Interest group & ideological vetoes is an example of why initiatives are important.
A state can have a consistent majority party, but not all of its ideas will be majoritarian. Even a majority in a state legislature for an idea can easily be stymied if it doesn't have a support of the majority-of-the-majority.
Therefore, an initiative process is essential for allowing a state's voters to bypass their normal majority party. Hence, Red STates can legalize abortion and raise the minimum wage. Hence, Blue States can ban racial preferences in college admission and contain taxes.
Do electorates get the question "right" every time? No way. But neither do legislatures+governors. Moreover, there are issues - like electoral reform - that seem to be impossible to pass except through initiatives.
I think the answer is both. YIMBYs remain single issue. Then, ideally, you have a bundle of issues like Abundance, which in theory, should be orthogonal to left/right ideology. Now, Abundance is likely to overlap quite a bit with YIMBY, but they should remain separate movements, even if most members belong to both. Then you have a coalition like the Democratic Party.
"I’ve often been frustrated by blue state YIMBYs who are excessively focused on bolstering their “we’re the true progressives” credentials rather than on building bridges with moderates."
The NY League of Conservation Voters and the Human Rights Campaign both suffer from drift beyond their core issues. NYLCV supported the re-election of one of the leading opponents of congestion pricing because he scored well on bills that passed the Assembly 110 to 50.
I think most YIMBY folks are with Mamdani in NYC. Eric Adams wins points for pushing thru City of Yes but his many other negatives make him unacceptable for re-election. Andrew Cuomo has no history of being particularly supportive of YIMBY matters, although he did build some large public sector infrastructure projects in an off-putting way. He's not seen as a leader on abundance, if he even knows what it is.
There should be a massive effort to place a billboard on every major highway on the outskirts of every major town in every Red District in the Country identifying by name the U.S. Representative who voted for the Big Ugly Bill listing the eventual damages it will do to its citizens. The same should be done in every State with a Republican Senator up for reelection. Much of the bad stuff will not be apparent to voters until after the midterms; consequently, Democratic Party messaging between now and then is critical!
I believe I take away from the overview that a Single Issue group that is also not Everything Bagel agenda is most effective (as in e.g. being willing to support a pro-choice R Senator and not declare Cooties! or not apply litmus test for non-core subject issues).
Land use does strike me tho as over-narrow (important but perhaps too Coastal Urban) versus Red-Tape Cutting Abundance Yimby to be generally focused but have an appeal for government effectiveness that is beyond Coastal Metros).
Honestly, when lots of issue groups hitch their carts together in solidarity, the net effect is to strengthen the least popular, least important issues at the expense of the more popular, more important issues. The net result is less progress and worse outcomes. The groups should re-separate themselves and have each focus on a single issue or small group of closely-related issues.
Very much like how labor unions help the most vulnerable and the least productive members of the union, and the expense of the most productive and least vulnerable ones. (I’m including both “vulnerable” and “productive”, because people often have opposite opinions on whether supporting one or the other group is good or bad.)
What you say in this piece seems correct but how do you square it with your frequent calls for activists on the left to be more pragmatic and not to try to kill bills/politicians/etc because they didn't support their unpopular position? I mean isn't that an intrinsic consequence of being a single issue group -- you don't compromise on your issue to help 'your side' win?
Would a more sophisticated articulation of your position be: advocacy groups need to choose whether they are really single issue in which case they can't balk at endorsing canidates from either party or decide they are actually part of the Democratic establishment and act accordingly?
somehow in my mind there is a "time to pick a side" quote, spoken in an ominous arcturus mengsk voice, even though a few minutes of googling suggests that no such quote was ever uttered in the starcraft universe. anyway, the sides i am referring to are single issue vs coalition folks, and "we need both" feels like a bit of a copout.
What can people who live in suburbia do to support YIMBY? Living in Phoenix suburbs, I struggle with making my strong theoretical support for YIMBY actionable. I tell myself that if I lived in SF or NYC--or even downtown Phoenix or Tempe--I'd show up to counsel meetings and support up-zoning as markets would love for dense housing to be legal in these areas. But what to do when you live in a town where markets wouldn't build any skyscrapers, even if it were legal?
Also, removing all residential/commercial zoning regulation seems politically impossible. What seems possible is moving the planning up a level of government so at least *some* areas get zoned for more density. Comprise reforms where downtowns have no density regulations, a ring outside of that allows up to six stories, and the suburbs keep their single-family houses with picket fences seems plausible. How do I help make that happen given that my local government is the suburb?
