"I don’t care for the progressive talking point that housing policy is analogous to immigration policy, but those folks seem to agree with it!"
You should write about this, because I think I'd disagree with you. There's a deep moral linkage between favoring more housing construction (which benefits those who would like to move in, but aren't here yet, while imposing [perceived] costs on current residents) and favoring more immigration (which does the same). And the two are strongly correlated in real life--I've met many pro-housing advocates and almost all of them are strongly in favor of more-relaxed immigration laws.
It's interesting to me, because in my rough framework, as a conservative, it would never even occur to me to link them. Now I *am* pretty pro-immigration, not at all a nativist/closed-borders type. But I can very easily right-leaning folks saying, "See the housing people are open borders. They don't believe in the right of the nation to exist, just like they don't believe in the right of individual communities (i.e. suburbs) to exist!"
I think they tend see urbanism and all the related stuff as being an attack on their communities from the outside, not as a way to make their specific, existing communities better. You can get racist and nativist with that, as many do, but I think that train of thought can also, at best, lead you to a localist view of making your own little place better.
I realize there are not a whole lot of conservative urbanists, so there may not be very many people who think about it all this way!
IMHO, the anti-housing conservatives are correct in their assessment of the situation. Legalizing apartment buildings really is an attack on their-towns-as-they-exist--after all, most residents clearly would prefer to live in the town as it currently is. Upzonings are usually unpopular in the surrounding area.
Where I differ with them is that I don't think their desire has any democratic legitimacy, because it effectively ignores the votes of the people who don't live in a given town yet, but would move in if we built some housing.
And they're also correct that this same moral intuition leads one to support open borders. After all, country borders are pretty arbitrary, in the scheme of things, just as town borders are. Clearly, there are a lot of people in Guatemala who would like to immigrate to the US, if it were legal to do so; right now, their interests are ignored, leading to a similar lack of democratic legitimacy. Now, practicality and political necessity might mean that a given YIMBY activist or politician doesn't follow this all the way to open borders; but there's no decent _moral_ argument against them, IMHO.
This perspective informs my political tactics as a YIMBY IRL. I've basically given up on the idea of convincing the locals to support an upzoning of their neighborhood. Instead, I focus on convincing higher levels of government to force neighborhoods and towns to up zone, often against their will; and on making sure that those requirements are enforced strictly. I have a better chance at winning a vote in a state legislature (and maybe even one day in Congress) than I do of convincing people that upzoning will improve their neighborhoods from their own perspective.
I realize this sounds strident, btw, and I want to say that I appreciate your writing and don't intend this as an attack! It's a genuinely interesting difference of approach and I'd be happy to read more about your take on this.
No, I don't read it as an attack at all. It makes sense to me, it just isn't the way I see it. I suppose I picked up the basic starting point from my conservative upbringing that the nation-state has a right to exist. I've never even thought of that as a "view," I suppose I think of it as a fact. But within the nation, I see it as perfectly fine to change someone's view of what they think their town is or is supposed to be (i.e. I'm good with upzoning even where many locals don't want it. Particularly, I should note, where it's broad but modest, as in what California is doing. I think that's really interesting and potentially very promising.) It's just never felt, to me, like there's any necessary contradiction between being pro-housing within your country, and believing in your country's right to regulate its borders however it wants. Though as noted, I am pro-immigration.
One interesting way of threading this needle I've seen is to point out that "the community" is not the loudest voices, the people who come to the public meeting at 8pm on a Wednesday, or the people who whine about parking spots. Even in pretty affluent communities, there are people why rely on transit, who can barely afford housing, are relatively low income. So you can argue that everything we want *is* for that immediate, distinct community, but properly understood. That rings much truer for me personally, while the analogy to immigration strikes me as an ideological abstraction.
"I don’t care for the progressive talking point that housing policy is analogous to immigration policy, but those folks seem to agree with it!"
