Preferences

>>This is why higher orders of government need to step in to "force" municipalities to enact some of these sorts of policy changes you describe.

The people that live there, don't want their city/neighborhood to change in a certain way, so people that don't live there should force them to do it?

Why are people that aren't even voters in that location have a say at all?


The state has an interest in keeping its cities economically healthy, perhaps more than the city government itself which is focused on appeasing citizens with its delivery of police/recreation services. The state government can act more dynamically since it has a wider voter base to consider, including those who would like to live in the city but are pushed out.

The Valley must maintain some level of competitiveness with other city hubs, else the techxodus worsens and California loses a large portion of their economy and tax revenue. This is an existential threat to California, and the residents of the valley will lose out in the long run.

> This is an existential threat to California…

California was doing just fine when I was a kid growing up in the 70s and 80s. No doubt it’ll be doing just fine when the tech bros take their ball and go home.

There’s absolutely nothing in California that is essential for the tech industry but plenty to offer that turned it into an economic powerhouse before that time.

Pretty depressing that the only way I could possibly permanently move back to the land of my birth is in a casket.

It's not "their" city/neighbourhood. It existed before them and it will exist after. What gives someone a right to move in and create laws to make it harder for other people to do the same thing they did? I understand they actually have that right, it's just shitty to have that kind of mindset.
> What gives someone a right to move in and create laws to make it harder for other people to do the same thing they did?

Conversely, what gives a right to people who don't even live somewhere to go pass laws in that place so that those who have made their life there can no longer afford to stay and need to get kicked out so that the newcomers can take their place?

Either of these is too extreme, there needs to be some reasonable middle ground. But arguing that outsiders with no connection to a city other than the wish to live there someday are allowed to make laws to get rid of the locals, that doesn't sound right.

The people that currently live there are not being ousted by outsiders imposing laws on them so they can no longer afford to live there. That is false. The people that currently live there are making laws so that no one else can move into the neighbourhood.
Cities are incorporated by the state. The state is ultimately responsible for every city - including its debts. That's why.
If all decisions were best made at the most local possible level, then we wouldn't have highways or trains, and slavery would still be legal in the South

This item has no comments currently.