Yes, it may be selfish, but for environmentalists it is selfish and hypocritical. I'm specifically looking at the wealthy, anti-growth, green community on the SF Peninsula.
There are plenty of hypocrites on both sides of the isle. Lots of people who claim to be against regulation... unless it's on their block. People who are environmentalists... unless it means there will be an apartment complex put up next door blocking their view. People who are pro-growth and pro-business... unless it's in their neighborhood. People who are for making housing more affordable, etc etc etc.
So-called environmentalists don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, it's pretty much universal.
Yet some people vote for representatives who approve measures like SB50, and others vote for representatives who reject them. That is the dividing line that matters. How they vote, and invest time and money to influence other people’s vote, is what determines who is a hypocrite.
You should get to know the other group of environmentalists who aren't wealthy, are pro-density, and are less likely to live in the peninsula (although I'm sure they exist there too). There are a lot more of them, so it shouldn't be hard!
Because by definition, they hardly represent the majority of pro-density advocates. If the GP has common cause with YIMBY urbanist environmentalists, then by numbers they are in good company.
The anti local density environmental crowd might represent more dollars, though. That's perhaps the issue.
I suspect, however that the divide is more generational. For the older generation, environmentalism was far more about preserving local wildlands and the wildlife in your backyard. The environmental problems that face the younger generation are far larger in scope and far more deeply intertwined with questions about how we power society.
Selfish is the wrong word I think, people are myopic about density and assume its inevitably a negative. A number of cities have shown that's not the case.
Paris is shaped like a snail and concentric circles of density and affluence with the inner most circle being most affluent.
Paris also has a stellar and reliable public transport system and is very walkable. Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow) but don’t want to invest in infrastructure and public transport.
> Bay Area wants the density (and property taxes inflow)
They already have sufficient density and property prices to actually invest in infrastructure. The problem has always been Prop 13 and the artificial limits placed on taxes that would otherwise fund infrastructure locally.
It’s not artificial limits. Including special taxes, it averages out to 1.25. It’s on par with other places. What happened was that housing and economy skyrocketed within a very short period of time. Foreigners are allowed to invest in the housing market for speculative purposes. The extra tax income is used to fund public schools. More immigration and younger people having kids. And overall death rate slowing down. And that means publicl employees pension funds. Looking up unfunded pension liabilities is a good idea.
Also..why should everyone feel like owning a home is a right? You can always rent. In fact, it’s a better economic decision because renters take advantage of best school districts within dealing with the hassle of home ownership. People buy property as an investment that is like an speculative asset these days. Homes should be a dwelling. There will always be those who have appreciating assets and those who will inherit. Punitively punishing them with taxes is just irresponsible and will create more instability.
At the end of the day, most of this is noise. CA is better than most places in the USA..America is better than most places in the world. The govt needs to stop manufacturing dissent and focus on what they need to do and aren’t doing..public transportation would alleviate housing issues. Universal healthcare will help people live their lives and remove the pressure of working for insurance.
How many people in their 50s and 60s would rather not work and just retire but continue because they need to pay for insurance. If they are going to work in the Bay Area, why not live in a home they had bought decades ago?
But it doesn’t matter..with automation and AI, jobs are going to dwindle anyways. It’s best not to create Uber dense cities as they will not be needed when people experience unemployment. We should look towards some kind of universal basic necessities/services and health care rather than building more and imagining that jobs will
last forever. That’s just not going to happen. Period.
That's largely true, but many parts of Paris itself are relatively working class (the 13th district, the 19th district) and still very dense.
Similarly while the outskirts of Paris don't have a subway system (they have the RER, akin to BART) they are still very dense.
Walkability comes from density almost inevitably because it's financially doable to have more stores/activities/restaurants in a smaller space while still getting customers. This makes walking around the city interesting.
I think the issues in the Bay Area cities I know relatively well (SF and SJ) comes down to political will to zone neighborhoods properly.
There is also some politically correct diversity quotas. In the bay areas, they think the local school teacher as well as Starbucks barista should be able to live in the same neighborhood as a FAANG millionaire. Naturally, this creates NIMBYs. It’s human nature.
I don't see anyone from the suburbs demanding to demolish Manhattan and turn it into farm land. Likewise I wouldn't demand to have housing built for me in a specific town instead of living elsewhere.
Maybe because that's where the best jobs are. Maybe because that's where they're from and it's not their fault they're getting priced out (gentrification). Maybe because they just really like the place. In any case, you don't get to be a gatekeeper. Cities are public.