They are not _entitled_ to forever freeze a city just because they live there. I bet they would not like their town if it still looked the same as it was in 1890.
However it really should be a city level decision - the whole point of having lots of cities is they can vary in their character and quality. Moving these decisions to a state level doesn’t allow for the advocacy of a neighborhood to matter as much. That’s not good.
The world shouldn’t revolve around some NIMBY, but a community of NIMBYs should be respected for their desires as the community. Ceding community control to the government and developers isn’t the right way to go.
The voters of California have clearly decided that they aren't.
At the state level, elections are much better, and state level elections are usually far more informed. There have been moments of pure greed by the electorate, like with Prop 13, that have severely harmed the state, but that's a common trap with all electorates.
Overall I think California voters are newer on par with places like Minnesota thag have generally very good governance.
That is a very uncharitable description. Prop13 was driven by people sick of getting thrown out of their long-time homes by huge tax increases. There is no "greed" in the desire to keep living in the home you bought.
I mean, no they aren't? These people are directly screwing over people like me. I'm gonna disagree with them loudly and publicly until the problem is solved.
If you are being harmed, of course you have a right to speak up against the ones committing said harm!
I think he is angry at the wrong thing. Maybe being angry that the cities are necessary to live in to get ahead? Maybe he should be hopeful that telecommuting will relieve housing pressures over time? Maybe there’s a saddle point that can be reached by not assuming the other side is malicious towards you personally?
The state of California has said enough is enough and has rendered the local regulation null and void.
And no one has said anything about soviet style apartment buildings. That is very unlikely.
I see a lot of people say this is direct harm. I don’t think people understand what that term means. “I’m upset by the outcome of your advocacy” doesn’t mean direct harm. Advocacy isn’t directed towards you, no one has come to you and harmed you. Direct harm would be them coming and removing you from your home and keeping you under housed directly. Their advocacy indirectly leads to higher housing prices, and even then there’s a lot of other confounding factors. “I’m really upset with the situation and those guys are advocating for a partial factor that gives rise” is about as indirect as you get.
Neither extreme makes sense, we should probably recognize both camps have valid points and a middle path is likely the right one, and no one will be fully satisfied.
This is very well expressed, thanks.
Fundamentally you have people who live somewhere and like it how it is, and all the people who don't live there and want to radically change it to be something else. Clearly these desires are in conflict. Each side has the right to speak up for what they'd like to see, sure.
But where does it come the idea that the people who don't live there should have a greater say in how the place develops than those who actually make their life there?
I can only live in one place, all other towns of the world are places I don't live in. By that logic, I should be able to influence all the N-1 places on earth I don't live it, but have no say in how development occurs in the 1 place I do live in. Does that make sense?
I don't live in Boston. Should I have greater vote on how Boston needs to change than people who actually live there? (To pick a random city I don't live in.)
I firmly believe that it is good. Neighborhoods shouldn't have the right to work together to exclude other people from moving to that neighborhood.
I agree, and I apply the same logic when somebody complains about gentrification.