Bernie Sanders’ NIMBY revolution

[Mittens]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...yuVRJ/amp.html

“The political revolution is beginning,” Bernie Sanders told a room of cheering fans when he swung through Massachusetts earlier this week, “and this is what it looks like.” But if you care about holding down housing costs in the Boston area, you should hope Sanders is wrong. At least in Cambridge, the former presidential hopeful is lending his name to antidevelopment forces who are likely to make the city’s housing crisis worse rather than better.

The US senator from Vermont was in the Boston area Monday to support City Council and Board of Aldermen candidates endorsed by the Cambridge and Somerville chapters of Our Revolution, the grass-roots political organization that grew out of his insurgent 2016 campaign. Sanders’ decision to get involved in municipal races in these two cities, where the political spectrum runs from very liberal to super-ultra-wicked-liberal, was bizarre to begin with; Senator Elizabeth Warren, a progressive icon who actually lives in Cambridge, hasn’t similarly inserted herself into these contests.

In Cambridge, Sanders and his local acolytes faced a choice between two groups of self-styled progressives: one group bent on easing the city’s housing woes by building more units, and another group defined by its vocal opposition to higher, denser private development. Sanders and Our Revolution Cambridge sided with most of the same candidates as the Cambridge Residents Alliance — the city’s most prominent antidevelopment group.

In certain quarters, thumbing your nose at The Man is more important than actually getting people housed. In the Trump era, progressive municipalities have rushed to declare themselves sanctuary cities — but the bigger challenge is to give more people a place to live.

Among the books most often named-checked in lefty circles, including by Sanders himself, is “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” Author Thomas Frank’s thesis is that traditional Middle American voters have been manipulated, via their conservative social values, into voting against their raw economic interests and electing Republican politicians who do Wall Street’s bidding. Viewing this dynamic from the safety of the deep-blue coasts, progressives lament: If only people in Wichita could see what was good for them.

But Kansans aren’t the only people who follow their instincts toward policies that contribute to inequality.

In his speech, Sanders spent little time on local issues and dwelled instead on the predations of the Koch brothers. But spiraling housing costs are the single greatest driver of inequality in Greater Boston, and especially in a hot area like Cambridge. If you were lucky enough to own a home in the 1980s or ’90s, before an eds-and-meds-driven boom sent local real estate prices skyward, or if you’ve got enough cash up front for a stiff down payment now, your net worth can soar ever higher. But if you’re new to the market, or just not affluent, you’ll keep falling farther and farther behind, unless the production of new units catches up to the demand for new housing.

Progressives of all stripes can at least get behind the construction of more below-market-rate housing. Indeed, Sanders mentioned just that possibility in his speech. A city can’t just decree such units into existence, though. Unless public agencies expand their direct spending on below-market housing to once-unimaginable levels, the majority of people will continue to live in privately built units — and private market conditions will determine whether most people can afford to live in a community or not.

In today’s urban housing politics, there’s a corrosive assumption that if somebody’s making money off of development, it must be wrong. But throughout the Boston area, we could use a political revolution that lowers the barriers to building housing of any sort, including market-rate housing. That would be distinctly off-brand for Sanders — and for a thick slice of the Cambridge political spectrum. But it’s also what fairness and equality require.

This group is strong supporter of rent control. They know what they are doing.


In a similar vein from an old article: NIMBYs are costing the US economy billions

@Edge-

[Theodarzna]

Among the books most often named-checked in lefty circles, including by Sanders himself, is “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” Author Thomas Frank’s thesis is that traditional Middle American voters have been manipulated, via their conservative social values, into voting against their raw economic interests and electing Republican politicians who do Wall Street’s bidding. Viewing this dynamic from the safety of the deep-blue coasts, progressives lament: If only people in Wichita could see what was good for them.

This has always been the dumbest reason and aspect of that book by Frank, but also the gravest misunderstanding. Which is why anyone who reads the Kansas book has to read Listen Liberal which is really the sequel to that book.

[Blur4stuff]

So, how is Kansas doing then? If they aren't voting against their own interests then they must be doing great.

Same goes for any deep red state. They must be better off than all of the blue states, right?

[Theodarzna]

So, how is Kansas doing then? If they aren't voting against their own interests then they must be doing great.

