The conservative case for denser cities
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:15:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The conservative case for denser cities
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: The conservative case for denser cities  (Read 2785 times)
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 29, 2014, 09:19:06 AM »
« edited: June 29, 2014, 09:23:21 AM by Simfan34 »

Selfish, Selfish San Francisco

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/

I know a lot people here have taken exception to under-density here, myself included, but I don't know if Sausalito per se is the best place to be doing that. South of Market, though, and other places, more than merit increased density. And it's not even as if this necessitates tall towers everywhere, but just rowhouses would do the trick- I once read that a neighborhood of single-family townhouses could produce a density of 50,000 people/sq mi. We need to move towards a more efficient, graceful, and overall sustainable (in all senses of the word) way of living. And we cannot afford NIMBYs raising hackles at every corner.

The solution is fairly conservative- let the free market (reasonably regulated to protect the character and quality of neighborhoods) take control and meet demand. But a lot of people seem hell-bent on rent control as the answer, despite the fact pretty much every introductory economics class uses it as an example of the distortions of price ceilings- literally, textbook. That and wage increases which are, as the article points out, are not effective.
Logged
Meursault
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 771
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 29, 2014, 09:25:39 AM »

"reasonably regulated to protect the character and quality of the neighborhoods"

Lmao. You have no ideas.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 29, 2014, 09:29:42 AM »

"reasonably regulated to protect the character and quality of the neighborhoods"

Lmao. You have no ideas.

I mean, you can't go and build a 50-story tower in the middle of, say, Pacific Heights that blocks everyone's views. There needs to be an equilibrium. I'm not saying anything particularly profound here nor am I trying to persuade anyone otherwise.
Logged
Meursault
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 771
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: June 29, 2014, 09:35:14 AM »

Why not think boldly? We need those very high rises you've dismissed. It is inevitable anyway, and this is one of the few cases where the corporate-worshipping wing of conservatism might prove useful, by helping to get rid of the zoning laws blocking them.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: June 29, 2014, 09:51:33 AM »
« Edited: June 29, 2014, 10:01:19 AM by Simfan34 »

I support more high rises. I just think in a place like San Francisco there are a lot of places where they'd essentially be killing the patient with the cure. That might be because of the nature of the city. But in a place in Manhattan, there a places all over calling for up-building. And I feel the solution calls for a good heaping dose of conservatism- weakening "community boards", loosening union's strangleholds, rolling back rent regulations, fast-tracking approval procedures, pursuing transit projects with a Moses-esque singleness of purpose and regard (or more properly lack thereof) for "community needs", pursuing neighborhood renewal and "gentrification" with vigour, selling off and redeveloping public housing projects, using eminent domain for private developers liberally, and generally riding roughshod over naysayers.

There are a lot of places that could benefit from this rapid up-building in NYC that I can think of, the Far West Side, southern Harlem, Yorkville, Chelsea, Hunters Point, Astoria just to name a few.

Also, my problem with new development might stem from the fact that modern architecture, the pedestrian sort and not your star-chitect's work, is just awfully banal and bad. I'd have no desire to live in any building like that.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2014, 10:00:27 AM »

I think everyone who has thought about the issue agrees with you in principle.  We need way more free market thinking and creative chaos in land use.  Basically, the difficult part is ramming through a development agenda (Getting much of NYC upzoned was one of Bloomberg's greatest achievements).  Everyone wants a piece of the action. 

I'm always reminded of this paradox.  In NYC every good leftist wants every new development to include affordable housing.  People even say that 20% isn't enough of a set aside in a project.  But, if you build affordable housing, you can't use union labor.  It's too expensive to build affordable housing if you pay the construction workers $92 a hour.  But, no good leftist wants to use non-union scabs, so... The solution is that we just have less development and prices go up.  There are net fewer affordable housing units because everyone wants to get a cut of anything new.

The other big problem is NIMBYism.  People just fear change.  Old people in these neighborhoods don't want to see new buildings because they remind them of their age and impending death. 

