In American politics, the word “minoritarianism” is most often deployed to describe how modern conservatives wield power: through gerrymandering, voter suppression, and institutions like the Senate or the Supreme Court that give disproportionate power to rural, conservative minorities.
But as Steven M. Teles argues in his National Affairs essay, Minoritarianism Is Everywhere, this framing conveniently ignores how minoritarianism thrives within progressive strongholds — nowhere more destructively than in housing and infrastructure policy.
Teles writes, “In search of the tyranny of the minority, one would be well advised to skip over the nation’s capital and look instead to the crazy quilt of jurisdictions in which America’s decisions about land use and infrastructure development are made.”
This is where a different kind of minoritarianism — one of wealthy, hyper-local interests — blocks change, drives inequality, and undercuts the very values progressives claim to defend.
The consequences of this local veto power have been playing out for decades, especially in deep blue cities along the coasts. Teles points to the political economy of housing that began shifting in the late 1970s. In places like New York City, housing supply once responded — however imperfectly — to rising demand. When prices surged in the 1960s, the city built more, easing the pressure. But by the late 1970s, that dynamic broke down entirely.
What changed? According to Teles, the balance of power shifted away from property owners and toward “neighbors,” who were suddenly empowered to participate in — and derail — development decisions. “Glaeser attributed this shift to what he describes as a reallocation of property rights from owners to ‘neighbors,’ who suddenly had a range of ways to participate in development decisions that they had once lacked,” Teles explains. Once the right to develop was placed in the hands of those with the most to lose — incumbent homeowners — supply froze while demand soared, setting off the affordability crisis that defines American cities today.
This is not the right-wing minoritarianism that dominates national political discourse. It is overwhelmingly a phenomenon of blue America — cities and suburbs that vote for Democrats and preach equity but practice exclusion. Teles is clear: “The politics of housing in high-cost, mostly Democrat-controlled jurisdictions is, in sum, inescapably minoritarian.”
The dynamic is painfully familiar for local readers. Homeowners — often older, wealthier, and whiter — dominate local meetings and permitting boards. They turn out to block new housing projects, especially affordable or multi-family developments, using environmental concerns, traffic fears, or “neighborhood character” as cover. Meanwhile, renters, younger residents, and especially those priced out of these communities have no meaningful voice. As Teles notes, “participants in local housing-development decisions tend to be homeowners, who have an overwhelmingly negative view of new housing construction.”
The result is that America does not build enough — not just in coastal cities, but increasingly nationwide. Supply freezes while demand explodes. Prices spiral upward, forcing workers to commute farther or leave entire metro areas altogether. The housing crisis becomes a machine for inequality, entrenching racial and economic segregation while creating exactly the kind of “nothing works anymore” disillusionment that fuels populist anger.
And it’s not just housing. Teles highlights how the same local, minoritarian forces cripple infrastructure projects, from subways to highways to green energy. “The Transit Costs Project at New York University’s Marron Institute has demonstrated that rail infrastructure is consistently more expensive and slower to build in the United States than in most other advanced industrial countries,” he writes. Road projects show similar patterns, with costs rising steadily since the late 1960s.
Why? Because every project is subject to endless layers of procedural review, permitting fights, and citizen lawsuits – and in some places local referendums.
Teles describes how measures meant to protect the environment or ensure community input have been weaponized to stop progress entirely: “While each step in the process may seem trivial, even ‘minor delays can have massive impacts when, for instance, project champions term out of office, or if contract terms expire and need to be repriced, or if municipal budgets are reduced, or if commodity prices change, and so on.’”
The irony is suffocating. The very regulatory structures designed by progressives to ensure fairness now serve to entrench inequality and block the infrastructure projects needed to address climate change.
As Teles bluntly puts it, “Green industrial policy is simply incompatible with institutionalized minoritarianism in land use and development.”
Indeed, the former Biden administration’s entire climate strategy — built around massive public investment rather than market-based carbon pricing — hinged on the ability to build quickly: renewable energy projects, transmission lines, mass transit, and dense housing near jobs. Yet the party’s own local constituencies were the ones most likely to sue, stall, or kill these projects.
