That being said, it is, at the very least, unfortunate, how this is turning out. Yet again, the state is imposing a policy overwhelmingly opposed by the people most directly affected by it - in this case, the people actually living in the locations that will be open to high density housing.
(I get that California needs more high density housing and the logical place to put high density housing is near public transit hubs. I also get that people living in single family neighborhoods don’t want their neighborhoods turned into high density housing. And I’m torn between the genuine need for housing in California and my belief that letting a majority of voters who aren’t impacted by a policy impose it on a minority of voters who are is a shitty way to run a government.)
also get that people living in single family neighborhoods don’t want their neighborhoods turned into high density housing
I get why they want it. But you can’t just let a few stand in the way of progress. Single family no business housing shouldn’t have a place in urban environments.
And I’m torn between the genuine need for housing in California and my belief that letting a majority of voters who aren’t impacted by a policy impose it on a minority of voters who are is a shitty way to run a government.)
That kind of logic is how you get less taxes on the rich.
I get why they want it. But you can’t just let a few stand in the way of progress. Single family no business housing shouldn’t have a place in urban environments.
I’m sympathetic with that argument. But I also remember that’s what they said when they ran highways through thriving Black neighborhoods and gentrified Katrina climate refugees out of New Orleans. The likelihood that this bill will replace struggling minority neighborhoods with empty storefronts and investment condos for the ultra rich deserves some consideration.
That kind of logic is how you get less taxes on the rich.
I’d argue that the real impact of a higher marginal tax rate on someone who already has more money than he could ever spend is far less than the real impact of putting in an apartment complex down the street from someone. If anything, the poor should have a greater voice in government tax policy and welfare policy than the rich, since they’re much more strongly impacted by both.
Letting the majority of voters who have to deal with the consequences of our collective decisions impose their will on the minority of self-centered rich people is a great way to run a government.
“pro-housing city like Los Angeles”.
Fucking lol.
That being said, it is, at the very least, unfortunate, how this is turning out. Yet again, the state is imposing a policy overwhelmingly opposed by the people most directly affected by it - in this case, the people actually living in the locations that will be open to high density housing.
(I get that California needs more high density housing and the logical place to put high density housing is near public transit hubs. I also get that people living in single family neighborhoods don’t want their neighborhoods turned into high density housing. And I’m torn between the genuine need for housing in California and my belief that letting a majority of voters who aren’t impacted by a policy impose it on a minority of voters who are is a shitty way to run a government.)
I get why they want it. But you can’t just let a few stand in the way of progress. Single family no business housing shouldn’t have a place in urban environments.
That kind of logic is how you get less taxes on the rich.
I’m sympathetic with that argument. But I also remember that’s what they said when they ran highways through thriving Black neighborhoods and gentrified Katrina climate refugees out of New Orleans. The likelihood that this bill will replace struggling minority neighborhoods with empty storefronts and investment condos for the ultra rich deserves some consideration.
I’d argue that the real impact of a higher marginal tax rate on someone who already has more money than he could ever spend is far less than the real impact of putting in an apartment complex down the street from someone. If anything, the poor should have a greater voice in government tax policy and welfare policy than the rich, since they’re much more strongly impacted by both.
Letting the majority of voters who have to deal with the consequences of our collective decisions impose their will on the minority of self-centered rich people is a great way to run a government.