> "some people think the purpose of politics is to make good things harder, to force people to build character. Other people think the point of politics is to make good things easier."
I think there's a synthesis here: the point of politics is the social growth in virtue (in the virtue ethics sense). At first glance, that looks much closer to the "building character" half, but a good parent, teacher, or manager knows that skills come from an environment where it is possible to succeed. Sometimes good parents make things easier, sometimes they make things harder - but what makes them good is their knowledge of what is good for *that* particular person, and their will to do that good thing for them; i.e., love.
Only if parenthood is considered in its full breadth and not in the narrow modern vision of a kind of "runway" for the child that ends in near-complete freedom. Coming of age is not the transition from dependence to independence, but to being dependable - and ultimately, oftentimes, taking care of one's parents like taking care of a child. There is less moral authority and more coercive power at larger levels of society, so that is another key difference, too.
Your point that jobs make a city the right "kind of place" is crucial. Newark was never especially nice or pretty, but in the '50s it had a HUGE number of high-tech companies, cutting edge innovators. The existing stock of talent made it easier for other high-tech firms to move there. When most people have good incomes, it's a good place by definition, and housing will improve automatically unless blocked by zoning.
"Another interesting point Demsas made was about the American left, and how it no longer really builds anything." In fact, the left are HOSTILE to institutions and persons who build stuff.
The problem is that the places that most need density, cities, are run and controlled by left wing “progressive” politics. There is no benefit to criticising conservatives when talking about how cities need to do better.
I do not write to carry water for Democrats or any other political interest. The left hates developers, the companies that build stuff. I think somebody else has a problem with labels. They do not distinguish developers as corporations and well-capitalized partnerships from contractors and sub-contractors. Some "developers" are just working people. The left does not care. Second, there is a wedge between US labor unions and the left. The politics of the Teamsters have been bad for decades, since they endorsed Reagan. So animosity toward some union activity is warranted. Here is a question: how do leftists/progressives/liberals respond when you tell them you are a Teamster? Do they say anything like, "here is someone who does hard labor under a union contract that negotiates for better wages or benefits?" When I argue with Rs, I ask, "why is it that you don't care that people have affordable housing?" When I argue with Ds, I ask, "why is it that you care that people have housing, but your policies don't align with your values?"
"But I can explain this. YIMBYs sort of sidestep the question of 'nice' (i.e. usually affluent) neighborhoods, and instead point out that the places we think of as 'nice' are usually places with a lot of economic opportunity. If a bunch of rich, highly educated people is what makes a place 'nice,' then 'letting in' poor people might ruin it, right? But that’s the wrong way to think about it. What actually makes a place 'nice' is that it has jobs, opportunity, the things people need to do well."
The interests of wealthy and poor people are not always antagonistic, and it's detrimental that people assume they are always antagonistic. People who have lots of disposable income and consume an array of goods and services should enjoy the convenience of hyper-local access to these goods and services. Such access is facilitated by having providers of those goods and services within their neighborhoods. This gives the wealthy easy access to stuff they like and it gives access to neighborhood jobs and amenities to the poor.
Definitely. I wrote about that in another piece, that affluent neighborhoods use a lot of working-class labor (landscaping, delivery, etc.) but imagine they can somehow not live anywhere near the people who do that work.
A few years back, we were delighted to hire a local handyman who lived in the neighborhood, especially when he walked to our house with his toolkit. He could afford to live in the neighborhood because he was married to an attorney (another underdiscussed path to demographic diversity), but they divorced and he left town.
> Now again, this is where I can hear conservatives saying something like, oh, so that’s what this is about. I had an old editor who was like this: he observed that housing was an important issue with LGBT folks, and he tweeted something like “Conservatives should be suspicious of urbanism/housing when they see all the freaks who are behind it.”
We make ourselves stupider with this hermeneutic of suspicion. As you say, stop treating appeals to interest groups as some sinister ulterior motive! This is such a ridiculous approach to politics, especially in a country where there are so many checks to getting anything done, because you practically have to appeal broadly to win. And at the end of the day we can, and should, evaluate arguments on their merits, not by hunting for reasons to dismiss whoever is making them.
I have no problem with voting being made somewhat harder so long as there's a good reason for it, like an ID requirement for election integrity. But even granting this, it doesn't follow that it should be so hard to attend these community input meetings. I can vote weeks in advance here with a ballot that is mailed to me automatically, or show up any time of the day before work or after. In other words, it's still many, *many* times easier to vote. This silly and inapt comparison is the result of thinking about it qualitatively instead of quantitatively, I think.
An arbitrary comment like that causes "fear and dread" in a residential neighborhood. I saw this happen close up when Walmart wanted to tear out orchards and build near residential housing. The disgust in the neighborhood was palpable; frustration and anger seethed. In the end, the "disrupters" won out; the thing was built, and soon after there was a lot of other uninvited change. Relentless and unpitying change.
Add Arizona to the list of states building solar. My wife flew from Auburn on the Golden Chain Highway to Buckeye AZ for a AOPA event. She brought back photos of large solar farms.
I moved to one of the opportunity rich places in 1958, San Jose. I moved to Palo Alto in 1996 when I married a rich woman. In retirement we moved to Auburn on the highway paved with gold - hwy 80 where Silly Con Valley escapees congregate. Hwy 80 is the money funnel to Reno/Tahoe.
“I have a house now so that’s all that should be built” is too real an attitude.
> "some people think the purpose of politics is to make good things harder, to force people to build character. Other people think the point of politics is to make good things easier."
I think there's a synthesis here: the point of politics is the social growth in virtue (in the virtue ethics sense). At first glance, that looks much closer to the "building character" half, but a good parent, teacher, or manager knows that skills come from an environment where it is possible to succeed. Sometimes good parents make things easier, sometimes they make things harder - but what makes them good is their knowledge of what is good for *that* particular person, and their will to do that good thing for them; i.e., love.
