What is the most left-wing city in America?

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Not true, Portland handily voted Hardesty out in November and replaced her with a moderate guy who fought to reopen schools during covid, and supports more police and crackdowns on street camping. Plus the city is aggressively hiring more police officers and is starting an effort to ban all street camping by summer 2024.

Every city has a Hardesty. Seattle and SF did for sure. Boudin and Kshama Sawant. Portlands DA appears to be dropping his reimagining criminal justice spiel too. Honestly I hope centrist Democrats don't turn into authoritarian dicks as they enact their progressive backlash. You can be cutting edge but just don't cater policy towards psychos. Thats what happened out west.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by PHX31

I dislike the majority of NIMBY talking points, for a variety of reasons. In my area the thing that gets me most is they are usually NIMBYs that live in a newer area. Meaning, not long ago, their own house didn't exist and when it was being developed the people that were living in that area originally were probably NIMBYs to the NIMBY's new housing development. So why is your house OK, and now, why should all development stop? It's hypocritical.

However, related to your post there is thing called relativity. You're complaining about and see no reason to try to force someone (say, living in an established SFH area) to accept change and different types of (more dense) development. To them it's a big deal. For you, it's a no-brainer, and the SFH NIMBY is just ridiculous and basically their concerns don't matter in your opinion. However, take a look at the situation relatively. Let's assume you currently live in a small 2-bedroom or even 1-bedroom (non studio) apartment in a dense area like you are envisioning with your post and like you desire. Someone else may think you live like a king and feel like you should sublease your second bedroom in your apartment to a person, any person, because your extra space could be used to house more people. They find it absurd that you have an extra bedroom. You don't want to live with a roommate though and who is this person to tell you otherwise? You like your small apartment and worked to find the place and work to be able to lease what you have and want. But relatively you are no better and no different than those current SFH NIMBYs you're combating.

I understand the relativity and the idea that I could one day be in the position of a NIMBY due to my better position with housing. But, ultimately, if a city/ metro area is growing with businesses, jobs, and people, the people who are moving in should have a place to stay. If that means I will lose some of the advantages of my 2 bedroom apartment to new development, then so be it, as long as I am well compensated enough to either stay in the existing neighborhood or metro or move to another place, granted I get to keep or get another job in the area.

A good middle ground to this is just smart, gradual, widespread, piecemeal development that should have been happening in the early days of gentrification. That would have led to more housing availability without transforming neighborhoods rapidly. But neighborhoods will change if they are located in a changing city. The thing I’m advocating for is that previously low income neighborhoods don’t just change to be high income neighborhoods. Mixed income neighborhoods are better in regulating inequality in the urban area.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

now if only we had a bigger shortage of tiny houses.

and van life.

those can go away.

Yeah, just that. I mean I’m not a fan of mcmansionism, but the justification for tiny houses and trailer park urbanism in a country the size of the US or Canada is just sad. The fact that the Houston garage-cum-hovel example is set in an alleyway doesn’t make it better. No balcony, no outdoor living space seems to have been added. It’s as cut and dries as it can be. The norms of acceptability are down in the dumps.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by montréaliste

Yeah, just that. I mean I’m not a fan of mcmansionism, but the justification for tiny houses and trailer park urbanism in a country the size of the US or Canada is just sad. The fact that the Houston garage-cum-hovel example is set in an alleyway doesn’t make it better. No balcony, no outdoor living space seems to have been added. It’s as cut and dries as it can be. The norms of acceptability are down in the dumps.

What's wrong with having options? I've always thought the tiny house movement is pretty cool

Originally Posted by mrnyc

out of curiosity, what are your most polarized, racis, seditious, right wing cities?

I don't know about "polarized, racis, seditious, right wing cities" but I expect the most conservative city in the US is Salt Lake City

Originally Posted by jd3189

The leftists who are NIMBY and restrict housing while living in high cost housing preaching for "affordable housing" are still pretty right leaning if you ask me. They can be pro BLM, antifa, LGBT, etc, but it's often just lip service to these groups. They are often just as neoliberal as mainline conservatives.

Yes, Gucci socialists are hypocrites of which this site seems to harbor a few

[pdxtex]

^^^ even SLC elects democrat mayors. Id bargain the most conservative city is probably something more like Birmingham or Jacksonville.

[Docere]

Birmingham has a left-wing Black mayor. As does Jackson, Mississippi.

[FromSD]

Originally Posted by pdxtex

^^^ even SLC elects democrat mayors. Id bargain the most conservative city is probably something more like Birmingham or Jacksonville.

Right, SLC is fairly liberal. The University of Utah is in SLC and the area between it and Downtown looks like any other Democratic bastion: rainbow flags, BLM signs, lots of quaint coffee shops, bars and restaurants. But SLC only has 200,000 people in its constrained city limits, and so it is overwhelmed by the much more conservative suburbs. SLC voters were able to put a Democrat in the US House in 2018, though he was defeated in the next election. It's always a tough thing for a Democrat to hold onto a Utah congressional seat, and I read that the Republican-dominated legislature redrew congressional districts last year to make it even more difficult to elect a Democrat in the SLC area.

