Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying. More precisely, they’re for public housing only if they can capture a lot of the funds to enrich themselves and their supporters and friends.
See also the book “SanFranSicko” by Michael Schellenberger.
That... sounds like political propaganda. What is with so many comments the past few months trying to pin societal issues on the left/California/woke bogeyman?
Don't confuse "democrats" and "the left". The left has historically come to power by seeking land reform and has a history of redistributing their land, at times violently. Think the Soviet Union, the PRC, or looking further back, the Paris Commune, the extreme strands of the French Revolution, etc. Democrats, despite the rhetoric from some circles, is a firmly conservative party that most people who would self identify as leftists would disagree with a lot of their economic policy as implemented by Obama, Clinton, and Biden.
a couple generations of ostensibly left individuals got co -opted and hoodwinked into playing team politics, because they grew up in a time when the economy worked better in general and the effects of politics in general were more subtle.
Additionally, the two party system has effectively declawed the vox populi and made the barriers to change very, very large.
This means that until we're out of boomers (and a significant portion of Gen xers) the isn't going to be a possibility of the sort of critical mass necessary to make the systemic changes we need to reconnect the will of the people with the behavior of the government / media / business machine.
Although, if we make it that far, I'm sure the well organized entrenched upper class will have a whole new set of tricks to try. It's very difficult to properly organize against them.
> I have never met a left wing person who is pro landlord, is this some weird American spin on "the left"?
It's a variant of a straw man that right wing people sometimes use. Which makes sense given that OP is forming their perceptions of the left from a book subtitled "How Progressives Destroy Cities".
I'm fairly confident by "the left" they mean "wealthy California liberals", so basically, not the left. If you think that by virtue of being the most "left leaning" cities, San Francisco and Los Angeles must be left wing, it's not that far fetched. Unfortunately this idea is undermined by actually having lived in one of these cities.
Indeed. The 'Liberal' cities are socially liberal, but economically conservative, so they are full of initiatives like legalizing marijuana and mushrooms and rainbow-painted crosswalks and naked bike rides, while at the same time, pushing back hard on any economic solutions to housing.
(Conservative areas are generally both socially, and economically conservative. I know someone will mention Utah's housing first program, and I'll cut them off at the pass, by pointing out that subsequent governments have been severely under investing in it.)
I wonder what "economically conservative" means here. Usually I would expect someone economically conservative to be against government intervention and prefer market-oriented solutions to problems, but the people you're talking about tend to want the opposite.
See also the book “SanFranSicko” by Michael Schellenberger.