This tension, Teles argues, is not just an unfortunate side effect — it is the heart of the Democratic governance dilemma.
“If one of the appeals of populism is the sense that ‘nothing works anymore,’ we should take seriously the argument that anti-development minoritarianism might be part of the explanation,” he writes. When voters see endless delays, cost overruns, and elite paralysis, they stop believing government can solve problems — and they turn, understandably, to candidates promising to bulldoze the status quo.
The challenge for progressives is daunting at this point: If they truly believe in equity, inclusion, and climate action, they must confront the minoritarian forces thriving in their own backyards. That means breaking the stranglehold of homeowner vetoes, streamlining approvals for housing and infrastructure, and building the capacity to deliver projects on time and at scale.
Teles calls this potential shift “liberal populism” — a return to majoritarian governance that prioritizes clear, democratic decision-making over the procedural paralysis of endless stakeholder review. As he puts it, “Where questions of housing and infrastructure are concerned, it would strip away most of the procedural objections to projects that have been approved by majorities, even at the risk of permitting overly ambitious projects that fail to take into account concentrated minority interests.”
The alternative — defending a broken system that works only for the already privileged — is political suicide.
If progressives continue to allow their cities to choke on housing shortages and infrastructure dysfunction, they will not only betray their ideals but drive voters into the arms of the very populists they claim to oppose.
In the end, the housing crisis is not just about affordability. It is about whether we still believe in building for the future — or whether America’s most powerful interests, left and right, have locked us into permanent decline.
As Teles warns, “We need to focus instead on building a new state, one both more popularly legitimate and practically effective than the one it replaces.” For the sake of the next generation, we must answer that call.
There is no housing shortage. And in regard to future generations, each one is successively-smaller at this point since young people aren’t having kids at replacement levels.
The days when housing was viewed as a source of wealth are over. Now, with the high cost of insurance, property taxes, and the like – housing is exposed as a liability, not an asset. (And young people have increasingly figured that out, as well.)
Housing prices are dropping like a rock in pandemic-era boom towns.
The real problem is that pro-growth business interests have infiltrated the Democratic party.
https://news.ku.edu/news/article/study-finds-us-does-not-have-housing-shortage-but-shortage-of-affordable-housing
Ron, the KU study you linked (actually just the press release, not even the study itself), doesn’t say what you think it does. It confirms the exact argument I made: we have a shortage of affordable housing where people need to live. That’s the housing crisis. There’s no prize for having “enough” homes nationally if the homes aren’t in job centers or if they’re priced out of reach.
You don’t seem to know what’s in your OWN article. Let me refresh your memory:
“In the end, the housing crisis is not just about affordability. It is about whether we still believe in building for the future — or whether America’s most powerful interests, left and right, have locked us into permanent decline.”
“The result is that America does not build enough — not just in coastal cities, but increasingly nationwide.”
You seem to think that I didn’t read the article in my own link. Let me refresh your memory regarding what THAT says:
“There is a commonly held belief that the United States has a shortage of housing. This can be found in the popular and academic literature and from the housing industry,” McClure said. “But the data shows that the majority of American markets have adequate supplies of housing available.”
“The researchers found only four of the nation’s 381 metropolitan areas experienced a housing shortage in the study time frame, as did only 19 of the country’s 526 “micropolitan” areas — those with 10,000-50,000 residents.”
https://news.ku.edu/news/article/study-finds-us-does-not-have-housing-shortage-but-shortage-of-affordable-housing
Ron – have you read the full study or just the press release?
Don’t know where to find it (or if it’s available). If you know, then perhaps you’ll be kind enough to provide a link. And if you have some kind of point to make as a result, I’d suggest that you do so.
Are you claiming that the summary is inaccurate?
It’s linked in the press release. They put a specific number of affordable housing that is needed. Hint: it’s a big number.
I see a link to another summary.
Tell you what – since you’re stating that the article says something other than what I quoted, why don’t you quote whatever you’re referring to, and will examine exactly what they concluded, and how they did so.
They do not conclude that more housing units are needed.
“They put a specific number of affordable housing that is needed. Hint: it’s a big number.”
And since affordable housing is usually subsidized housing and it’s a big number, how is this not going to raise taxes massively on everyone, creating an economic death spiral?