There seems to be a solid liberal/business consensus that parking requirements are excessive even in suburbs. Your suburb will never be manhattan in terms of walkability but eliminating or greatly reducing parking requirements can increase the number of homes and businesses that can be built profitably and modestly improve the build environment while increasing the number of tax paying residents and stores. Eliminating parking minimums also has strong crossover appeal to conservative voters because it removes regulations.
Also, specifically in the Phoenix suburbs, there’s a good chance that Waymo service is coming soon (and Uber and Lyft are already there) so even if old parking requirements had been reasonable, lowering them for future developments makes sense.
This idea is dumber than dirt and would tear apart the carefully constructed YIMBY Big Tent we have in San Francisco. I am a long time YIMBY activist and lead here and can’t speak about anywhere else. But we have assembled an election winning coalition precisely by *not* being a political party. We had diverse and divisive opinions about the Chesa Boudin recall and it got so bad that we agreed to not talk about it on our slack channel and use Twitter instead for this topic. There are many similar issues around “public safety” aka expanding the police surveillance and control of the population that are divisive. You think they are common sense but to many of us on The Left they are anything but. There are similar problems with the more libertarian leaning members, many who have been with the us for a very long time and are pillars of the org.
Go create an abundance movement in the Democratic Party and use GrowSF as a model. Learn what you can from our victories, I am sympathetic with the goals. But don’t mess with success, especially as we are just coming into our own as a group that can get policy change enacted.
But I don't think that US politicians (or anyone) should be actively helping Hugo Chavez be dictator for life.
As to his parents, "I completely condemn my parents actions, but as their son I can't help but love them, and think they have served their time and regret their actions" is a pretty easy framing.
But of course he doesn't actually condemn his parents actions and has only ever talked about how much they've suffered, never about the suffering they caused.
Neither of your responses are even related to my previous comments.
I will reiterate that I think Hugo Chavez was awful and I would no go work for him and not advocate that he be president for life. Curious how that makes me a boot licker.
I don't know the specifics of the case you mentioned, and I'm not sure why that's the one you're focusing on?
I think the US justice systems has lots of problem and needs reform.
That being said, it is very hard to argue that San Francisco's problems stem from an overly authoritarian attitude to crime, and clearly the vast majority of San Franciscans agree. On that note, Grow SF officially endorsed Brooke Jenkins for DA.
“San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin announced Monday that he has filed homicide charges against former police officer Christopher Samayoa for the 2017 shooting of 42-year-old Keita O’Neil.”
You changed your reply. Strange rhetorical technique, but okay I will address your current points.
I don’t think someone should be expected to either pay for the sins of their father nor be expected to repudiate them. This is a Great Leap Forward approach to politics. I don’t even care what a San Francisco official thinks about the foreign policy of any nation. I guess you feel differently. Let’s agree to disagree here.
The recall result was 55/45 after an aggressive and well funded smear campaign from a bunch of billionaires and the POA (police officers union). Crime overall was declining under Boudin and has continued to decline under Brooke.
I am glad we agree that criminal justice reform is needed. I will share links to the specific cases where Boudin prosecuted the police.
Are you a San Francisco resident? Where are you getting your impression of what it is like here?
It's like the pizza with everything on it-- sausage, onions, peppers, all that. Why does it ever get ordered for large groups? It's always the pizza left over. People who like everything bagels will also eat a plain bagel. People who like everything pizza will also eat cheese pizza.
Interest group & ideological vetoes is an example of why initiatives are important.
A state can have a consistent majority party, but not all of its ideas will be majoritarian. Even a majority in a state legislature for an idea can easily be stymied if it doesn't have a support of the majority-of-the-majority.
Therefore, an initiative process is essential for allowing a state's voters to bypass their normal majority party. Hence, Red STates can legalize abortion and raise the minimum wage. Hence, Blue States can ban racial preferences in college admission and contain taxes.
Do electorates get the question "right" every time? No way. But neither do legislatures+governors. Moreover, there are issues - like electoral reform - that seem to be impossible to pass except through initiatives.
Whatever dude. You don’t live here and abandoned us in our hour of need. I don’t care what you think.
If you think it’s a tired debate, why did you bring it back up.
San Francisco is improving steadily in spite of the Doom Loopers best efforts. Once again, we are a Phoenix.
