4 ms·
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 gerrymanderin
by 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.