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2024.2334011
Again, you’re pulling from the press release, the actual article dives into the affordable housing shortage which is what I’ve pointed out to you.
While the KU study *argues* there’s no overall housing unit shortage, it directly acknowledges a *severe shortage of affordable units* for very low-income renters — the exact issue at the heart of the housing crisis.
I saw that link, and here’s what it says. You’re not helping your cause by citing something which directly conflicts with what you claim:
“Although various studies indicate that the nation has a shortage of anywhere from 2 million to 4 million units, Census data show little evidence of a shortage. Household formation did exceed the growth of households from 2010 to 2020, but that does not take into account the large surplus of housing produced during the previous decade. From 2000 to 2020, housing production exceeded the growth of households by 3.3 million units. Of the nation’s 381 metropolitan areas, only four experienced a housing shortage during this time, as did only 19 of the nation’s 526 micropolitan areas. Even though the stock of housing is adequate in most markets, the mismatch between the distribution of incomes and the distribution of housing prices results in housing affordability problems, especially for extremely low-income renters.”
That’s the abstract, then you go below and you can get the whole article.
The full article requires a purchase. Are you stating that the abstract (and the notes which are available) are entirely-different than the full article?
So? Purchase it.
BTW, I’m stating that the article extrapolates on the abstract.
They even hint at the problem in the abstract: “ Even though the stock of housing is adequate in most markets, the mismatch between the distribution of incomes and the distribution of housing prices results in housing affordability problems, especially for extremely low-income renters.”
The remedy to that is to build more affordable housing. Again, I don’t completely buy their methodology for the top line conclusion, but the bottom line conclusion is they agree we need to build more affordable housing in order to address the problem.
David says: “So? Purchase it.”
Sorry – but I have housing and other costs, so I’m not willing to pay $56 to see something that you claim exists (and is “somehow” in direct conflict with what’s in the abstract). Or more accurately, is in direct conflict with your conclusion.
Their entire premise is that there is no shortage of housing.
I realize that the Vanguard has the money to purchase expensive subscriptions, etc., (and that it’s part of your business expense).
David says: “The remedy to that is to build more affordable housing.”
And yet, the authors arrived at a completely different conclusion. NOWHERE do they state that more housing (of any type) needs to be built.
“Our nation’s affordability problems result more from low incomes confronting high housing prices rather than from housing shortages,” McClure said. “This condition suggests that we cannot build our way to housing affordability. We need to address price levels and income levels to help low-income households afford the housing that already exists, rather than increasing the supply in the hope that prices will subside.”
Ron, I read the KU piece — and ironically, the part you quoted confirms exactly what I’m saying: the affordable housing crisis is real and it’s supply-constrained for low-income households. The authors are making a narrow academic argument that general unit counts outpace population growth. No one’s debating that (at least right now).
But their own study (and McClure’s quote) concedes the point: “Our nation’s affordability problems result more from low incomes confronting high housing prices rather than from housing shortages.” Translation: There is a shortage of affordable housing — which is exactly what the national 7.3 million unit shortfall figure reflects.
The authors argue that boosting incomes or subsidizing existing units is a better approach than simply increasing supply. Fair enough — that’s a policy debate. But nowhere do they claim that adding affordable units wouldn’t help — just that in their view, income intervention is more efficient. (Again I would argue that point).
That’s a tactical difference, not a contradiction of the fact that low-income households face a massive housing deficit. Whether you solve that by supply or subsidy is the policy fight. Pretending there’s no shortage at all is just wrong — and not what the study says.
If anything, this debate makes the minoritarianism point sharper: well-housed people arguing against building because they’re insulated from the crisis. Meanwhile, working people can’t afford rent.
David says: “Translation: There is a shortage of affordable housing — which is exactly what the national 7.3 million unit shortfall figure reflects.”
It’s grown to 7.3 million now, since your last comment? (Again, I can’t see if the authors even agreed with that number.)
In any case, your “translation” is not what they said. It is not a “shortfall”.
David says: “If anything, this debate makes the minoritarianism point sharper: well-housed people arguing against building because they’re insulated from the crisis. Meanwhile, working people can’t afford rent.”