Same goes for any deep red state. They must be better off than all of the blue states, right?

I'd argue the opposite point, or I did. That all voters on some basic level aren't "voting their self interest" because voters don't do that. Surely wealthy Hollywood or denizens of DC would be self interested in tax cuts ect. But they vote for other things instead.

All voters chose their values or the vast majority of them do. Politics of strictly self interest isn't workable politics.

[Tijuana]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...yuVRJ/amp.html


This group is strong supporter of rent control. They know what they are doing.


In a similar vein from an old article: NIMBYs are costing the US economy billions

@Edge-

ROFL @ the article quoting Thomas Franks' book, that was completely discredited. That guy is a complete hack, and even moderate Democrats laughed his book right off the shelf.

[Mormolyce]

You guys really need a book to tell you that Republican voters have been hoodwinked into voting against their own interests?

Last election they voted Trump because they thought he'd protect their jobs...

[Dome Fossil]

You guys really need a book to tell you that Republican voters have been hoodwinked into voting against their own interests?

Last election they voted Trump because they thought he'd protect their jobs...

Hey, what part of "Billionaire* New Yorker" DOESN'T scream "understanding the plight of the little guy in flyover country" to you, huh? Heh...

*presumably, we still haven't seen those Tax Returns!

[shimerra]

I'd argue the opposite point, or I did. That all voters on some basic level aren't "voting their self interest" because voters don't do that. Surely wealthy Hollywood or denizens of DC would be self interested in tax cuts ect. But they vote for other things instead.

All voters chose their values or the vast majority of them do. Politics of strictly self interest isn't workable politics.

Then your argument would be dumb and really only applicable to people who value spiting their nose to cut off their face under all circumstances and who could never be mislead or propagandized.


Kansas was the perfect example of a place that was spoon fed bullshit based on some vague nation of conservative values and when the result wasn't what was promised..... well it was the left's fault.

[Theodarzna]

Then your argument would be dumb and really only applicable to people who value spiting their nose to cut off their face under all circumstances and who could never be mislead or propagandized.

Kansas was the perfect example of a place that was spoon fed bullshit based on some vague nation of conservative values and when the result wasn't what was promised..... well it was the left's fault.

My argument is essentially that everyone votes on a sense of values. Thomas Frank ended Kansas to point out that really the Democrats have not offered much "Pocket Book" reasoning either. His book Listen Liberal goes on from there to argue how the Democrats largely betrayed working class issues anyway.

Baiscally the Democrats are in the position of "Vote for Off-Brand GOP ideas, and against your core values and principles!" Versus the GOP which is offering "Hey, we kinda line up or don't care to change your religious and moral values, and have basically the same econ policy as the Dems."

[Nellise]

I lived in Cambridge for 6 years. There's pretty much no undeveloped land so anything that increases housing means removing something that already exists. Part of what keeps some rents low there is that a lot apartments and houses are kinda old and small so you simply can't charge that much. If you tear down those and build something new, you'll lose low income housing. Just building more in Cambridge won't drive prices down, there's simply way too much demand. Cambridge could easily turn into another Manhattan or Brooklyn where even affordable housing means you need to make $100,000 and that'll massively change the nature of Cambridge (it seems like it's already happening). That's what the group Sanders is behind is trying to prevent, but there's probably no way to stop it with all the high income jobs around Boston and Cambridge now.

I don't know why Sanders is getting involved in such local elections though that aren't even in his state.

[Vyuvarax]

Baiscally the Democrats are in the position of "Vote for Off-Brand GOP ideas, and against your core values and principles!" Versus the GOP which is offering "Hey, we kinda line up or don't care to change your religious and moral values, and have basically the same econ policy as the Dems."

Wow, saying that Republicans don't try to change people's religious or moral values is some seriously immoral lying.

[Mittens]

I lived in Cambridge for 6 years. There's pretty much no undeveloped land so anything that increases housing means removing something that already exists. Part of what keeps some rents low there is that a lot apartments and houses are kinda old and small so you simply can't charge that much. If you tear down those and build something new, you'll lose low income housing. Just building more in Cambridge won't drive prices down, there's simply way too much demand. Cambridge could easily turn into another Manhattan or Brooklyn where even affordable housing means you need to make $100,000 and that'll massively change the nature of Cambridge (it seems like it's already happening). That's what the group Sanders is behind is trying to prevent, but there's probably no way to stop it with all the high income jobs around Boston and Cambridge now.

