Oscar demonstrates how progressive Californians will react if Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Republicans manage to push through a bond proposal that will increase urban sprawl and do little to help working families struggling to find affordable housing.
If you haven't done so yet, send a letter to the Governor and your legislative leaders now, urging them to pass the right kind of bond package!
This week's Bay Guardian provides a textbook definition of the difference between pragmatic progressives and old-line liberals. Here's SFBG editor Bruce Brugman's approach to solving the local housing crunch...
"Only rent control - strong rent control - can keep apartments affordable in this market."
As useless as conservative market-fundamentalist based arugments against rent control are, there are other arguments that do make some degree of sense. Rent control does tend to deflect the market in some unpleasant ways, such as biasing the market strongly against new and young residents (Mr Brugman would see this as a benefit, unfortunately), discouraging improvements to properties and focusing landlord's energies on exactly the people who need the most protection.
San Francisco Planning and Urban Research association ED Gabriel Metcalf gives the perfect, thoughtful response. Mr Brugman sidestepped responding to Mr Metcalf's primary solution, which is increasing strengthening the currently feeble inclusionary housing ordinance. I'm tempted to excerpt a huge chunk of it here, but the whole thing is good, so go read it. A moratorium would make things worse and inclusionary housing works because it aligns the power with the market with answering a very real need. SFBG: old school liberal. SPUR: pragmatic progressive.
Mr Brugman mentions but skips right over the interesting part, which is that demand for San Francisco property is basically infinite. That's an awfully interesting observation if you think about it! The reason why it's true is that our society hasn't generated built environments that support the kind of neighborhoods and sense of community available in San Francisco since World War II. Pragmatic progressivism is about curing these difficult, root problems, not applying band-aids and quick fixes.
Mr Brugman's thinking is a good example of how trying to dice an environmental problem into little pieces to solve it is a failed strategy. The idea of "preserving" San Francisco under a bell jar without looking at the broader, statewide issues and the real effect these efforts have on people just doesn't make sense. Apparently I'm going to have to quote John Muir on here until I'm blue in the face: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe." The only real, long-term solution is that we have to build more cities.
This morning's opposition research turned up something interestingly nonsensical: the Crunch Cons weblog over at the National Review Online. They really do have the big tent dialed; they apparently have no problems making room in the movement for people whose principles are completely and 180 degrees at odds. The weblog is annoying - it's a kind of writing I see a lot on NRO's site, these mostly self-referential discussions between three or four people that never seem to go anywhere, and are mostly disconnected from any recognizeable version of reality. Maybe they don't realize how hostile to new readers that style is. Of course, there are no comments.
I was thinking of responding point by point to the crunchy con manifesto, but I'm not sure it's worth it. There are some things to agree with, of course: if these ideas were to somehow gain traction, maybe there will be some common ground on real conservation and pro-family policies, not "voluntary compliance" and the hatred strewn garbage that the James Dobsons of the world spew and label family values.
But one problematic angle with it is the overall focus on culture. It's easy to try to move the focus away from economics if you're economically privileged, but go back and look at some pictures from Katrina or Sudan and tell me again how we still don't have political or economic issues. And given that these people are ostensibly conservatives, one has to wonder what they propose as cultural remedies. Book burnings? Edicts against degenerate art? Lots of fingerwagging and sermonizing? The mind boggles.
California's elected leaders are currently considering multi-billion-dollar bond proposals to invest in our state's infrastructure.
A growing coalition of more than 43 environmental, social justice and public-health groups, led by the Planning and Conservation League, is urging Gov. Schwarzenegger and members of the Legislature to adopt a set of principles that will guide decision-making so that the right kind of bond package is passed.
As constituents, you can help by making it clear to the Governor and your legislative leaders that you agree with this approach and urge them to sign on to the 10-Point Program that has been put forth by this environmental coalition. Send a letter to your elected leaders today!
| Join Our Mailing List |
