got there first have the right to lock everyone else out forever? I get the point you're making and it's not illogical, it's just what do you prioritize? In many situations honoring the existing relationships and the wishes of people in it is the more humane choice. When your dad married your mom, he locked everyone out from marrying her. We honor the exclusivity of their relationship even if there are like 5 single guys in town. We don't force your parents to let 5 additional men into the relationship because it's not fair that they are locked out. Why should your dad have some special status with your mom - why "finders keepers?" But in reality, we honor that because we understand that forcing equity here would be horrific. Obviously I am making assumptions about your fam and that's just an example, and obviously your marriage is an even more intimate topic than the nature of your town, but you can see the continuum I think. If I upended my life to live in a certain type of town, it's very turbulent to have that town completely change by government decree. Also - there's no finders keepers here. Like 20% of my town is families that moves from the city during covid. There's constant turnover as older folks move out and younger families move in. What stays constant is the nature of town - those who want that nature move here, those who don't, stay in NYC.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- closeparen 4y ago
  Men and women are naturally born in equal proportion, and government policies that have created big structural imbalances are generally considered awful mistakes.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

Honestly that’s some pretty complex calculus. I think it has more to do with the fact there are Hoovervilles all over the west coast due to the extreme cost of housing. Being in NY I get it, you don’t really see them there. But but you should come visit the best coast and check it out - the homelessness problem is like a Great Depression scene. Literally every public open space in seattle is encamped, every road is lined with broken down RVs that folks are living in, etc. It’s gotten worse over the last 5 years to the point there’s something obviously wrong. While the insane and drug dependent are the most visible my understanding is this new wave of homeless are simply priced out of housing. The only solution is to build more homes. It doesn’t get more complicated. Note, these homeless already live here and are entitled to vote. Putting them in a home won’t change the demographics. That said, I’m generally not in favor of radical housing and zoning reform. I think there are middle path solutions. But it’s not a gerrymandering induced issue, it’s an extreme homelessness induced issue.

hemloc_io 4y ago

The deadlock in the bay area is much worse than than NYC, not sure about new york state. E.g. NYC has a maximum amount of time you're allowed to argue about some new development, the bay area doesn't. Generally speaking in the Northeast there's way more inbuilt density so this is less of an issue imo. Things are so spread out over here that trains literally don't exist.

outworlder 4y ago

> regardless of what the local people think and want. NIMBY has caused so many issues that I'm not sure the people who already live in a place should have this much power. They bought the land their property sits on and nothing else. > if the assumption is that the residents of higher-density dwellings are more likely to vote Democrat on average vs the current home owners Citation needed. > There are obvious concerns being raised about - traffic You know the great thing about higher density areas? You can have effective public transportation. Low density zoning connected by highways is the main driving force for traffic. > ability of utilities to handle the extra density It's much cheaper to do that versus low density. > school capacity Might require more schools. Or larger schools since one can serve more people. Certainly easier to do than having many schools spread across a large area. > not to mention wishes of those (like me) who explicitly chose a suburban lifestyle for our family You should book a trip with your family and visit an european country, with their walkable cities. And then come back and let us know if a suburb – which you can only reach via car and people are mostly inside their houses because there's nothing to do outside – is really preferable to a city where you can actually walk around (and, for kids, actually socialize)

xyzelement 4y ago
// You should book a trip with your family and visit an european country, with their walkable cities. And then come back and let us know if a suburb – which you can only reach via car and people are mostly inside their houses because there's nothing to do outside – is really preferable to a city where you can actually walk around (and, for kids, actually socialize) (I am the person you're responding to.) I grew up in Europe and then lived in NYC. So I am extremely familiar with this model. I am also someone who chose to live in the burbs once we had kids. In Manhattan, my neighbors had ~0 kids on average. In my current town, my neighbors are by and large former NYC residents who have ~3-4 kids on average. Very clearly people with kids are choosing the burbs, despite plenty of experience with the other model, and I expect that most of my neighbors have been to Europe plenty. We know the options. Also, have you ever been to Europe outside the big cities? You need a car. And also also, do you have kids? I was much more enthused about city life before I had a family, now I get it.

AnnikaL 4y ago

The entire SF Bay Area votes strongly Democratic already; the most Republican county in the Bay Area is Solano County, where Trump got 34% of the vote in 2020.

jurassic 4y ago

I don't think Democrats are worried about losing control of California any time soon, it's basically a one party rule situation. The political divide is primarily rural parts of the state vs everyone else. The entire Bay Area, including the suburban parts, consistently votes Democrat about 2:1.

pvarangot 4y ago

Around California cities which is where this discussion is relevant, everyone already votes Democrat. The thing is which Democrat. So, it's a little bit of this, a little bit of that regarding gerrymandering. For example the article talks about Atherton getting high-rises. Those apartments would probably be occupied by transplants from another city like San Francisco, and those voters would be more familiar with the "left" Democrats and maybe turn Atherton less conservative (which is honestly not that hard, it's a city that's literally against public transport). The units those people vacate on San Francisco would get squeezed in by lower income voters upgrading their living conditions which is something very functional to the current SF government. That's just a theory of course. In my opinion most of this more aggressive stance at fixing the California housing emergency is motivated either by true commitment and vocation, which is not hard to find regarding housing since the situation is really bad. In the case of Wiener he's been doing this for a while and sounds like a true believer. Of course some legislators supporting this may just be thinking about using it as a platform to run for executive or federal positions, but honestly looking at the track record of most people pushing this you can see they legitimately have been tackling hard problems in all of their political careers.

ladberg 4y ago

As someone who grew up in California and is now in NY, I don't think that hypothesis is correct at all. And even if it was, isn't it actually less gerrymandering? Uniformly spreading the different populations is much fairer than artificially restricting them to an "already-super Blue city".

xyzelement 4y ago
// artificially restricting them to an "already-super Blue city". I think the idea is that people are choosing how to live. When I was younger, I chose to live in Manhattan because that made sense for work and dating. If Manhattan was rezoned to single-family homes, I'd be pissed. Now I chose to live in an a medium density area (.15 acre lots, way less dense than the city, much more dense than the 2 acre lots in other towns) because of the lifestyle it affords. We know all our neighbors, the streets are quiet, etc. Everyone who lives here owns here. Everyone in this town chose this town for these attributes. To stick in a high-rise here despite the desires of every resident would be the "artificial" thing. In the city, you can always build higher and nobody can really object to the extra density because that was always part of the equation.