« Bad Habit | Main | From MK to GTA »

July 27, 2005

A Housing Agenda

Nathan Newman's got a very strong post on the primacy (or puzzling lack thereof) of housing issues on the progressive agenda. And he's right on it. Employees of all incomes and occupations know how little they like living in zip codes wholly unconnected to their workplaces just so they can afford a roof for their children. The commute, the lack of flexibility, the total disruption of everyday life -- it's crushing.

In addition, many of these folks are becoming Republicans, either in reaction to the urban areas that banished them or as simple result of becoming property owners. It shouldn't be that way, and speaking to the everyday hardships of their commute and conditions would, if nothing else, prove Democrats are on their side as much as the city's. Kevin Drum likes to say that the divide isn't red vs. blue, it's urban vs. rural. But it's more than that: it's urban vs. rural/suburban/exurban, it's urban vs. everyone else. Affordable, well-planned, high-density housing that would let families of moderate means live near their workplaces and thus reclaim their time speaks to the everyone else in the equation, and if Democrats piss off some urbanites who don't want development along the way, well, good then.

July 27, 2005 in Democrats | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834233fe453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Housing Agenda:

» Housing As A Progressive Issue from CommonSenseDesk
Housing should not be considered fair game for the pols. But, of course, everything else is ~ so why not housing. Ezra discusses the validity of housing as a progressive issue here. [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 27, 2005 8:01:05 PM

» But does this mean I have to give up my suburban assault vehicle? from Pandagon
Ezra has an interesting off-the-cuff post suggesting that the Democrats make affordable housing a major issue and therefore lure back surburbanites to the party. It's been sort of nagging me for a couple of hours as I putter around my... [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 27, 2005 10:33:19 PM

Comments

It isn't necessarily Democratic urbanites who are creating longer commutes, it's Republican suburbanites who happen to be uber-NIMBY's that are, through the use of hyper-restrictive zoning which prevents the construction of anything other than large-lot housing that only the very well-off can afford. Nathan is speaking to NYC in his post, but the affordable housing problem is not restricted to the Gothams of the nation.

Posted by: David W. | Jul 27, 2005 11:39:46 AM

David W. beat me to it. At least in NYC it's legal to build mixed-use buildings, with apartments over businesses. I imagine that's untrue in 96% of California.

That number wasn't picked entirely randomly: it's the fraction that disallows line-drying of laundry, as reported during the manufactured California energy crisis. In both cases the goal is to criminalize poverty.

Posted by: Allen K. | Jul 27, 2005 12:14:33 PM

Um, I didn't say it was Democrats doing this. I said Democrats should explicitly do the opposite. Oddly enough, I'm actually not thinking of NY here, I'm thinking of LA and OC, and Riverside and Pasadena and all the other suburbs workers have unhappily fled to, and now make hour-long commutes from.

And Allen -- that's enormously fucked up, I had no idea.

Posted by: Ezra Klein | Jul 27, 2005 12:29:36 PM

I would assume that the auto industry had an important hand, too, in making mixed-use development illegal. (Given how much else was done to choke Southern California at their behest, like ripping up the railroads and the streetcar lines, building cul-de-sacs rather than grids to make bus systems unfeasible, etc.)

I didn't mean to imply that criminalization-of-poverty was the only force at work here, though one should always be on the lookout for it.

BTW I know a woman in Pasadena with a sometimes-two-hour commute to LA. (It does make her rich -- so that her child can be raised by not one but two nannies.)

Posted by: Allen K. | Jul 27, 2005 2:00:15 PM

The thing about housing issues is that they are very local -- they require local planning/zoning. So what progressives tend to do is flock to well-planned areas and/or get the areas they have control over settled out. Which is fine, but we're willing to accept land-use restrictions and other folks aren't. So that's that.

Posted by: Kimmitt | Jul 27, 2005 8:00:21 PM

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘

托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘

托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘


托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘

Posted by: peter.w | Sep 16, 2007 11:08:12 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.