I think the answer is both. YIMBYs remain single issue. Then, ideally, you have a bundle of issues like Abundance, which in theory, should be orthogonal to left/right ideology. Now, Abundance is likely to overlap quite a bit with YIMBY, but they should remain separate movements, even if most members belong to both. Then you have a coalition like the Democratic Party.
"I’ve often been frustrated by blue state YIMBYs who are excessively focused on bolstering their “we’re the true progressives” credentials rather than on building bridges with moderates."
Name names Matt, who/ what are you talking about?
The NY League of Conservation Voters and the Human Rights Campaign both suffer from drift beyond their core issues. NYLCV supported the re-election of one of the leading opponents of congestion pricing because he scored well on bills that passed the Assembly 110 to 50.
I think most YIMBY folks are with Mamdani in NYC. Eric Adams wins points for pushing thru City of Yes but his many other negatives make him unacceptable for re-election. Andrew Cuomo has no history of being particularly supportive of YIMBY matters, although he did build some large public sector infrastructure projects in an off-putting way. He's not seen as a leader on abundance, if he even knows what it is.
There should be a massive effort to place a billboard on every major highway on the outskirts of every major town in every Red District in the Country identifying by name the U.S. Representative who voted for the Big Ugly Bill listing the eventual damages it will do to its citizens. The same should be done in every State with a Republican Senator up for reelection. Much of the bad stuff will not be apparent to voters until after the midterms; consequently, Democratic Party messaging between now and then is critical!
I believe I take away from the overview that a Single Issue group that is also not Everything Bagel agenda is most effective (as in e.g. being willing to support a pro-choice R Senator and not declare Cooties! or not apply litmus test for non-core subject issues).
Land use does strike me tho as over-narrow (important but perhaps too Coastal Urban) versus Red-Tape Cutting Abundance Yimby to be generally focused but have an appeal for government effectiveness that is beyond Coastal Metros).
Honestly, when lots of issue groups hitch their carts together in solidarity, the net effect is to strengthen the least popular, least important issues at the expense of the more popular, more important issues. The net result is less progress and worse outcomes. The groups should re-separate themselves and have each focus on a single issue or small group of closely-related issues.
Very much like how labor unions help the most vulnerable and the least productive members of the union, and the expense of the most productive and least vulnerable ones. (I’m including both “vulnerable” and “productive”, because people often have opposite opinions on whether supporting one or the other group is good or bad.)
What you say in this piece seems correct but how do you square it with your frequent calls for activists on the left to be more pragmatic and not to try to kill bills/politicians/etc because they didn't support their unpopular position? I mean isn't that an intrinsic consequence of being a single issue group -- you don't compromise on your issue to help 'your side' win?
Would a more sophisticated articulation of your position be: advocacy groups need to choose whether they are really single issue in which case they can't balk at endorsing canidates from either party or decide they are actually part of the Democratic establishment and act accordingly?
somehow in my mind there is a "time to pick a side" quote, spoken in an ominous arcturus mengsk voice, even though a few minutes of googling suggests that no such quote was ever uttered in the starcraft universe. anyway, the sides i am referring to are single issue vs coalition folks, and "we need both" feels like a bit of a copout.
What can people who live in suburbia do to support YIMBY? Living in Phoenix suburbs, I struggle with making my strong theoretical support for YIMBY actionable. I tell myself that if I lived in SF or NYC--or even downtown Phoenix or Tempe--I'd show up to counsel meetings and support up-zoning as markets would love for dense housing to be legal in these areas. But what to do when you live in a town where markets wouldn't build any skyscrapers, even if it were legal?
Also, removing all residential/commercial zoning regulation seems politically impossible. What seems possible is moving the planning up a level of government so at least *some* areas get zoned for more density. Comprise reforms where downtowns have no density regulations, a ring outside of that allows up to six stories, and the suburbs keep their single-family houses with picket fences seems plausible. How do I help make that happen given that my local government is the suburb?
There seems to be a solid liberal/business consensus that parking requirements are excessive even in suburbs. Your suburb will never be manhattan in terms of walkability but eliminating or greatly reducing parking requirements can increase the number of homes and businesses that can be built profitably and modestly improve the build environment while increasing the number of tax paying residents and stores. Eliminating parking minimums also has strong crossover appeal to conservative voters because it removes regulations.
Also, specifically in the Phoenix suburbs, there’s a good chance that Waymo service is coming soon (and Uber and Lyft are already there) so even if old parking requirements had been reasonable, lowering them for future developments makes sense.
