I wrote something similar without addressing the CA article, I think the main point of consensus is the need for more community-based bottom-up planning
Disagree. ST’s undermining of coordinated (dare say) big planning is real. And sadly effective in some places.
We cannot hide our heads in the sand about need for truly big thinking. Fiscally constrained planning and big planning can coexist. Not a one size fits all. But ST is being intellectually dishonest.
Yes. Both are lazy in their characterizations but ST’s is more dangerous. At the end of the day smacks of NIMBYISM cloaked in progressive speak. Incremental change they champion disregards any sense of urgency (urgency to fight climate change, urgency improve transit utilization, urgency to “create wealth”). Which we do agree is real, I think? And to the degree market forces/wealth dictate investment, disregards the poor. ST’s approach leaves out the critique of very private, market driven forces. And their undue influence on government planning. Rather this is characterized as big government looking to feed itself. Yes, but whose government.
I'm curious to see examples of what you interpret as "dangerous" ideas. I don't see the same issues you do, but I'm not a regular reader of theirs.
On the market-driven front, again, I don't know what ST says. But I know what I've witnessed and what history has shown: big corporates & big gov agencies adore each other. Cronyism is not a free market. For example, Amazon profited mightily when local biz across the country were forced to shut down. From what I know of ST, their work re: market forces is helping local govs understand things like property value, benefit/cost of road expansions, benefit/cost of min parking requirements, benefit/cost of legalized missing middle housing.
great piece. you and peter have prevented me from writing an unnecessary third take on this. the CA piece was well-intentioned, but misinformed. this is maybe my least favorite quality--well besides the obvious bad ones.
I wrote something similar without addressing the CA article, I think the main point of consensus is the need for more community-based bottom-up planning
Disagree. ST’s undermining of coordinated (dare say) big planning is real. And sadly effective in some places.
We cannot hide our heads in the sand about need for truly big thinking. Fiscally constrained planning and big planning can coexist. Not a one size fits all. But ST is being intellectually dishonest.
Disagree with which part? My characterizing CA's story as lazy journalism?
Yes. Both are lazy in their characterizations but ST’s is more dangerous. At the end of the day smacks of NIMBYISM cloaked in progressive speak. Incremental change they champion disregards any sense of urgency (urgency to fight climate change, urgency improve transit utilization, urgency to “create wealth”). Which we do agree is real, I think? And to the degree market forces/wealth dictate investment, disregards the poor. ST’s approach leaves out the critique of very private, market driven forces. And their undue influence on government planning. Rather this is characterized as big government looking to feed itself. Yes, but whose government.
I'm curious to see examples of what you interpret as "dangerous" ideas. I don't see the same issues you do, but I'm not a regular reader of theirs.
On the market-driven front, again, I don't know what ST says. But I know what I've witnessed and what history has shown: big corporates & big gov agencies adore each other. Cronyism is not a free market. For example, Amazon profited mightily when local biz across the country were forced to shut down. From what I know of ST, their work re: market forces is helping local govs understand things like property value, benefit/cost of road expansions, benefit/cost of min parking requirements, benefit/cost of legalized missing middle housing.
great piece. you and peter have prevented me from writing an unnecessary third take on this. the CA piece was well-intentioned, but misinformed. this is maybe my least favorite quality--well besides the obvious bad ones.
I'm torn between ignoring them altogether and giving them oxygen on twitter with mockery.
It's generally best to ignore really dumb takes. Unless you want to enjoy mocking them, which is also fun.
Have you not seen my twitter? ;)