I will caution you on your use of "conservative" though.  Conservative doesn't mean free market.  Conservatives generally idolize exurban cookie cutter tract homes where everyone can have tons of cars, children and cheap consumer crap.  You sound like one of the people Michelle Bachmann warned us about:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2014, 10:08:26 AM »

Most definitely.

This issue, and the correctness of your position here, and the primally central importance of it in my politics, is precisely why I identify more as a liberal than as a socialist BTW. 
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2014, 10:16:34 AM »

I think everyone who has thought about the issue agrees with you in principle.  We need way more free market thinking and creative chaos in land use.  Basically, the difficult part is ramming through a development agenda (Getting much of NYC upzoned was one of Bloomberg's greatest achievements).  Everyone wants a piece of the action.

Ah, but see here at my school, you have an "anti-gentrification campaign". I mean, just, ugh.
 
I will caution you on your use of "conservative" though.  Conservative doesn't mean free market.  Conservatives generally idolize exurban cookie cutter tract homes where everyone can have tons of cars, children and cheap consumer crap.  You sound like one of the people Michelle Bachmann warned us about:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, those aren't the conservatives I hang out with. Like traininthedistance said, it's a central issue- considering I live here.

Also, the importance of this "forcefulness" is speeding up construction of transit projects- looking at cut-and-cover construction for new subways, for example.
Logged
Meursault
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 771
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2014, 10:25:28 AM »

There's a difference between 'development' and 'gentrification'.

The former entails the construction of factories (especially urban factories), mass housing, multi-story buildings. Everyone should want that.

The latter entails the demolition of mass housing, deindustrialization, the construction of row homes and boutique stores. We must declare war to the death upon it.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2014, 10:27:47 AM »

I think everyone who has thought about the issue agrees with you in principle.  We need way more free market thinking and creative chaos in land use.  Basically, the difficult part is ramming through a development agenda (Getting much of NYC upzoned was one of Bloomberg's greatest achievements).  Everyone wants a piece of the action.

Ah, but see here at my school, you have an "anti-gentrification campaign". I mean, just, ugh.

Hey, I'm with you there.  I'm a white guy who lives in a historically black neighborhood, I'm at the forefront of gentrification.  I hate those self-righteous liberals who want to treat half of NYC like some type of Indian reservation for poor black people.  These notions of "gentrification=bad" would just look like sour grapes and old, bitter people griping about younger people if the issue didn't trigger the leftist "Spidey-sense" for anything that can be analogized to colonialism/racism/whites taking from browns.
Logged
Meursault
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 771
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2014, 10:31:49 AM »

The problem with gentrification has nothing to do with demography and everything to do with its conversion of areas useful to the construction of heavy industry into playgrounds for an unproductive, valueless middle class.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2014, 10:35:23 AM »

The problem with gentrification has nothing to do with demography and everything to do with its conversion of areas useful to the construction of heavy industry into playgrounds for an unproductive, valueless middle class.

I was referring to gentrification as it happens in contemporary America, not in fascist cloud cuckoo land.
Logged
Meursault
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 771
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2014, 10:39:25 AM »

I invite you to visit downtown St. Louis sometime. What has 'gentrification' meant there? The construction of the insolvent Millennium Hotel and a few trendy bars. Meanwhile unemployment in St. Louis is triple the statewide average.

There's no 'there' there.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2014, 10:48:16 AM »
« Edited: June 29, 2014, 10:55:10 AM by Simfan34 »

"Heavy industry!!!11"

Heavy industry does not belong in modern cities. It belongs elsewhere. It simply doesn't make sense to plop a 500,000-square foot factory in the middle of a city. Read Greg David's Modern New York for an idea about what I am talking about. I was reminded of it just a few days when some politicians gathered to demand (sillily) to create more "industrial jobs" Here's an example of what he talks about:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140601/BLOGS01/140539979/de-blasio-zones-out-on-manufacturing

I think everyone who has thought about the issue agrees with you in principle.  We need way more free market thinking and creative chaos in land use.  Basically, the difficult part is ramming through a development agenda (Getting much of NYC upzoned was one of Bloomberg's greatest achievements).  Everyone wants a piece of the action.

Ah, but see here at my school, you have an "anti-gentrification campaign". I mean, just, ugh.