And yet (assuming that there are 7 million households nationwide that have difficulty affording rent), most of the country “welcomes” more growth and sprawl, and can’t get enough of it (even in the Sacramento region) And assuming that the 7 million is spread across the country (including in areas that don’t restrict growth), how does that correlate with your claim?
On a related note, how does your claim correlate with the fact that places like San Francisco have been experiencing DECLINES in housing prices, for the past few years?
Ron, the 7.3 million figure comes from the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) — not me — and it’s been consistent for years. Whether you want to call it a “shortfall” or “deficit” is semantics. The point is simple: there are millions of extremely low-income households without access to affordable housing — by definition, that’s a shortage in the part of the market that matters.
The KU study doesn’t dispute that — in fact, they explicitly confirm it: “Nearly all metropolitan areas have shortages of rental units affordable to the very low-income renter households.” That’s the actual quote. Their policy suggestion is to address incomes rather than build — but that doesn’t magically erase the deficit of affordable units.
You keep pointing to overall growth or national sprawl — but that’s not the issue. The shortage isn’t evenly distributed — it’s concentrated in places with jobs, opportunity, and demand. People aren’t trying to move to rural Arkansas — they’re trying to live near work, healthcare, and schools in metro areas getting choked by local obstruction.
Your San Francisco example actually proves the point. Prices spiked to obscene levels because of decades of underbuilding — now the market’s correcting slightly post-pandemic. But the fact that prices fell after peaking 80%+ above sanity doesn’t mean housing is suddenly affordable or that the structural shortage is solved. It means the bubble deflated a bit. Renters there are still paying far more than the national average.
At the end of the day, you oppose building, you oppose income supports, and you downplay the problem. So what’s your actual solution — other than shrugging at the fact that millions of working people can’t afford rent?
David says: “Whether you want to call it a “shortfall” or “deficit” is semantics.”
It is not just “semantics”, and neither of those words accurately describes what the authors are stating. The housing (buildings) already exist. They are not advocating to build more of them – at ANY level.
It’s not a shortage of actual buildings – that’s YOUR “translation”, so to speak.
David says: “You keep pointing to overall growth or national sprawl — but that’s not the issue. The shortage isn’t evenly distributed — it’s concentrated in places with jobs, opportunity, and demand. People aren’t trying to move to rural Arkansas — they’re trying to live near work, healthcare, and schools in metro areas getting choked by local obstruction.”
They actually ARE moving to Arkansas (and a host of other locales). Here’s what the “Whopper” (artificial intelligence) has to say about that:
“In Arkansas, home prices have shown resilience with a consistent demand, and the median home price has seen an increase year-over-year, reflecting the state’s growing economy.”
“Here’s a more detailed look at the Arkansas housing market”:
Price Growth:
The median home price in Arkansas has seen a year-over-year rise, indicating a strong housing market.
As of January 2025, the prices of houses for sale in AR have grown 7.5% YoY.
The average Arkansas home value is $207,284, up 3.9% over the past year.
Home prices in Benton and Washington counties have more than doubled since 2015.
The average home price in Benton County hit $430,000 in the first half of 2024, representing a 72.5% increase over the past five years.
David says: “Your San Francisco example actually proves the point. Prices spiked to obscene levels because of decades of underbuilding — now the market’s correcting slightly post-pandemic.”
This is a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding on your part -or perhaps a purposeful ignorance of the causes of “demand”. Prices spiked due to the active pursuit of “economic development” (the tech industry).
You cannot only look at “supply” – as you and the Scott Wieners of the world would prefer to do. You also have to look at the causes of “demand”.
David says: “But the fact that prices fell after peaking 80%+ above sanity doesn’t mean housing is suddenly affordable or that the structural shortage is solved. It means the bubble deflated a bit. ”
Prices fell because there was less “demand”. That’s how it works. Residents AND businesses started locating elsewhere.
David says: “At the end of the day, you oppose building, you oppose income supports, and you downplay the problem. So what’s your actual solution — other than shrugging at the fact that millions of working people can’t afford rent?”
I don’t oppose “income supports”. In fact, I’ve been advocating for rent control on here for some time, for example.