I don't know why Sanders is getting involved in such local elections though that aren't even in his state.

Not constructing to prevent rents soaring is easily the worst solution. Not only does it fail at keeping costs down, but it ends harming the US economy.

[Dmitro]

You guys really need a book to tell you that Republican voters have been hoodwinked into voting against their own interests?

quite fun coming from people that want to pay for others people healthcare and keep bringing millions of uneducated aliens.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, saying that Republicans don't try to change people's religious or moral values is some seriously immoral lying.

for the past decades I personally only saw lefties pushing their LGBTQC agenda and so on so forth, youre either with us (VIVA LA REVOLUTION!) or youre sexist/racist/biggot/misogynist etc

tolerant huh

[Vyuvarax]

for the past decades I personally only saw lefties pushing their LGBTQC agenda and so on so forth, youre either with us (VIVA LA REVOLUTION!) or youre sexist/racist/biggot/misogynist etc

tolerant huh

You've never heard right-wingers scream at people to accept their religion's definition of a human life? Fucking really, dude? Don't embarrass yourself on such insanely false declarations.

[pionock]

quite fun coming from people that want to pay for others people healthcare and keep bringing millions of uneducated aliens.

- - - Updated - - -



for the past decades I personally only saw lefties pushing their LGBTQC agenda and so on so forth, youre either with us (VIVA LA REVOLUTION!) or youre sexist/racist/biggot/misogynist etc

tolerant huh

Well the person you quoted is an Aussie (IIRC), so they're probably fighting for dinner plate-sized spiders to have equal rights that want nothing more than to feed on your fear. @Mormolyce , am I getting all the details right?

[Dmitro]

You've never heard right-wingers scream at people to accept their religion's definition of a human life? Fucking really, dude? Don't embarrass yourself on such insanely false declarations.

No, I've never seen IRL such thing, while I PERSONALLY encountered a couple of trans people demanding people to call them "appropriately"

Right wingers are actually conservative, we want to protect societal norms, not to create new ones and enforce them on everybody else. ( like recent canadas law is doing by punishing "wrong" pronouns), youre blind if you dont see that

[Mormolyce]

quite fun coming from people that want to pay for others people healthcare and keep bringing millions of uneducated aliens.

I daresay that healthcare is in everyone's best interests.

And despite being challenged to provide it repeatedly I've yet to see any evidence from the usual suspects that illegal immigrants cost more than they bring in. Considering that they are required to pay tax but can't receive benefits, it's a bit of an ask.

[Dmitro]

1) I daresay that healthcare is in everyone's best interests.

2) And despite being challenged to provide it repeatedly I've yet to see any evidence from the usual suspects that illegal immigrants cost more than they bring in. Considering that they are required to pay tax but can't receive benefits, it's a bit of an ask.

1) Maybe, I only want to pay for my one tho and have a choice.

2) You've never encountered latino gangstas then, of which there are tremendously many in some states, not a problem lol

[Mormolyce]

Well the person you quoted is an Aussie (IIRC), so they're probably fighting for dinner plate-sized spiders to have equal rights that want nothing more than to feed on your fear. @Mormolyce , am I getting all the details right?

Our reputation for spiders is highly exaggerated, however I can neither confirm nor deny whether I was put under any duress to vote in favour of drop bear rights.

- - - Updated - - -

1) Maybe, I only want to pay for my one tho and have a choice.

2) You've never encountered latino gangstas then, of which there are tremendously many in some states, not a problem lol

1) That's not how insurance works.

2) So all you have is anecdotes and barely-concealed race baiting? Next.

[Vyuvarax]

No, I've never seen IRL such thing, while I PERSONALLY encountered a couple of trans people demanding people to call them "appropriately"

Right wingers are actually conservative, we want to protect societal norms, not to create new ones and enforce them on everybody else. ( like recent canadas law is doing by punishing "wrong" pronouns), youre blind if you dont see that

No conservative is anti-abortion? That's really a stance you're going to take with a straight face? Get lost, dude.