California likes to think of itself as a very liberal state, but that really only changes how we frame what are still conservative and insular policies.
Or regressive, depending on the nature and effect of the change.
Or is it "Move fast and bankrupt stuff".
IDK.
In the article, it's not blanket regulation - it's increasing-the-housing-supply regulation.
Increasing the supply lowers prices which means individual's property value goes down - very anti-conservative.
An oversimplification of conservative values is to keep the status quo or increase the current value. Do nothing to lower that value.
Political ideology, about markets or reducing racial equality, are overridden by the housing preferences.
Your confusion is understandable and to be expected.
"Conservative" in the United States has been co-opted by pro business narratives to mean the opposite of what it means by definition.
In your example, "laissez faire treatment of (anything)" is by definition, a liberal policy. Regulation, rules, guidelines - these are impulses in the conservative direction.
21st century politics in the United States has this nomenclature backwards.
Gun rights are another example of this. The United States has extremely liberal gun policies and the second amendment is almost off the charts in terms of liberalism. And yet we refer to it as "conservative" - and we refer to gun control and gun regulation, etc., as "liberal" policies.
Further, if one looks at the voting records of Calforina Republicans on zoning reform, they tend to not support it at a state level. It's most Democrats who are voting for these changes.
Housing is weird politically, it breaks a bunch of typical political assumptions.
San Francisco really has no excuses. It’s been a solidly Democrat city for the past 40+ years. Voters are overwhelmingly left of center and typically vote for a selection of left of center candidates.
There is no Republican representation in the whole city govt. The possibilities for passing progressive legislation are endless, yet what we end up with is a massively dysfunctional govt with a heavy dose of corruption.
Small european countries with massive sovereign wealth funds maybe?
I think if you want to find historical examples of success you're going to need to have a highly inclusive definition of "soft socialist" or consider cases where people are fed and clothed but living miserably under the thumb of the government as "working well"
Historically blue cities in the US have been run by authoritarians with varying visions of what they want the place to look like who are supported by a bunch of boot lickers who believe in the vision. Examples abound on the US east coast. Recently it's become less fashionable to rule with an iron fist. This has lead to some serious problems where "crime with a victim" and "this behavior makes things seriously miserable for everyone around" laws and go unenforced but I think that some cities will see the West coast examples decide they do not want and then go strike a good balance between the extremes.
One of the ways politicians like Preston cement their power is by convincing their constituents that the 'other team' are literal demons.
I can disagree with someone's politics but still be confident that they can govern reasonably. Just because you clothe yourself in the memes you think I like doesn't win my vote.
He doesn’t have to paint them as demons because their stated positions on abortion and gay marriage will make them untenable to SF voters and place SF voters in vocal opposition. Any demonic painting is unlikely to move the needle.
This is merely a claim of fact about the CA GOP and SF, not a position on whether they are demons. It is not a claim that the CA GOP are evil because of these stances.
The point isn’t that I disagree or think they’re demons or whatever. The point is that SF residents are vocally opposed to CA GOP stances. “Painting them as demons” isn’t necessary because their stated aim is already past the Overton window for SF residents.
It’s like saying “he’s painting non-vegans as demons to prevent them from being voted in at the vegan conference”. They’re vegans. You don’t have to paint the non-vegans as demons. The perfectly non-demonic non-vegan falls outside the window! Pointing that out isn’t flaming! It’s factual.
Considering I’m pretty right wing, it’s a bit perplexing that you’ve gone and assumed I’m making a partisan attack on Republicans. I have a Gadsden flag, mate. And currently live in Texas.
But whatever, it’s your site. Run it how you want.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
Edit: if you're going to edit a comment after someone has replied to it, it's best to make it clear where the edits are. Otherwise you can easily change the meaning of the reply, which can be unfair to others (not only to the user who replied, but also to readers).
That’s your life to lead but it is well worth asking oneself if there is truly some fifth column here or if one has convinced oneself into some Great Purge.
But your house, your rules. Edited the comment so that we can ensure that those primed for arson won’t use this particular lamp to light their torches.