• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

I wonder if Harris has hurt her chances to be VP by not coming out and endorsing Biden this weekend.
 
I voted this morning. My precinct is very Republican, so I was in and out in 3 minutes, including having my photo ID checked. The only campaign folks outside were 10+ Bernie Bros who were just chatting with each other.
 
sailordeac said:
try again lube
Click to expand...

bill-palmer.gif
 
tiltdeac said:
Help me understand. This project would have put a ton of new units (10 thousand!) on an abandoned racetrack (not displacing any current residents) in a housing strapped city. Even if it was *just* market rate housing, it seems like it would be great. Including the mandated affordable units, how is that anything other than a huge win?
Click to expand...

Because there is no housing there and development wouldn’t be possible without substantial government intervention. This is a situation where the developers stand to make money regardless of the number of affordable units allocated and the city doesn’t want any pushback or risk losing the development, so they acquiesced to 30%. In situations like this (and there are so many if you pay attention to governments’ roles in subsidizing private housing construction), 30% feels like shortchanging the needs of tenants in a city without affordable housing in an area that was otherwise segregated, effectively freezing out lower income tenants for decades. Now, the state is intervening to redevelop this space and 70% will benefit the same people who always benefit from this situation.

It is not NIMBY to push the state to use its investment to include more affordable housing. A group devoted to the development of low income housing in a city isn’t going to see 30% as a big win when this is pure welfare capitalism here. The subsidy is essential to the development. The literature on “filtering” is not conclusive enough to justify the “supply siders” “all Housing matters!” approach to dealing with urban affordability crises.

Im personally very disappointed in the critiques of that tweet because it discounts the very real struggles that tenants and their advocates face in convincing cities to subsidize affordable housing development alongside of market rate development, and the fact that City Life/Vida Urbana are longtime any NIMBY activists and really good tenant advocates who don’t deserve to be recast as NIMBYs because the uninitiated twitter masses learned about supply and demand in Econ 101.

It’s just a bad, disingenuous take.
 
MHBDemon said:
What a perfect pairing to address mass incarceration.
Click to expand...

One of the most progressive areas of Biden's platform is criminal justice/mass incarceration. There are many aspects of Biden's platform that aren't great, but that's down the list a ways.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
One of the most progressive areas of Biden's platform is criminal justice/mass incarceration. There are many aspects of Biden's platform that aren't great, but that's down the list a ways.
Click to expand...

TITCR

it’s time for MHB to read the platform or just become bsf4l
 
I am a little nervous about a new CA law that allows you to vote at any "voting center" (the new name for polling place) within your county. Given that this has to be done online to be accurate, it seems to open itself up for hacking.

If it's not online, how could we know if you have already voted or not?
 
PhDeac said:
Have we discussed how Bernie Sanders broke up Public Enemy?


https://www.esquire.com/entertainme...rnie-sanders-chuck-d-flavor-flav-feud-firing/

I don’t know how they were planning to play a Bernie rally without doing Flav’s hit “911 is a Joke.”

(Yes, Bernie supporters I know Bernie didn’t break up PE himself but it’s funny that he was part of a split that was a long time coming.”
Click to expand...

I will never forgive Bernie for coming between Chuck and Flav. He is like Yoko to me.
 
Strickland33 said:
Because there is no housing there and development wouldn’t be possible without substantial government intervention. This is a situation where the developers stand to make money regardless of the number of affordable units allocated and the city doesn’t want any pushback or risk losing the development, so they acquiesced to 30%. In situations like this (and there are so many if you pay attention to governments’ roles in subsidizing private housing construction), 30% feels like shortchanging the needs of tenants in a city without affordable housing in an area that was otherwise segregated, effectively freezing out lower income tenants for decades. Now, the state is intervening to redevelop this space and 70% will benefit the same people who always benefit from this situation.

It is not NIMBY to push the state to use its investment to include more affordable housing. A group devoted to the development of low income housing in a city isn’t going to see 30% as a big win when this is pure welfare capitalism here. The subsidy is essential to the development. The literature on “filtering” is not conclusive enough to justify the “supply siders” “all Housing matters!” approach to dealing with urban affordability crises.

Im personally very disappointed in the critiques of that tweet because it discounts the very real struggles that tenants and their advocates face in convincing cities to subsidize affordable housing development alongside of market rate development, and the fact that City Life/Vida Urbana are longtime any NIMBY activists and really good tenant advocates who don’t deserve to be recast as NIMBYs because the uninitiated twitter masses learned about supply and demand in Econ 101.

It’s just a bad, disingenuous take.
Click to expand...

With respect, if that's what he means, then it's his tweet that is disingenuous. The tweet says we don't need more gentrifying luxury developments, which just seems like a NIMBY bullshit batsignal
 
tiltdeac said:
With respect, if that's what he means, then it's his tweet that is disingenuous. The tweet says we don't need more gentrifying luxury developments, which just seems like a NIMBY bullshit batsignal
Click to expand...

when you're a YIMBY hammer, everything looks like a NIMBY nail

I work in housing policy at a variety of levels and the recent trend of labeling tenant advocacy-oriented resistance to taxpayer subsidized majority market-rate development as NIMBY is really disturbing.

It's akin to declaring "All Housing Matters" as the poor continue to get squeezed out of cities. I agree with you that the tweet isn't great, but the fact that Sanders is the only candidate (now that Castro is out) who is listening to the tenants movement is what I took from that message.

The day that YIMBY groups work with tenant advocates will be an exciting day towards actually addressing the root policy causes and consequences of the housing crisis (both the affordability crisis faced by tenants and the supply crisis caused by NIMBYs and their politician/policy apologists).
 
Bernie's got his lakeside dacha and two other homes, he does not need another in a gentrifyed luxury development, although he might be able to trade his private jet frequent flier/carbon footprint miles for a fourth home in one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top