Hey, I'm with you there.  I'm a white guy who lives in a historically black neighborhood, I'm at the forefront of gentrification.  I hate those self-righteous liberals who want to treat half of NYC like some type of Indian reservation for poor black people.  These notions of "gentrification=bad" would just look like sour grapes and old, bitter people griping about younger people if the issue didn't trigger the leftist "Spidey-sense" for anything that can be analogized to colonialism/racism/whites taking from browns.

It makes me so mad. These people are basically calling for the maintenance of racially segregated ghettos. How this is supposed to improve their lot, I don't know, but I mean, it's just baffling how these people think.

https://www.facebook.com/coalitionagainstgentrification
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2014, 11:13:42 AM »

"Heavy industry!!!11"

Heavy industry does not belong in modern cities. It belongs elsewhere. It simply doesn't make sense to plop a 500,000-square foot factory in the middle of a city. Read Greg David's Modern New York for an idea about what I am talking about. I was reminded of it just a few days when some politicians gathered to demand (sillily) to create more "industrial jobs" Here's an example of what he talks about:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20140601/BLOGS01/140539979/de-blasio-zones-out-on-manufacturing

I agree with you, more or less, on the merits of siting large-scale manufacturing in the city*- but there is still an important place for small-scale specialty stuff like say microbreweries, where it's actually kind of important that the workforce be plugged into the sort of information agglomerations that only cities can provide.  And of course you will always need warehouses.  It's not sexy, but you do need them no matter what.  Especially in NYC, where the geography makes getting goods by land here kind of a b*tch.

*though there's a case to be made that we should be looking at reviving that stuff on the outskirts and in the suburbs, and if we do that we'll need to beef up transit connections (given the low-density nature of modern industrial operations, this will probably have to take the role of feeder/circulator buses to larger lines, rather than direct rail service or anything like that).
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: June 29, 2014, 11:22:22 AM »

Yeah, that sort of thing belongs in the suburbs, or the South.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2014, 11:29:42 AM »

I think everyone who has thought about the issue agrees with you in principle.  We need way more free market thinking and creative chaos in land use.  Basically, the difficult part is ramming through a development agenda (Getting much of NYC upzoned was one of Bloomberg's greatest achievements).  Everyone wants a piece of the action.

Ah, but see here at my school, you have an "anti-gentrification campaign". I mean, just, ugh.

Hey, I'm with you there.  I'm a white guy who lives in a historically black neighborhood, I'm at the forefront of gentrification.  I hate those self-righteous liberals who want to treat half of NYC like some type of Indian reservation for poor black people.  These notions of "gentrification=bad" would just look like sour grapes and old, bitter people griping about younger people if the issue didn't trigger the leftist "Spidey-sense" for anything that can be analogized to colonialism/racism/whites taking from browns.

It makes me so mad. These people are basically calling for the maintenance of racially segregated ghettos. How this is supposed to improve their lot, I don't know, but I mean, it's just baffling how these people think.

https://www.facebook.com/coalitionagainstgentrification

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright. 
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: June 29, 2014, 11:41:29 AM »

If you have a lot of time and the issue of San Francisco in particular is something you're interested in, I'd strongly recommend reading this: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/

With regard to what is proposed in that article, the geography of Marin County is such that it would have to look like Hong Kong to sustain a high population density. That won't and shouldn't happen for a variety of reasons.

I'm not in favor of the Manhattanization of San Francisco, although obviously there's a problem that needs to be solved. Plopping down a bunch of skyscrapers would destroy the city. There's no particular reason why new housing stock even needs to be in the city; it would meet demand at least as well and probably better if it were on the Peninsula. The problem is the lack of a governmental structure for the whole Bay Area, which makes planning at an appropriate scale impossible.

It goes without saying that the solution is not to clear cities of black people to appease the market gods.
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: June 29, 2014, 11:47:59 AM »

I think everyone who has thought about the issue agrees with you in principle.  We need way more free market thinking and creative chaos in land use.  Basically, the difficult part is ramming through a development agenda (Getting much of NYC upzoned was one of Bloomberg's greatest achievements).  Everyone wants a piece of the action.