Does that mean that good government is wise paternalism?
Only if parenthood is considered in its full breadth and not in the narrow modern vision of a kind of "runway" for the child that ends in near-complete freedom. Coming of age is not the transition from dependence to independence, but to being dependable - and ultimately, oftentimes, taking care of one's parents like taking care of a child. There is less moral authority and more coercive power at larger levels of society, so that is another key difference, too.
Your point that jobs make a city the right "kind of place" is crucial. Newark was never especially nice or pretty, but in the '50s it had a HUGE number of high-tech companies, cutting edge innovators. The existing stock of talent made it easier for other high-tech firms to move there. When most people have good incomes, it's a good place by definition, and housing will improve automatically unless blocked by zoning.
https://polistrasmill.com/2022/08/10/natural-beauty-correlates-with-theft/
"Another interesting point Demsas made was about the American left, and how it no longer really builds anything." In fact, the left are HOSTILE to institutions and persons who build stuff.
How are comments like this useful?
There are plenty of conservatives that embrace the housing status quo.
There are plenty of leftists that build stuff. I’m one of them. Unloading trucks is in my job description.
What is useful is finding people who have similar goals and aligning agendas.
If political labels get in the way, we should place far less emphasis on them.
The problem is that the places that most need density, cities, are run and controlled by left wing “progressive” politics. There is no benefit to criticising conservatives when talking about how cities need to do better.
I do not write to carry water for Democrats or any other political interest. The left hates developers, the companies that build stuff. I think somebody else has a problem with labels. They do not distinguish developers as corporations and well-capitalized partnerships from contractors and sub-contractors. Some "developers" are just working people. The left does not care. Second, there is a wedge between US labor unions and the left. The politics of the Teamsters have been bad for decades, since they endorsed Reagan. So animosity toward some union activity is warranted. Here is a question: how do leftists/progressives/liberals respond when you tell them you are a Teamster? Do they say anything like, "here is someone who does hard labor under a union contract that negotiates for better wages or benefits?" When I argue with Rs, I ask, "why is it that you don't care that people have affordable housing?" When I argue with Ds, I ask, "why is it that you care that people have housing, but your policies don't align with your values?"
"But I can explain this. YIMBYs sort of sidestep the question of 'nice' (i.e. usually affluent) neighborhoods, and instead point out that the places we think of as 'nice' are usually places with a lot of economic opportunity. If a bunch of rich, highly educated people is what makes a place 'nice,' then 'letting in' poor people might ruin it, right? But that’s the wrong way to think about it. What actually makes a place 'nice' is that it has jobs, opportunity, the things people need to do well."
The interests of wealthy and poor people are not always antagonistic, and it's detrimental that people assume they are always antagonistic. People who have lots of disposable income and consume an array of goods and services should enjoy the convenience of hyper-local access to these goods and services. Such access is facilitated by having providers of those goods and services within their neighborhoods. This gives the wealthy easy access to stuff they like and it gives access to neighborhood jobs and amenities to the poor.
Definitely. I wrote about that in another piece, that affluent neighborhoods use a lot of working-class labor (landscaping, delivery, etc.) but imagine they can somehow not live anywhere near the people who do that work.
A few years back, we were delighted to hire a local handyman who lived in the neighborhood, especially when he walked to our house with his toolkit. He could afford to live in the neighborhood because he was married to an attorney (another underdiscussed path to demographic diversity), but they divorced and he left town.
> Now again, this is where I can hear conservatives saying something like, oh, so that’s what this is about. I had an old editor who was like this: he observed that housing was an important issue with LGBT folks, and he tweeted something like “Conservatives should be suspicious of urbanism/housing when they see all the freaks who are behind it.”
We make ourselves stupider with this hermeneutic of suspicion. As you say, stop treating appeals to interest groups as some sinister ulterior motive! This is such a ridiculous approach to politics, especially in a country where there are so many checks to getting anything done, because you practically have to appeal broadly to win. And at the end of the day we can, and should, evaluate arguments on their merits, not by hunting for reasons to dismiss whoever is making them.
Sorry, I can't get past the the fact that you took notes ON YOUR PHONE.
Get yourself a reporter's notebook and a pen, brother!
Oh, it’s intentional; faster, quieter, space-efficient, nothing to carry/lose.
This is great stuff
I have no problem with voting being made somewhat harder so long as there's a good reason for it, like an ID requirement for election integrity. But even granting this, it doesn't follow that it should be so hard to attend these community input meetings. I can vote weeks in advance here with a ballot that is mailed to me automatically, or show up any time of the day before work or after. In other words, it's still many, *many* times easier to vote. This silly and inapt comparison is the result of thinking about it qualitatively instead of quantitatively, I think.
Snowflake.
Residential neighborhoods should be disrupted.
An arbitrary comment like that causes "fear and dread" in a residential neighborhood. I saw this happen close up when Walmart wanted to tear out orchards and build near residential housing. The disgust in the neighborhood was palpable; frustration and anger seethed. In the end, the "disrupters" won out; the thing was built, and soon after there was a lot of other uninvited change. Relentless and unpitying change.
Add Arizona to the list of states building solar. My wife flew from Auburn on the Golden Chain Highway to Buckeye AZ for a AOPA event. She brought back photos of large solar farms.
I moved to one of the opportunity rich places in 1958, San Jose. I moved to Palo Alto in 1996 when I married a rich woman. In retirement we moved to Auburn on the highway paved with gold - hwy 80 where Silly Con Valley escapees congregate. Hwy 80 is the money funnel to Reno/Tahoe.
Re: California
No one goes there anymore
It is too crowded.