So let's unpack that city council member's mental model of politics a bit. They evidently take it for granted that "we can't do it without the support of the firefighters' union". Why? Did you get any explanation from the council member or was it just that flat blanket statement?
If, as I suspect, the explanation is that the firefighters' union endorsement, or non-endorsement, seems to the council members to be a likely determinant of their re-election: how do we change that? That in turn unpacks into a couple more questions:
-- how much of the council members' view of that endorsement's importance is perception vs reality? What would induce someone to take a chance and test that? Or, more ambitiously, what would it take to make the YIMBY endorsement seem at least as important to the council members as the firefighters' endorsement?
You need to be able to reliably deliver votes and donations the way special interests do. The way Amish in pa voted for Trump last election because the Feds tried to shut down their milk business.
The difficulty is that YIMBY benefits are dispersed. Who’s going to vote for and donate for YIMBY the way a union member will do so for their job.
A typical counterweight is developers, who also have concentrated interests in a certain outcome and the financial means to achieve it. YIMBYs could ally with developers but the aesthetics would be off for leftists.
The other day I asked my nephew why he didn’t move from California to Tampa since he can’t afford a house to start a family. Basically he said something about abortion/culture war stuff. That was more important to him Then YIMBY.
Very good point, it’s one thing to say politicians should act that the status quo will get them booted but the power of the vocal minority says that it is exactly what they should keep doing. The way to fix this is for YIMBYs to be the most vocal minority, local chapters need to speak loudly and drown out other constituencies. Saying the right thing is self satisfying, saying the right thing loudly (and constantly) is what will get pens passing correct legislation.
States need to take back some of the zoning power they enabled locals with. It’s a change that needs to happen if we really want to fix our housing problem and allow bottom ½ of income earners into the market. Locals will mostly not do it in their own. It’s another form of generational and upper classes theft in lower income folks mandated by local zoning regulations that restrict free market from housing. We need ADUs, duplex, triplex, townhouse, by right and federal support for utility upgrades for greater density.
Have you listened to the NPR podcast The Big Dig? I learned so much about why we can't build any more from that podcast. They used to demolish entire neighborhoods in order to build infrastructure, even if there were alternatives available. Getting real YIMBY policies in place will result in bad outcomes for some people, we need to increase the volume to overcome that. Hopefully the insane cost of housing will help us convince people.
“Their thesis is simple: we need more of everything. More housing, more immigrants, more clean energy infrastructure.”
Sorry, the first sentence is a lie. They don’t actually want more natural gas energy, let alone coal production.
I realize they are writing their book for the left, trying to pull the typical leftist more towards the center-left. Perhaps that is your focus too, idk.
But just because that indeed would be a better thing than the status quo does NOT mean you or they are sincere with the claim of “we need more of everything”.
Because as Josh Barro puts every well in his critique of the book, if they are correct that “green” energy will be unbelievably cheap in 25 or 30 years, then even if you are an AGW catastrophist who worships Mother Gaia above the welfare of human beings, there is no need to artificially constrain the production and consumption of fossil fuels now - and in the process deny the enormous benefits of low cost, reliable, highly available energy to the world’s poorest billions who unlike we rich westerners lack same - if soon enough “green” energy will be dirt cheap.
So let's unpack that city council member's mental model of politics a bit. They evidently take it for granted that "we can't do it without the support of the firefighters' union". Why? Did you get any explanation from the council member or was it just that flat blanket statement?
If, as I suspect, the explanation is that the firefighters' union endorsement, or non-endorsement, seems to the council members to be a likely determinant of their re-election: how do we change that? That in turn unpacks into a couple more questions:
-- how much of the council members' view of that endorsement's importance is perception vs reality? What would induce someone to take a chance and test that? Or, more ambitiously, what would it take to make the YIMBY endorsement seem at least as important to the council members as the firefighters' endorsement?
You need to be able to reliably deliver votes and donations the way special interests do. The way Amish in pa voted for Trump last election because the Feds tried to shut down their milk business.
The difficulty is that YIMBY benefits are dispersed. Who’s going to vote for and donate for YIMBY the way a union member will do so for their job.
A typical counterweight is developers, who also have concentrated interests in a certain outcome and the financial means to achieve it. YIMBYs could ally with developers but the aesthetics would be off for leftists.
The other day I asked my nephew why he didn’t move from California to Tampa since he can’t afford a house to start a family. Basically he said something about abortion/culture war stuff. That was more important to him Then YIMBY.
Very good point, it’s one thing to say politicians should act that the status quo will get them booted but the power of the vocal minority says that it is exactly what they should keep doing. The way to fix this is for YIMBYs to be the most vocal minority, local chapters need to speak loudly and drown out other constituencies. Saying the right thing is self satisfying, saying the right thing loudly (and constantly) is what will get pens passing correct legislation.
Here's a fitting fully open-sourced technology:
https://www.KryonEngine.org
Why is it still not mass-manufactured and distributed?
Well...
I find it wierd that you think the right is about tearing down when it’s the red states and counties doing all the building.
The federal government is the enemy of these red states doing the building so tit should get torn down.
Blue states fucking their own shit isn’t our fault. We aren’t going to let them use the federal government to do the same to us.
States need to take back some of the zoning power they enabled locals with. It’s a change that needs to happen if we really want to fix our housing problem and allow bottom ½ of income earners into the market. Locals will mostly not do it in their own. It’s another form of generational and upper classes theft in lower income folks mandated by local zoning regulations that restrict free market from housing. We need ADUs, duplex, triplex, townhouse, by right and federal support for utility upgrades for greater density.
Have you listened to the NPR podcast The Big Dig? I learned so much about why we can't build any more from that podcast. They used to demolish entire neighborhoods in order to build infrastructure, even if there were alternatives available. Getting real YIMBY policies in place will result in bad outcomes for some people, we need to increase the volume to overcome that. Hopefully the insane cost of housing will help us convince people.
“Their thesis is simple: we need more of everything. More housing, more immigrants, more clean energy infrastructure.”
Sorry, the first sentence is a lie. They don’t actually want more natural gas energy, let alone coal production.
I realize they are writing their book for the left, trying to pull the typical leftist more towards the center-left. Perhaps that is your focus too, idk.
But just because that indeed would be a better thing than the status quo does NOT mean you or they are sincere with the claim of “we need more of everything”.
Because as Josh Barro puts every well in his critique of the book, if they are correct that “green” energy will be unbelievably cheap in 25 or 30 years, then even if you are an AGW catastrophist who worships Mother Gaia above the welfare of human beings, there is no need to artificially constrain the production and consumption of fossil fuels now - and in the process deny the enormous benefits of low cost, reliable, highly available energy to the world’s poorest billions who unlike we rich westerners lack same - if soon enough “green” energy will be dirt cheap.