But I also see the market (at large) as self-correcting, as the example in San Francisco shows to some degree. People and businesses do locate elsewhere when it stops making sense to stay (or move to a given location), and it was ramped-up during the pandemic.
As I’ve previously noted, I suspect that a high portion of Davis residents came from more-expensive markets, and are “priced out” of their original homes as a result. Is that a “bad” thing?
“The authors argue that boosting incomes or subsidizing existing units is a better approach than simply increasing supply.”
And there it is: *BOOST* and *SUBSIDIZE*.
“we have a shortage of affordable housing where people need to live. ”
That’s actually how markets work. Demand increases prices which makes building profitable. Are you suggesting socialism?
I’d argue that they don’t even “need” to live in expensive markets.
And with technology increasingly-replacing workers (especially low-wage workers), that will be even more true in the future.
David Greenwald said … “ we have a shortage of affordable housing where people need to live. That’s the housing crisis. There’s no prize for having “enough” homes nationally if the homes aren’t in job centers or if they’re priced out of reach.”
Finally you are getting some nuance in your argument David. Now let’s apply your argument to the housing situation in Davis. The housing resale listing data for Davis, Woodland, West Sac, Winters and Dixon clearly shows that all those communities except Davis have a significant supply of housing listed at under $600,000. That is also true of the $600,000 to $800,000 price range. Further, Davis has the most listings in the over $1 million price range and also in the $800,000 to $1 million price range.
That begs the question, why is Village Farms not addressing the core underlying problem which is that we have a shortage of affordable housing where people need to live. Why are they building most of their homes with high price tags. And to make things even worse they are trying to make the price of a lot of the homes look like it is low through their retained equity program, but the reality of that program is that it does not keep the price low for the second buyer, because the Village Farms developer gets paid their equity share when the first buyer sells. If the retained equity were heald by a housing nonprofit in perpetuity the house would retain its affordability advantage, but as currently described all it is is the developer providing a second mortgage on a higher priced home, and receiving their high priced payment in two installments.
I don’t completely agree that we don’t need additional market rate housing, but the gist of their argument is that we need 7 million low income units, there’s no way to get there without significant market rate housing, so why quibble?
Whose argument are you referring to, and where is it located? (Link, please.)
How many market-rate housing units are you claiming would need to be built, in order to make a “dent” in 7 million low-income units?
Would there even be market-rate demand for the type of number that you apparently have in mind?
In regard to Matt’s comment, he’s correct except that I’d note that the other nearby cities “are” part of the local housing market.
It’s cited in your study though the figure originated with the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), it is the accepted national estimate:
“Nationally, the U.S. faces a shortage of 7.3 million affordable rental homes for extremely low-income renters, with only 34 affordable and available units for every 100 such households.”
In terms of how many, do some extrapolations…. If you are building housing at 20% affordable, it would need to be 35 million units. If you are building at 50 percent, it drops to 14 million. Either way, it’s a big number.
Not sure how many times I have to ask (this is the third time), but please provide a link.
And again I’ll ask: Is there market-rate demand for 35 million more housing units (plus the 7 million housing Affordable units), if they’re also required to subsidize those 7 million units?
As soon as you provide a link, we’ll see exactly what you’re referring to.
You seem to think that (even though the authors in the study I cited state that there’s sufficient supply), the market can absorb 42 million more housing units. What are you basing that belief on?
Without you even providing a link, I can already tell you that you’ve arrived at an entirely different conclusion than the authors of the study I cited.
“ You seem to think that (even though the authors in the study I cited state that there’s sufficient supply), the market can absorb 42 million more housing units. What are you basing that belief on?”
I’m not stating that. I’m showing you the mathematical calculations for how to get to 7 million affordable units and how big a number that actually is.
I’m not stating that. I’m showing you the mathematical calculations for how to get to 7 million affordable units and how big a number that actually is.
Still haven’t seen a link regarding the 7 million in the first place, but you’re advocating for market-rate housing to provide those units. That’s your underlying argument (and one that you’ve repeated many, many times).
David, if your sole focus is on “big A” affordable housing, I can agree with you, but “big A” affordable housing barely dents the problem. What we need is “little a” affordable housing, which builders can and do build in other communities with prices at or below $600,000. Our local developers can do it, but they don’t want to do it. They don’t believe in social equity.