Ah, but see here at my school, you have an "anti-gentrification campaign". I mean, just, ugh.

Hey, I'm with you there.  I'm a white guy who lives in a historically black neighborhood, I'm at the forefront of gentrification.  I hate those self-righteous liberals who want to treat half of NYC like some type of Indian reservation for poor black people.  These notions of "gentrification=bad" would just look like sour grapes and old, bitter people griping about younger people if the issue didn't trigger the leftist "Spidey-sense" for anything that can be analogized to colonialism/racism/whites taking from browns.

It makes me so mad. These people are basically calling for the maintenance of racially segregated ghettos. How this is supposed to improve their lot, I don't know, but I mean, it's just baffling how these people think.

https://www.facebook.com/coalitionagainstgentrification

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright. 

This. Thank you. I don't know why people seem to think housing projects belong right next to Lincoln Center or in the middle of Chelsea. Like I always say, it's not like I have a right to live on the Upper East Side.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: June 29, 2014, 11:51:16 AM »
« Edited: June 29, 2014, 12:14:59 PM by traininthedistance »

"Manhattanization" would "destroy" SF, lol.  

(I do agree re: greater urgency in upzoning the Peninsula and having metro-wide governance.  But let's be real, SF needs it too, and hyperbolic, ignorant, self-centered BS about "OH NOES AN EIGHT-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING ON MARKET STREET WILL RUIN THIS CITY FOREVER AND TURN US INTO TIMES SQUARE" sure ain't actually helping anyone.)
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: June 29, 2014, 11:56:02 AM »

I think everyone who has thought about the issue agrees with you in principle.  We need way more free market thinking and creative chaos in land use.  Basically, the difficult part is ramming through a development agenda (Getting much of NYC upzoned was one of Bloomberg's greatest achievements).  Everyone wants a piece of the action.

Ah, but see here at my school, you have an "anti-gentrification campaign". I mean, just, ugh.

Hey, I'm with you there.  I'm a white guy who lives in a historically black neighborhood, I'm at the forefront of gentrification.  I hate those self-righteous liberals who want to treat half of NYC like some type of Indian reservation for poor black people.  These notions of "gentrification=bad" would just look like sour grapes and old, bitter people griping about younger people if the issue didn't trigger the leftist "Spidey-sense" for anything that can be analogized to colonialism/racism/whites taking from browns.

It makes me so mad. These people are basically calling for the maintenance of racially segregated ghettos. How this is supposed to improve their lot, I don't know, but I mean, it's just baffling how these people think.

https://www.facebook.com/coalitionagainstgentrification

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright. 

This. Thank you. I don't know why people seem to think housing projects belong right next to Lincoln Center or in the middle of Chelsea. Like I always say, it's not like I have a right to live on the Upper East Side.

A couple of my relatives live in an upscale neighborhood in Manhattan, in city subsidized housing.  Two people, 4 bedroom apartment, less than $600 a month in rent.  That sort of thing needs to end, it's totally unfair.

 
Logged
AggregateDemand
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,873
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2014, 12:06:16 PM »

California's problem is unique because they have a constitutional amendment that caps the rate of property tax. Creative tax policy is necessary to encourage efficient use of land because land is finite, rivalrous and excludable.

Property over-valuation is a difficult problem for government to solve. They can't aggressively champion lower-cost housing because they will create millions of insolvent home-owners and they will decrease the wealth of the urban area. Obviously, bankers are going to hammer away on city councils and counties that undermine the value of their collateral.

The market must do its thing. People need to leave California in droves, until property values decline and wages rise. Don't beg the government for help. They can't do anything.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: June 29, 2014, 12:14:38 PM »

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright.  

I wouldn't actually say that- better to say that we should radically increase housing supply so that there's room for the gentrifiers and for the poor people, living side-by-side.  That would be the welfare-maximizing move, rather than either preserving ghettoes or making people move to Atlanta and Houston, which is actually a pretty sh*tty thing to do, both to the people in question (along both financial and social axes), as well as to the environment as a whole.  (Remember that's my real horse in this race.)

