7 ms·
neither "side" wants to address anything even remotely close to the root causes of it, so the options are very limited. The right, at least, favours a solution
by lyu07282 4y ago
neither "side" wants to address anything even remotely close to the root causes of it, so the options are very limited. The right, at least, favours a solution that is congruent to its reactionary values, in a way it is a more internally consistent ideology than social progressive liberalism. The latter has to content with the unavoidable internal inconsistencies it creates.
In other words, liberals have the uncomfortable task of ruling the richest cities with the largest wealth and income inequality, in such a way that is both progressive and economically liberal. So you end up not regulating the real-estate industry or providing livable wages, but you are also not bulldozing the tent cities or investing in larger prisons to more effectively mass-incarcerate poor people crimes.
- neilparikh 4y ago> not regulating the real-estate industry Are we talking about the same city? SF real estate is super regulated, it’s my go to example of real estate regulations taken to an insane level. This is the city where any citizen can appeal any project for just a few hundred dollars, and basically every medium-large project is a negotiation with the SF board of supervisors (and often random non profits too, just look at what happened to 469 Stevenson St).
- lyu07282 4y agoI was more so referring to public housing projects, rent control, banning institutional investment firms and more. I'm sure they have much regulation in place, doesn't mean it meaningfully addresses the housing cost crisis in any capacity.