For the title of most Republican big city, I would nominate Mesa, Arizona, even though it's a suburb of Phoenix. Population-wise, it's a very big city. A significant percentage of its residents are Mormon.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by downtownpdx

Not true, Portland handily voted Hardesty out in November and replaced her with a moderate guy who fought to reopen schools during covid, and supports more police and crackdowns on street camping. Plus the city is aggressively hiring more police officers and is starting an effort to ban all street camping by summer 2024.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Oregon, has ruled that state and local governments cannot ban all street camping unless there is a sufficient number of shelter spaces for every single camper. Is the plan to open up thousands and thousands of shelter spaces?

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Yes, Gucci socialists are hypocrites of which this site seems to harbor a few

Cool story, bro.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by FromSD

Right, SLC is fairly liberal. The University of Utah is in SLC and the area between it and Downtown looks like any other Democratic bastion: rainbow flags, BLM signs, lots of quaint coffee shops, bars and restaurants.

I'll bet BYU is a little different than that

[Docere]

I think Mormons are in the minority in SLC and the Mormons living there are likely more liberal-minded.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Yes, Gucci socialists are hypocrites of which this site seems to harbor a few

You don't know the economic position of people who post here unless they tell you.

[downtownpdx]

Originally Posted by craigs

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Oregon, has ruled that state and local governments cannot ban all street camping unless there is a sufficient number of shelter spaces for every single camper. Is the plan to open up thousands and thousands of shelter spaces?

The plan is to open 6 large sanctioned camp sites citywide, accommodating up to about 200 persons each. Plus lots more dollars to affordable housing construction. The sites would have on site social services, showers, laundry etc. It's nearly impossible to connect the current homeless population, which spans across 700 random/ frequently-swept camp sites across the city, to services in such a chaotic environment. I want to be optimistic... but we've had a hard time setting up "safe rest villages" in the last year or so because of the usual road blocks of nimbyism, lack of land etc. We'll see. But obviously the current system isn't really bringing much progress, and this seems like a way to more effectively serve the homeless population while alleviating neighborhoods of tents, trash, crime and needles that often accompany street camping.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by craigs

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Oregon, has ruled that state and local governments cannot ban all street camping unless there is a sufficient number of shelter spaces for every single camper. Is the plan to open up thousands and thousands of shelter spaces?


Cool story, bro.

No the plan is to ban street camping and corral all the hobos into refugee camps. I suspect the mayor is just using that as leverage to sweep camps since the math pencils out. "Yep, we have shelter space but they refused our help" *wiiing* guh bye tent. Yeah the progressive ladies running the county don't like that idea. Also not widely reported, the county supplied over 20 thousand tents to homeless people during covid. Maybe thats part of the problem. Meanwhile private business are starting to hire more security and other sneaky anti hobo measures. The grocery store in my neighborhood got rid of the can recycling machines all together.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by FromSD

For the title of most Republican big city, I would nominate Mesa, Arizona, even though it's a suburb of Phoenix. Population-wise, it's a very big city. A significant percentage of its residents are Mormon.

The citizens of Mesa are right wing (my parents live there but are outliers as registered Democrats) and the mayor is a Republican but he was campaigning in the 2022 Midterms for Katie Hobbs, Kris Mayes and Adrian Fontes, all of whom are Democrats running for Arizona's highest elected offices. I think the mayor is in DGAF mode as he's term-limited and the Republican counterparts to Hobbs, Mayes and Fontes were Trump acolytes.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

What's wrong with having options? I've always thought the tiny house movement is pretty cool

It's cool in the same way treehouses in California communes were. That cycle has come and gone.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by JManc

These are actually pretty common in Houston (Heights neighborhood) as garage apartments. They are relatively affordable but tiny; 400-500 s/f

When I was growing up in the 1950s, units like this were usually servant's quarters built over garages at the rear of the property.

[Crawford]

The U.S. was building "servants quarters" in the 1950's? That was the era of 91% marginal tax rates on highest earners, and all the Gatsby-era mansions being sold off for museums, colleges, foundations, luxury inns, etc. There was almost no "mansion" type housing built in the U.S. during that era. The wealthy were hardly hurting, but the Gatsby-era lifestyle of giant homes and servants wings was finished (until the 1980's). Probably 90% of the really opulent prewar Gold Coast mansions on Long Island were sold off in the postwar years.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Chef

You don't know the economic position of people who post here unless they tell you.

People don't need to tell me where they belong on the political spectrum to make logical deductions based on what they say. For example I would wager money that most people that come here and vote, vote for the Liberals/NDP in Canada and most Americans here vote for the Democrats

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

People don't need to tell me where they belong on the political spectrum to make logical deductions based on what they say. For example I would wager money that most people that come here and vote, vote for the Liberals/NDP in Canada and most Americans here vote for the Democrats

cool assumptions, bro.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The U.S. was building "servants quarters" in the 1950's? That was the era of 91% marginal tax rates on highest earners, and all the Gatsby-era mansions being sold off for museums, colleges, foundations, luxury inns, etc. There was almost no "mansion" type housing built in the U.S. during that era. The wealthy were hardly hurting, but the Gatsby-era lifestyle of giant homes and servants wings was finished (until the 1980's). Probably 90% of the really opulent prewar Gold Coast mansions on Long Island were sold off in the postwar years.

No. These were largely built in the 20's and 30's. Can't speak for Austin but in Houston, they are typically with small 1,200-1,600 s/f bungalows. Modest homes back then though typically worth about a million now. Though, I'm sure esp. the South, these apartments were still probably used as servants quarters in some areas.