We need leadership from our elected and our City employees to create an environment where a builder/developer who brings forward a plan for housing that is affordable gets put to the front of the line in the processing of their application.
“The housing resale listing data for Davis, Woodland, West Sac, Winters and Dixon clearly shows that all those communities except Davis have a significant supply of housing listed at under $600,000. ”
Some cities are different than others. The horror.
“That begs the question, why is Village Farms not addressing the core underlying problem which is that we have a shortage of affordable housing where people need to live. ”
Because their job is to develop, not solve problems that some people think exist.
That may be their job, but it is the job of our society and our elected to make rules that incentivize the developers to make money building affordable (little “a” affordable David) housing rather than make money building unaffordable housing, which only perpetuates the affordable housing “crisis.”
DG say: “My View: The Left’s Housing Crisis Is a Crisis of Minoritarianism”
My View: “Minori-WHAT?”
Using cult-word dog-whistles doesn’t make you smarter.
DG say: “This is where a different kind of minoritarianism — one of wealthy, hyper-local interests — blocks change, drives inequality, and undercuts the very values progressives claim to defend.”
So would you describe how the Respite Center got shoved up Davis Manor’s arse in 2018 when a vocal group of wealthier-than-Davis-Manor East Davis and South Davis persons plus large-business owners came to chambers and convinced the Council not to put the Respite Center on 2nd Street? And when at the next meeting those few people from Davis Manor who got informed of what was happening came to protest, they were ignored? Is that your “minoritarism” alive a well in Davis hypocrisy politics?
DG: say: “When prices surged in the 1960s, the city built more, easing the pressure. But by the late 1970s, that dynamic broke down entirely. What changed? According to Teles, the balance of power shifted away from property owners and toward “neighbors,” who were suddenly empowered to participate in — and derail — development decisions. “Glaeser attributed this shift to what he describes as a reallocation of property rights from owners to ‘neighbors,’ who suddenly had a range of ways to participate in development decisions that they had once lacked,”
Oh, BS. Not wanting bad planning to effect one’s property is totally legit and human nature. The timing thing is BS — I remember my dad fighting apartments proposed to go in nearby in Palo Alto in the 60’s (they won and they are churches, although now the chruches are proposing homeless parking programs and building dense housing on excess land as the same fights are repeating themselves, and I’m training my old neighborhood about the Homeless Industrial Complex so they can fight the churches).
This is just another article on NIMBY-ism being bad, but people having a plot of land and new neighbors F-ing it up and causing fights is as old as Cavemen times when Og moved in to the cave next to Oog’s cave and turned up the stereo too loud. Current residents *should* have political power. What has been happening with the mindsets of Wiener and Greenwald and Newsom prevailing is bowling over cities, the environment, limits, farmland has all become popular in some fantasy that we can build our way to accommodating everyone, even drug addicts, from everywhere, and do it at a price everyone will afford. Unfortunately, destroying city character and making everything into a mouse turd isn’t living, and California will expensive forever no matter what we do.
So what is this even about? NIMBY has become soiled as the word NAZI. And clearly the Wieners/Greenwalds have made huge headway and when once neighborhoods could change the Council’s mind just by showing up, now we have to SUE the City, and we still lost. (although last I loooked Trackside isn’t there).
Long live the Power of the NIMBY!
But ALL NIMBYs. Somehow, the super rich NIMBYs of East Davis overpowered the less rich NIMBYs of Central Davis and the Respite Center went in here.
So really it just comes down to Money and Power as always.
And the anti-NIMBY movement isn’t about the imagined masses paying imagined lower prices at all. It’s about the tools the Wiener and Greewald being used in the ideological fantasy-clouds by the big developers with the Power and Money to use them as tools to grease the development runways.
“The dynamic is painfully familiar for local readers. Homeowners — often older, wealthier, and whiter — dominate local meetings and permitting boards.”
“Whiter” he says. Alright, I wasn’t going to bring race into it, but since you did — the group from wealthier east Davis that fought and won to get the Respite Center moved were not white, like 90%. And those being screwed into accepting the Respite Center were also largely a different not-white, and pointed out they were being screwed by those with more money. So enough of the “white” hate, Greenwald. And how do Jews fit into this in your world, your race-centric world where putting down whitey is more important than the reality of money money money and power power power?
