The Question Progressives Refuse to Answer - As Democrats became the party of proceduralism, they sidestepped a crucial debate.

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

in terms of housing, we already have more housing than unhoused people. the market is withholding the housing from people who cant afford the price the market wants. if capitalists dont find the untapped market lucrative enough, they wont be making more housing for them, and they wont convert existing vacant housing to meet the need.

to the extent that law is used to slow housing down, it is lobbyists paying the kind of candidates you love to introduce trojan horse legislation that may seem woke on the surface but is actually developed in part with corporate interests.

WRONG. We don’t, especially in hot markets. Plus, we need to increase that ratio of vacancies to even address homelessness. Plus, these emotional appeals to catering to the homeless wont change the fact that theres a skill gap and a labor gap that needs to be addressed to even justify housing for many homeless people who have a litany of other issues.

The middle and lower classes need housing too. Not everything has to immediately focus on HOME LESS people just to skip over everyone else who is being pinched.

A 1 bedroom apartment shouldn’t cost more than $1200-1500.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

That's the opposite of what abundance is arguing, abundance is arguing we should have LESS red tape for developers.

Yes

Less red tape = more potential for profits and less division planning.

Wrong.

Less red tape removes things like minimum income requirements and demands to use minority contractors with niche issues or other limitations on environmental regulations or other community pork requests.

Scale is needed and regulations have given too many hands too much leverage to the point that things have grinned to a halt.

The only ones building anything are the ones who can meet all these demands in the first place. Thats the issue. Of course you lock out the middle market builders who can’t invest and make ROI on smaller infill projects.

You don’t know shyt about urban development.

If you wanted DENSER housing you would be arguing for MORE red tape for developers which will lead to smaller lots and more multi-family homes.

No. This is literally the opposite of zoning policy. Go look at Houston. Zoning is more than lot sizes. Its parking regulations, its staircase regulations, its building codes (5-over-1’s) etc.

Additionally, you should be arguing for the federal government to become expand with housing development either internally or externally thru private housing vendors
either directly

Federal housing building is different from literally letting developers build what they want

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

@Loose you are so addicted to rejecting anything involving business that you neglect to see how making it harder for different business models to succeed has suffocated the housing marketing.

It’s OK to admit that progressives fukked up.

 

[NZA]

WRONG. We don’t, especially in hot markets. Plus, we need to increase that ratio of vacancies to even address homelessness. Plus, these emotional appeals to catering to the homeless wont change the fact that theres a skill gap and a labor gap that needs to be addressed to even justify housing for many homeless people who have a litany of other issues.

The middle and lower classes need housing too. Not everything has to immediately focus on HOME LESS people just to skip over everyone else who is being pinched.

A 1 bedroom apartment shouldn’t cost more than $1200-1500.

the fact that you think homeless people are a separate class from the "lower classes" is telling...

the fact that you think there needs to be a justification for housing people is chilling...

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

the fact that you think homeless people are a separate class from the "lower classes" is telling...

the fact that you think there needs to be a justification for housing people is chilling...

More moral posturing. We’re in triage mode for infrastructure.

So yes, I need there to be more middle and lower class housing to be available to get the fat pockets out of hoarding scare housing resources and freeing up the entitlement of property owners to locking out competition.

People dont even want to devalue their homes but you’re against building more housing. You’re all over the place.

 

[NZA]

More moral posturing. We’re in triage mode for infrastructure.

So yes, I need there to be more middle and lower class housing to be available to get the fat pockets out of hoarding scare housing resources and freeing up the entitlement of property owners to locking out competition.

People dont even want to devalue their homes but you’re against building more housing. You’re all over the place.

im not against making new housing at all. i am against your blame of "progressive process" as the cause of the problem, and your terrible arguments in support of that blame.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

im not against making new housing at all. i am against your blame of "progressive process" as the cause of the problem, and your terrible arguments in support of that blame.

Listen to this interview. DO you think processes like this are helping or hurting democrats credibility?

@ 16:30 to 40 minutes

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[NZA]

Listen to this interview. DO you think processes like this are helping or hurting democrats credibility?

@ 16:30 to 40 minutes

those are standard liberal and conservative democrat practices, not progressive. you know progressives dont dominate politics and are not the driving force for corporate lobbying. progressives are usually criticizing this behavior in real time and liberals fight to excuse this behavior while conservative democrats say they need to stifle and water down policy in order to keep their purple seats. now that the corporate leaders of the party have driven it into the ditch, you cant just pull a jedi mind trick on the country now.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

those are standard liberal and conservative democrat practices, not progressive. you know progressives dont dominate politics and are not the driving force for corporate lobbying. progressives are usually criticizing this behavior in real time and liberals fight to excuse this behavior while conservative democrats say they need to stifle and water down policy in order to keep their purple seats. now that the corporate leaders of the party have driven it into the ditch, you cant just pull a jedi mind trick on the country now.

Nah. You can’t evade accountability here. Go to a local zoning board or city council meeting. It’s all activists gumming up the works. I think you think that just calling it “liberal” as a way to distance yourself from from defending the very things you’re trying to dump onto a term that you would say you’re friendly with is contradictory.

You’re defending the very stuff this thread was discussing.

 

[NZA]

Nah. You can’t evade accountability here. Go to a local zoning board or city council meeting. It’s all activists gumming up the works. I think you think that just calling it “liberal” as a way to distance yourself from from defending the very things you’re trying to dump onto a term that you would say you’re friendly with is contradictory.

You’re defending the very stuff this thread was discussing.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

This is a useless empty aimless post. It doesn’t assert what Ezra said was actually wrong.

 

[wire28]

Have progressives answered the question yet?

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

This article is really about centrists and establishment Democrats, not progressives. He makes a fundamental error by conflating "progressives" with the broader Democratic Party. He is ignoring that they're a primarily liberal institution. And that institutional liberals prioritize procedural norms, even when they hinder progress, while progressives advocate for direct government action (ignoring the Senate parliamentarian, expanding the courts, ending the filibuster, or using executive orders aggressively).

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

This article is really about centrists and establishment Democrats, not progressives. He makes a fundamental error by conflating "progressives" with the broader Democratic Party. He is ignoring that they're a primarily liberal institution. And that institutional liberals prioritize procedural norms, even when they hinder progress, while progressives advocate for direct government action (ignoring the Senate parliamentarian, expanding the courts, ending the filibuster, or using executive orders aggressively).

Progressives have used courts to stop people they labeled as vulture capitalists and its backfired because the increase in bureaucratic obstacles and community input on all levels of grift to complaints has slowed the system down.