By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Housing is an issue that does not as neatly fall onto the ideological perspective as some people would like to believe. On the one hand, some see housing as the purview of wealthy landowners and corporate developers and therefore have fallen into anti-developer activism.
On the other hand, when we block housing development, we are hurting the poor and the vulnerable disproportionately.
One reason California has the housing crisis it does is that for a long time, progressives have been led by the aging sixties generation who while they have nationally progressive values, at the same time, are homeowners, having purchased their homes before the booms and bubbles and therefore favor the anti-developer, pro-environmental activism over the notion that housing is a human right that governments ought to protect and further.
Josh Stephens, writing in the CPDR (California Planning and Development Report) this week argued that we ought to retire ideological labels for cities. While he puts forward some important points, I think the ideological labels are ultimately important to understand the divide on the left on these and other issues.
Stephens highlights the rejection of the 495 unit housing development in San Francisco by the Board of Supervisors.
“It was shocking for any number of reasons. Pragmatically, it calls into question the city’s ability to meet its state-mandated housing goals,” he argued.
But more fundamentally, he writes, “it demonstrated that, ideologically, progressivism is now officially, unambiguously at odds with the provision of housing.”
Here I think he too fails to recognize the divide on the left.
But he correctly notes, “The “radical left,” as I have called it, has been protesting capitalist developers for years. In part because of the influence of self-described Democratic Socialist Dean Preston, the current Board of Supervisors has waded deeply into radical territory and into anti-developer activism.”
He adds, “Of course, by many accounts, the provision of housing aligns squarely with progressive values: housing is a human right, and governments ought to protect, and even further, that right. A diversity of housing typologies and price points, especially in dense, diverse cities, is the epitome of inclusiveness.”
He argues, “San Francisco doesn’t seem to get this.” And frankly neither do a lot of other left-lead, otherwise fairly progressive communities.
Stephens after laying out a lot of less progressive communities that are doing more to address housing, asks, “What’s going on here.”
“Broadly, these trends illustrate that political ideologies that inhabit manifestos, speeches, and lawn signs have yet to catch up with the reality of actual bodies occupying actual built environments,” he argues.
Like me, he ties some of this to the fact that, “Much (though not all) of progressivism in city politics comes from older Californians and, in particular, older homeowners. These are people who came of age in the 1960s, when urban development looked very different than it does today. At the time, cities were emptying out.”
He adds, “many people assume that the public sector can and should pay for affordable housing.”
He also points out that those who have owned property years have enjoyed “the twofold benefit of appreciation and Proposition 13 protections.”
This is the basic problem we see. Here in Davis, previous polling has showed that the people most willing to support new development are by and large younger people who have lived here the least amount of time.
At a recent hearing in front of the city council – everyone who wanted to restrict the reach of the housing element was over 60, nearly everyone who wanted to expand the housing provisions were under 40.
Just as we see the issue of wealth and race underlie the debate on the left over progressive prosecutors and crime, we are seeing the same dynamic on the left with respect to housing.
That doesn’t mean we should abandon ideological labels. It just means that we need to understand that not all those on the left, even those who are progressives share the same interests and the same priorities.
The fundamental problem that progressives face is that while some developers are problematic, we do not have a good mechanism to produce housing without private investment at the moment. That means in order to build housing, we need people with the financial incentive to do so.
Moreover, especially in the post-redevelopment era of California, there really is not a reliable way to get affordable housing without attaching it to market rate.
The people that get hurt when we attempt to use government to regulate this are the very people that progressives seek to empower – the poor and vulnerable.
The people being priced out by land use controls are people of color and those living on the margins. If progressives are committed to helping people of color and the vulnerable, they cannot institute policies that make homeownership or even home rental more expensive and more problematic.
That’s rather a broad brush accusation and condemnation of an entire generation. So let’s flip that around to see how this works.
“One reason the entire natural world is being pushed to the brink of extinction through climate change has been the entitled mindset of the post-boomer, self-entitled Gen X generation. Now pushing middle-age, on a per capita basis this generation has become the most profligate energy consumers in the world.
They insist they are all due the right to own a detached single family home in whatever City they want regardless of their contributions to society. They foresake public transportation and drive their gas-guzzling oversized SUV vehicles everywhere, including shuttling their kids to and from school every day, because “they are in a hurry”. They set their thermostats has low as they want in the summer and as high as they want in the winter to make themselves as comfortable as possible without a carbon care in the world. And they live this entitled lifestyle all the while proclaiming their commitment to an environmentally-just, carbon-neutral world”
How does that shoe fit?
Somebody remembered GenX!
This whole generation thing and housing is stupid. Pretty much everyone that grows a family wants a detached home with a yard if they can afford it.
What are Progressives in Davis for? They have historically been more easily defined by what they oppose. Of course that is hardly Progressive in the traditional sense of Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Era.
Progressives in Davis are liberals who were too shy to use the label after GHW Bush unleashed Willie Horton on Dukakis. And as Phil Ochs wrote in “Love Me, I’m a Liberal” almost 60 years ago:
“I love Puerto Ricans and Negroes as long as they don’t live next store, so love me, love me, love me, I’m a Liberal.”