You should write about this, because I think I'd disagree with you. There's a deep moral linkage between favoring more housing construction (which benefits those who would like to move in, but aren't here yet, while imposing [perceived] costs on current residents) and favoring more immigration (which does the same). And the two are strongly correlated in real life--I've met many pro-housing advocates and almost all of them are strongly in favor of more-relaxed immigration laws.
It's interesting to me, because in my rough framework, as a conservative, it would never even occur to me to link them. Now I *am* pretty pro-immigration, not at all a nativist/closed-borders type. But I can very easily right-leaning folks saying, "See the housing people are open borders. They don't believe in the right of the nation to exist, just like they don't believe in the right of individual communities (i.e. suburbs) to exist!"
I think they tend see urbanism and all the related stuff as being an attack on their communities from the outside, not as a way to make their specific, existing communities better. You can get racist and nativist with that, as many do, but I think that train of thought can also, at best, lead you to a localist view of making your own little place better.
I realize there are not a whole lot of conservative urbanists, so there may not be very many people who think about it all this way!
IMHO, the anti-housing conservatives are correct in their assessment of the situation. Legalizing apartment buildings really is an attack on their-towns-as-they-exist--after all, most residents clearly would prefer to live in the town as it currently is. Upzonings are usually unpopular in the surrounding area.
Where I differ with them is that I don't think their desire has any democratic legitimacy, because it effectively ignores the votes of the people who don't live in a given town yet, but would move in if we built some housing.
And they're also correct that this same moral intuition leads one to support open borders. After all, country borders are pretty arbitrary, in the scheme of things, just as town borders are. Clearly, there are a lot of people in Guatemala who would like to immigrate to the US, if it were legal to do so; right now, their interests are ignored, leading to a similar lack of democratic legitimacy. Now, practicality and political necessity might mean that a given YIMBY activist or politician doesn't follow this all the way to open borders; but there's no decent _moral_ argument against them, IMHO.
This perspective informs my political tactics as a YIMBY IRL. I've basically given up on the idea of convincing the locals to support an upzoning of their neighborhood. Instead, I focus on convincing higher levels of government to force neighborhoods and towns to up zone, often against their will; and on making sure that those requirements are enforced strictly. I have a better chance at winning a vote in a state legislature (and maybe even one day in Congress) than I do of convincing people that upzoning will improve their neighborhoods from their own perspective.
I realize this sounds strident, btw, and I want to say that I appreciate your writing and don't intend this as an attack! It's a genuinely interesting difference of approach and I'd be happy to read more about your take on this.
No, I don't read it as an attack at all. It makes sense to me, it just isn't the way I see it. I suppose I picked up the basic starting point from my conservative upbringing that the nation-state has a right to exist. I've never even thought of that as a "view," I suppose I think of it as a fact. But within the nation, I see it as perfectly fine to change someone's view of what they think their town is or is supposed to be (i.e. I'm good with upzoning even where many locals don't want it. Particularly, I should note, where it's broad but modest, as in what California is doing. I think that's really interesting and potentially very promising.) It's just never felt, to me, like there's any necessary contradiction between being pro-housing within your country, and believing in your country's right to regulate its borders however it wants. Though as noted, I am pro-immigration.
One interesting way of threading this needle I've seen is to point out that "the community" is not the loudest voices, the people who come to the public meeting at 8pm on a Wednesday, or the people who whine about parking spots. Even in pretty affluent communities, there are people why rely on transit, who can barely afford housing, are relatively low income. So you can argue that everything we want *is* for that immediate, distinct community, but properly understood. That rings much truer for me personally, while the analogy to immigration strikes me as an ideological abstraction.
Obviously, this is great fodder for a full post!
Cannot agree "Central Jersey" exists. You were 201 or 609, additionally added area codes notwithstanding.
Those are fighting words!
I remember the creation of 908. Before that, "central Jersey" was not a thing. You were north (Yankees or Mets) or south (Phillies).