When I wrote this post last week, I came to the conclusion that the YIMBY label invites more problems than it is worth. If the primary goal of YIMBYs is to do something good (build housing), then it feels counterproductive to condemn the whole movement because of the questionable motivation of their loudest supporters. I will confess that while I still think this, at least part of me felt that this was overly generous and perhaps a little naïve. Regardless, I think a nonjudgmental attitude is one of the best things one can aspire to, so I will avoid war with the person I was a week ago.
At the same time...here is a tweet from yesterday:
As far as policy proposals go, this is pretty anodyne. It is of course not ideal that houses act as stores of wealth in our political economy, but it's certainly better for people to benefit from this than corporations. To this end, it's almost certainly a good idea to prevent some of the most rapacious companies in existence from buying up one of the last readily available stores of wealth for the working class. And yet, many self-described YIMBYs disagree! With the same exact refrain!
Ignoring that Merkley's tweet neither says nor implies anything about renters, this is such a wildly bad-faith response that it makes me questions my previous conclusion. Single-family housing in America is a profit center for those who own it. Wouldn't it be best for actual families to reap than profit than corporations? Isn't this sort of faux-concern for the dignity of renters overlooking the inherent, material indignity of being beholden to a landlord? And if you do actually believe an increase in renters will help alleviate the housing crisis, why is your messaging on this so smarmy and unpersuasive? What really is your goal here?
No comments:
Post a Comment