And how many Puerto Ricans and Negroes have you had as next door neighbors, Sir?
This is kinda ridiculous article. “The left” only applies if you’re stuck in the two-party system. Which we are. The left isn’t split. In the sane system we should have, these groups would be in different political parties because they don’t think the same. They may form coalitions on common interests, but they aren’t under an umbrella of ‘left’ except due to the limitations of the brains and the systems of the USA. The ‘left’ having differing views is similar to Republicans consisting of both fiscal conservatives and Christian religious zealots (among others), and only marginally overlapping. Really those should be different parties too.
Fallen? Maybe they are on solid ground and it is you who have fallen?
Or in Davis, when we support one (see latest Measure J vote)
I’m not so sure they do. Are in the same party voting for the same propped-up puppet, maybe. Same values? Not so much.
The horror of such views! 😐
Read: housing should be subsidized.
Again, you are just using the artificial term ‘left’ which has no meaning and these groups should be in different political parties and they aren’t in ‘the left’.
#cough# #cough#
But we will, comrades!
So wheras our older brethren opposed bad developers, we sleep with dogs . . .
Ironically, when most of y’all are the dreaded over-60 and homeowners, you will also make transformations in your thinking.
Get it by ‘attaching’ it to the market rate?
Now you’re getting warm.
One such policy that might help is if they all left. All the progressives, if you’ll pardon the expression: left. Went to Nebraska. Gone. This would open up housing for the underprivileged to live in. Affordably. In the town they all seem to want to live in: Davis.
Same question back at you Alan P… typical “progressive” response you made…
To show my “colors” (that you seem focused on), as to ‘next door neighbors’, the only POC’s who have lived next door was a Latino gent and his white wife, when I was a kid… they raised ‘Scot Terriers’, who they warned me, didn’t like kids… they loved me and I loved them… ‘Pepper’ was a semi-pro golfer… he made a small ‘putting green’ in his back yard… he taught me how to putt… I always considered him my neighbor, ‘Pepper’ (what he wanted to be addressed by), and ‘Latino’ never crossed my mind, as a kid… he was a neighbor and friend… those who associate ‘race is everything’ polluted me as a late-adolescent/adult…
After going to school with, working with Blacks, Asians, Latinx, over many years, and seeing them as co-workers, friends, (and I dated an Asian girl in college), I am highly offended by those who can’t believe “whitey” can’t be ‘color-blind’… that is a racial insult! Dead dog serious!
WTF is your point, Alan P, except to snipe or troll?!?!?
Should read,
Don’t want to do the same stupid double-negative that a certain former president recently did… and stupidly was hyped up by those who dislike/disagree with him, or his lack of morals/ethics, etc… a pox on both their houses… (former prez, and those who fault his use of grammar…)
Problem number one: whitey is not colorblind. No one is. Everyone has biases – conscious and unconscious.
Problem number two: colorblindness is not a virtue. Color blindness is a problem, a refusal to acknowledge the causes and consequences of enduring racial stratification, systemic racism, and the like.
People should not strive for color blindness nor is it a trait to be admired. People should strive for anti-racism, for tearing down the institutions that continue to oppress people based on race and ethnicity.
“They insist they are all due the right to own a detached single family home in whatever City they want regardless of their contributions to society. “
I love it when homeowners trash others for wanting to own a home.
With all due respect, there is a difference between “wants” and “rights”… I hear what I believe you’re saying, though…
It is one thing to “want” clean, potable water… that should also be your “right” to have it…
Another thing to “want” all my money, property, assets, but I don’t concede that as a “right” by others. Until we make armed, or coerced, ‘robbery/theft’ perfectly legal and acceptable.
Those are the extremes.
The balance between the “rights” or “wants” for housing, of your own choosing, your own terms (cost), your chosen location, and the “rights” or “wants” of developers/landlords (another of today’s threads) to make a living/profit, cover “risk”… well, hard to find a fulcrum point where they can balance.
I have been a tenant, and a landlord… neither for several/many years…
This is kinda ridiculous article. “The left” only applies if you’re stuck in the two-party system. Which we are. The left isn’t split. In the sane system we should have, these groups would be in different political parties because they don’t think the same. They may form coalitions on common interests, but they aren’t under an umbrella of ‘left’ except due to the limitations of the brains and the systems of the USA. The ‘left’ having differing views is similar to Republicans consisting of both fiscal conservatives and Christian religious zealots (among others), and only marginally overlapping. Really those should be different parties too.
Fallen? Maybe they are on solid ground and it is you who have fallen?
Or in Davis, when we support one (see latest Measure J vote)
I’m not so sure they do. Are in the same party voting for the same propped-up puppet, maybe. Same values? Not so much.
The horror of such views! 😐
Read: housing should be subsidized.
Again, you are just using the artificial term ‘left’ which has no meaning and these groups should be in different political parties and they aren’t in ‘the left’.
