|
|
|
|
|
|
by tech_ken
957 days ago
|
|
|
I don't find your "if people wanted it, it would happen" argument very convincing, nor do I understand how the situations you describe in your second and third paragraphs are (a) different from each other and (b) different from what I'm arguing is undemocratic. As far as I can tell it seems that we agree that different interest groups have different capabilities for manifesting their political preferences in local government. Is there an actual difference between our viewpoints? Like are you arguing that people don't actually want more housing? Or are we just quibbling over semantics? |
|
|
Because when you get down to the details, more housing would;
a) cost many of them a lot of money (they get income from renting out, and higher rents == more money) or hurt the value of their assets (more stock == less value for the house(s) they own).
b) lead to significant quality of live impacts they don’t want. More traffic, busier stores, more noise, crowded parks, more crime, more expensive cost of living, etc.
The gov’t structures follow that and produce the outcomes they want, and insulate them from blowback. Or the people in charge get replaced until someone does do that. The gov’t structure is the symptom, not the cause.
Grandma doesn’t like looking like the bad guy. Grandma wants to be comfortable. Grandma’s kids long ago moved out and live somewhere else, so fuck all the younger folks making noise and keeping her up at night. They should go live somewhere else and be someone else’s problem.
At least until the demographics have shifted enough that another group is able to tell the retirees to shut up and sit down. Which always happens eventually.
It’s pretty obvious frankly if you watch how things play out.