This. Thank you. I don't know why people seem to think housing projects belong right next to Lincoln Center or in the middle of Chelsea. Like I always say, it's not like I have a right to live on the Upper East Side.

Well, housing projects in general are a bad idea.  Having buildings set aside some percentage of their units as "affordable", or giving folks housing vouchers, is much better and there's no reason those units should be excluded from "better" neighborhoods.  Obviously some areas will always be richer and more desirable than others on average, but there's tremendous value in it not being completely monolithic and walled-off, in either direction.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: June 29, 2014, 12:23:21 PM »

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright. 

I wouldn't actually say that- better to say that we should radically increase housing supply so that there's room for the gentrifiers and for the poor people, living side-by-side.  That would be the welfare-maximizing move, rather than either preserving ghettoes or making people move to Atlanta and Houston, which is actually a pretty sh*tty thing to do, both to the people in question (along both financial and social axes), as well as to the environment as a whole.  (Remember that's my real horse in this race.)

I think NYC obviously needs to have poor people for their labor so it's silly to consider the idea that they're all going to leave.  The question is whether our planning needs to freeze the current wealth patterns in place today.  In reality, poor people are going to move to the Bronx, Queens, New Jersey and deep Brooklyn.  Harlem near Columbia and Central Park is just valuable for its location and will eventually become mostly middle class young people and rich people.

This. Thank you. I don't know why people seem to think housing projects belong right next to Lincoln Center or in the middle of Chelsea. Like I always say, it's not like I have a right to live on the Upper East Side.

Well, housing projects in general are a bad idea.  Having buildings set aside some percentage of their units as "affordable", or giving folks housing vouchers, is a better idea and there's no reason those units can't be in "better" neighborhoods.  Obviously some areas will always be richer and more desirable than others on average, but there's tremendous value in it not being completely monolithic and walled-off, in either direction.

It's a question of marginal cost though.  A housing unit in Chelsea is far, far more expensive than a housing unit in Castle Hill or Sunset Park.  So, there's a real choice between more units and units in the most desirable areas of the city.
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: June 29, 2014, 12:51:58 PM »
« Edited: June 29, 2014, 01:01:16 PM by traininthedistance »

I think the harsh reality is that if you're poor, you should think about moving to a more affordable part of the country.  Nobody just deserves to live in the most desirable real estate in America because it's their birthright.  

I wouldn't actually say that- better to say that we should radically increase housing supply so that there's room for the gentrifiers and for the poor people, living side-by-side.  That would be the welfare-maximizing move, rather than either preserving ghettoes or making people move to Atlanta and Houston, which is actually a pretty sh*tty thing to do, both to the people in question (along both financial and social axes), as well as to the environment as a whole.  (Remember that's my real horse in this race.)

I think NYC obviously needs to have poor people for their labor so it's silly to consider the idea that they're all going to leave.  The question is whether our planning needs to freeze the current wealth patterns in place today.  In reality, poor people are going to move to the Bronx, Queens, New Jersey and deep Brooklyn.  Harlem near Columbia and Central Park is just valuable for its location and will eventually become mostly middle class young people and rich people.

Pushing poor people out to the suburbs (or places like eastern Queens that might as well be suburbs), out beyond the effective reach of public transit, is not actually a satisfactory outcome.  In fact, insofar as it provides a breeding ground for hinterland-populist "environmentalism = elitist" thought, it is pretty much the worst outcome possible in some lights.

The case for radically denser cities is precisely that you accommodate reinvestment and gentrification, and the very real benefits they do provide to the planet and to the city's solvency and quality-of-life, without doing that.

(ETA: The case for radically denser cities, especially in places like San Francisco, is also that increased housing supply will also allow people, and not just the techies themselves but also and especially less-skilled service and support, to "move to opportunity" and increase their welfare by going to where there's good paying jobs, without having it all be clawed back in hellacious rent.  I am in fact quite deadly serious when I say that the restrictive supply of housing in the Bay Area, and the fact that it prevents people from moving to places where they can get good jobs and live more sustainable lifestyles, is one of the greatest tragedies and emergencies in American life today.)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 12 queries.