Seems to me it's a fight for convenience too.
They built Las Vegas in the desert to avoid restrictions, what's preventing this generation to build new cities?
The whole Covid problem will make quests to increase population density more difficult. But perhaps will also spread opportunities around, or move them online, so this zoning struggle will stop being important.
Being able to live near high-income jobs is the most direct path to the middle class in America. If we want people to not live in poverty, then it makes sense to subsidize their access to opportunity. That means subsidizing education and housing.
I've had fun nights talking with friends about starting a city. It's really fun to think about how we'd design the city to maximize opportunity, but there's no getting away from the value an existing city provides. Fixing a city with already high opportunity is just fundamentally cheaper than starting a city from scratch. All we need to do is win a few elections -- we're talking less than $100MM. A new city that is aiming to compete is a $100B+ project.
As engineers we often think the best way to fix something is to build a new version. But this is rarely true in institutions. Think of governments as legacy systems: they've been built up over time and have a ton of hacks keeping it running. Think of Spolsky's generally good advice: "Don't rewrite code" https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-...
It is easier to fix an old and broken system than to replace it wholesale. Let's focus on fixing government instead of replacing it.
Seems a tautology that access to high-opportunity would help an individual. But if rent is too high as to be unaffordable, then the place is not so high-opportunity. Cost of living can't be excluded from the opportunity calculation.
I get that some sort of 'jump-start' in life might be required but can't help but feel that deep down this will hide a dysfunctionality somewhere.
Maybe something like Lambda Housing would prove this economical theory. Signing an ISA for subsidised housing if this proves to significantly raise the person's income seems a no brainer.
However, I have to ask: What is your group's funding situation? Who is bankrolling the effort? Is it grassroots funded, or are there wealthy benefactors who agree with the objectives (or, from a more cynical perspective, might be using your group for something)?
For the record, I believe both approaches can work. We have obviously seen the wealthy fund politics in favor of their interests and successfully get their way, but there have been grassroots successes as well. In particular, I am thinking of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with its cause, the NRA has 5+ million dues-paying members and it has been extremely successful at deploying those funds to achieve its very specific political objectives.
On a more abstract note: the founders of America may have originally envisioned a system where various interest groups debate the issues and arrive at a governing consensus, but the system has [d]evolved into one where those groups compete to raise funds that can channeled to lawmakers to encourage them to implement preferred policies. Some groups recognized this long ago.
It’s generally grass roots though I know some wealthy individuals have donated much more of the total funds.
The progressive camp of SF politics often tries to discredit the YIMBY movement by claiming AstroTurf. But it’s simply not true.
This was started by motivated individuals who started organizing and then went and started looking for donations.
The reality of SF housing politics is all the “local control” has given a lot of power to local groups that can hold a new development hostage. So developers have to essentially pay them off with “community benefit” to keep each group from delaying your project through years of appeals.
This sets up a system where a small number of developers have the relationships and know how to work the system to get their projects done. Limits local construction competition.
We also have local politicians (Aaron Peskin) who own significant amounts of rental properties, and find ways of opposing new housing supply. A policy they directly and personally benefit from.
Your summary is correct. Most of our donations are small dollar from individuals. A few people donate more, and that's because they agree with what we're doing and they have the means to contribute. We're grateful for all support, and donations never influence any of our decisions about what to advocate for.
What campaign finance reform would solve regulatory capture, because low contribution limits isn't helping.
We mobilize people in support of reform-focused politicians and have even started running our own (Sonja Trauss in 2018 and myself in 2020).
Happy to talk more about it -- [email protected] Happy to talk more about it