DG say: “participants in local housing-development decisions tend to be homeowners, who have an overwhelmingly negative view of new housing construction.”
See Og and Oog
“a return to majoritarian governance that prioritizes clear, democratic decision-making”
As opposed to the majority vote where Trump won, even the popular vote?
Not that I like Trump, but just saying. I guess majoritarianism on goes one way: left.
“Supply freezes while demand explodes. Prices spiral upward, forcing workers to commute farther or leave entire metro areas altogether.”
And yet, rent and housing prices have dropped in Davis over the last year, while the vacancy rate has gone up.
“And it’s not just housing. Teles highlights how the same local, minoritarian forces cripple infrastructure projects, from subways to highways to green energy. “The Transit Costs Project at New York University’s Marron Institute has demonstrated that rail infrastructure is consistently more expensive and slower to build in the United States than in most other advanced industrial countries,” he writes.”
This isn’t minoritarism primarily causing this. It’s corporations, most foreign who have figured out how to manipulate the American system and build the projects in the most expensive ways, often the wrong projects to increase subsidy, with a minor input of money into the pollitical system.
“The irony is suffocating. The very regulatory structures designed by progressives to ensure fairness now serve to entrench inequality and block the infrastructure projects needed to address climate change.”
Climate change? That’s the issue now. It’s like you’re bouncing from one progressive topic to the next with nothing but word salads to hold it all together.
“Green industrial policy is simply incompatible with institutionalized minoritarianism in land use and development.””
Word salad.
“Indeed, the former Biden administration’s entire climate strategy — built around massive public investment rather than market-based carbon pricing — hinged on the ability to build quickly: renewable energy projects, transmission lines, mass transit, and dense housing near jobs. Yet the party’s own local constituencies were the ones most likely to sue, stall, or kill these projects.”
Oh now I see what’s happening. The progressives think they are fighting the idealogically-hypocritical rich-wing of the Democrat party as the villians, in place of the usual Trump. Have fun with your circular firing squad, folks.
” a return to majoritarian governance that prioritizes clear, democratic decision-making over the procedural paralysis of endless stakeholder review. . . . . Where questions of housing and infrastructure are concerned, it would strip away most of the procedural objections to projects that have been approved by majorities, even at the risk of permitting overly ambitious projects that fail to take into account concentrated minority interests.”
Ok, we’re back to ‘screw the NIMBYs’
“The alternative — defending a broken system that works only for the already privileged — is political suicide.”
Those with lots of money, win. Even in socialism.
“If progressives continue to allow their cities to choke on housing shortages and infrastructure dysfunction, they will not only betray their ideals but drive voters into the arms of the very populists they claim to oppose.”
I think that already happened in November, no?
“In the end, the housing crisis is not just about affordability. It is about whether we still believe in building for the future — or whether America’s most powerful interests, left and right, have locked us into permanent decline.”
Money is power.
“We need to focus instead on building a new state, one both more popularly legitimate and practically effective than the one it replaces.” For the sake of the next generation, we must answer that call.”
Ok, so it’s ultimately a vieled call for violent revolution and socialism/communism. Nothing new to see here. Next . . .
Alan M. says: “Somehow, the super rich NIMBYs of East Davis overpowered the less rich NIMBYs of Central Davis and the Respite Center went in here.”
True – there is no way a respite/homeless center would be built in the Lake Alhambra neighborhood, for example.
But the concerns you bring up are the reason that “no neighborhood should be thrown under the bus”.
In Woodland, they built a “tiny-home” homeless complex essentially “outside” of town – right where it belongs. But still close enough to get those “sweet-paying jobs” in Woodland. Truth be told, it doesn’t even matter if it’s a “housing first” (or “housing last”) location out there – unless they come into town drunk or high.
Nothing new here. I’ve been making this argument for over a decade.
Why you indulge the nonsense of a compulsive poster is beyond me. What ever happened to the five post rule?
Probably went out the window in regard to the compulsive article-writer (and responder).