3 ms·
Locals are incapable of that because property owners are the majority of voters and unwilling to vote against their own interests. Furthermore, if one municipal
by chongli 3y ago
Locals are incapable of that because property owners are the majority of voters and unwilling to vote against their own interests. Furthermore, if one municipality solves its affordability crisis a ton of people will move there and gobble up the affordable housing stock. It’s a problem that can’t be solved locally.
- nonethewiser 3y ago> Locals are incapable of that because property owners are the majority of voters and unwilling to vote against their own interests This seems unlikely to be true. Especially In the places where housing is most expensive. Do the majority of voters in NYC and SF own homes or other real estate?
- chongli 3y agoThe places where housing is the most expensive are the same places where people who cannot afford housing are forced to commute from somewhere else. Commuters don't get to vote in the place where they work; they have to vote where they live.
- nonethewiser 3y agoPeople do commute from outside but they are irrelevant. Do you think more NYC residents rent or own?
- chongli 3y agoThey are not irrelevant. If they didn’t have to commute they would be able to vote in local elections. Property owners vote at much higher rates than non-owners. Property owners are the only ones with the right to put up election signs. Property owners are far more politically connected than non-owners.