I think every little bit helps. If someone wants to build a 55 and over community you could reminded everyone that:
1. At that age they will be paying property taxes but won't have kids in school
2. Many will be retire and won't be out during rush hour.
3. Many of you would like (may require) the option to cash out some equity and reduce expenses as you get older but not have to leave the community.
4. A widow selling her family home and moving into a condo frees up a SFH for a new family.
This idea is dumber than dirt and would tear apart the carefully constructed YIMBY Big Tent we have in San Francisco. I am a long time YIMBY activist and lead here and can’t speak about anywhere else. But we have assembled an election winning coalition precisely by *not* being a political party. We had diverse and divisive opinions about the Chesa Boudin recall and it got so bad that we agreed to not talk about it on our slack channel and use Twitter instead for this topic. There are many similar issues around “public safety” aka expanding the police surveillance and control of the population that are divisive. You think they are common sense but to many of us on The Left they are anything but. There are similar problems with the more libertarian leaning members, many who have been with the us for a very long time and are pillars of the org.
Go create an abundance movement in the Democratic Party and use GrowSF as a model. Learn what you can from our victories, I am sympathetic with the goals. But don’t mess with success, especially as we are just coming into our own as a group that can get policy change enacted.
Good riddance to that incompetent dictator coddling unapologetic son of literal terrorists.
How does that boot leather taste?
Not sure what that's about.
But I don't think that US politicians (or anyone) should be actively helping Hugo Chavez be dictator for life.
As to his parents, "I completely condemn my parents actions, but as their son I can't help but love them, and think they have served their time and regret their actions" is a pretty easy framing.
But of course he doesn't actually condemn his parents actions and has only ever talked about how much they've suffered, never about the suffering they caused.
You are upset because he charged cops with manslaughter for killing an unarmed man while on duty?
Neither of your responses are even related to my previous comments.
I will reiterate that I think Hugo Chavez was awful and I would no go work for him and not advocate that he be president for life. Curious how that makes me a boot licker.
I don't know the specifics of the case you mentioned, and I'm not sure why that's the one you're focusing on?
I think the US justice systems has lots of problem and needs reform.
That being said, it is very hard to argue that San Francisco's problems stem from an overly authoritarian attitude to crime, and clearly the vast majority of San Franciscans agree. On that note, Grow SF officially endorsed Brooke Jenkins for DA.
https://www.kqed.org/news/11848521/in-first-for-sf-district-attorney-chesa-boudin-charges-former-police-officer-with-homicide
“San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin announced Monday that he has filed homicide charges against former police officer Christopher Samayoa for the 2017 shooting of 42-year-old Keita O’Neil.”
https://missionlocal.org/2021/06/da-boudins-track-record-of-prosecuting-police/
Police officer boot leather, obviously.
You changed your reply. Strange rhetorical technique, but okay I will address your current points.
I don’t think someone should be expected to either pay for the sins of their father nor be expected to repudiate them. This is a Great Leap Forward approach to politics. I don’t even care what a San Francisco official thinks about the foreign policy of any nation. I guess you feel differently. Let’s agree to disagree here.
The recall result was 55/45 after an aggressive and well funded smear campaign from a bunch of billionaires and the POA (police officers union). Crime overall was declining under Boudin and has continued to decline under Brooke.
I am glad we agree that criminal justice reform is needed. I will share links to the specific cases where Boudin prosecuted the police.
Are you a San Francisco resident? Where are you getting your impression of what it is like here?
Everything bagels are disgusting.
It's like the pizza with everything on it-- sausage, onions, peppers, all that. Why does it ever get ordered for large groups? It's always the pizza left over. People who like everything bagels will also eat a plain bagel. People who like everything pizza will also eat cheese pizza.
Wow!
[Terrorist fist bump]
Great post! Replied briefly here, https://x.com/CSElmendorf/status/1949841911419982245.
I'm also on team both/and.
Laura Foote, one of the key founders of the YIMBY movement in SF, wrote specifically about this last week. I'm not sure why Matt didn't mention her in his post. https://inpractice.yimbyaction.org/p/yimbyism-is-ideologically-agnostic?r=16xusl&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
YIMBY was originally a female-led movement, largely led by Sonja Trauss. Where did the women go?
The picture Matt chose to accompany this article shows two important-seeming white dudes in suits with two women behind them looking away.