#cough# #cough#
But we will, comrades!
So wheras our older brethren opposed bad developers, we sleep with dogs . . .
Ironically, when most of y’all are the dreaded over-60 and homeowners, you will also make transformations in your thinking.
Get it by ‘attaching’ it to the market rate?
Now you’re getting warm.
One such policy that might help is if they all left. All the progressives, if you’ll pardon the expression: left. Went to Nebraska. Gone. This would open up housing for the underprivileged to live in. Affordably. In the town they all seem to want to live in: Davis.
Alan M has basically ‘nailed it’ in that… the article is very simplistic in attributing things as “righty/leftie” and all the mutations thereof… the ‘right’ is very divided at least as much as the ‘left’.
It gets to the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ – regardless of political leanings… and to those whose personal beliefs tend to the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ – regardless of political leanings… unless one wants to equate beliefs/ethics/morals with “political leanings”… that is a fool’s equation.
From what Dad shared of WWII in the Pacific (as a Medic), there were some who when wounded, shouted out “I’ve got mine”, thinking they’d “done theirs”, and could go back home, and be at no further risk… there were others who risked their lives (not to mention ‘assets’, etc.) to help a wounded person. Don’t thnk that’s a ‘political’ decision… goes more to moral/ethical… human.
My views don’t seem to be age-dependent.
They have remained the same before, during, and after the period in which I was priced-out of my home town.
I do have some resentment toward those who pursue what might be called “economic development” which causes people to be priced-out of their home towns. And “replaced” by those who are in a better position to take advantage of that.
Your views have maintained a level of certainty that surpasses most if not all of my own certainty in my beliefs. I was much like you once but I came to see the world through different eyes as the experiences of my life gave me new perspectives.
It is less of a “belief”, and more of a “value”.
Just as I value Tiburon as it is, though I have no connection to it.
I also value all of the open space and farms throughout Marin and Sonoma counties which has been protected over the years via zoning, land trusts, urban limit lines, etc.
I also value lack of freeways, etc.
My “life experience” has reinforced those values.
I appreciate what Davis has attempted to do, at least in comparison to other nearby communities.
Alan P
I’m trying to figure out what your point is? You illustrated a second observation that is largely true–that progressive Boomers talk one game but play a different one. There are exceptions like you and me, but most aren’t willing to make the changes needed to achieve their stated desires.
BTW, what happened to the thread that I was replying too?
Some arse said something offensive to our overlords. Ruined it for everyone. I may be that arse, but truly I don’t remember, because when something disappears, it’s like blog-induced amnesia: what did I say? what did I say that was offensive? was it someone else? why do I waste my time posting when it gets taken down anyway? is there a god?
Of all your questions, the only one I’ll take a shot at is this one:
No.
🙂
There might be a “housing czar” somewhere in state government, though. Is that the same thing?
The median home price in Davis right now is $842,806. The average rent for a 2 bdr apartment is about $2,000. New homes for sale and new rentals cost even more. How are the poor effected by blocking new MARKET RATE home development? They’re already priced out of the market. And as I’ve exhaustively said in the past, incrementally adding a little to the housing supply ultimately does nothing to home prices after you factor in gentrification effects (in Davis’ case new homes being sold to Bay Area transplants). Affordable housing on the other hand is a different story and the point I’m making is that when talking about housing and affordability, I believe a distinction between market rate and affordable/subsidized housing needs to be made.
And as the other commenters have said, viewing housing issues through the US political divide is kind of stupid for obvious reasons. And focusing just on the “left” leaves out a huge portion of people that are politically “right” and likely share many similar views on housing as many of the political (older?) “left”.
I’m still intrigued by the idea put forth a week or so ago (by Keith ?) in which the state provides startup funding for the development of small workforce housing projects. The houses are sold at market rate, but are modest enough to be purchased by working-class families and aren’t likely to attract well-heeled Bay Area refugees. Maybe sprinkle in a fancier house to help diversify the neighborhood, and take the additional margin made on that to build an Affordable unit. As the houses are sold the proceeds get rolled back into the fund to bootstrap additional such projects. The developments are small enough (5 acres would conveniently allow the project to avoid a Measure J vote) that they can be distributed in/around a city so as not to concentrate the lower-cost housing in any one neighborhood.
It may not have legs, but I’d like to hear what someone with a development background has to say about it.
I’ve been only on the ‘review’ side of development… like Jim F, would be interested to hear from those on the ‘production’ side…
At first blush, the goal-posts are moving, as to zoning and as to lot-splits… all the secondary dwelling units, etc. are “in play”… hard to tell if anyone can give Jim F a definitive answer to his good implied questions… but, like Jim, I’d like to hear from folk from the production side…
The City cannot currently produce any housing (any type)… the only thing the City can do is help enable, or help discourage housing… the electorate has done a lot on th e latter, with the JeRkeD rules… it is what it is… but, there are so many factors, including more stringent building codes, economy, etc. that there is not only one impediment… folk could remove one of those… but I’d need odds to make that bet…