Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article doesn't say what the proposals are but mentions building houses and transit with less red tape and cost. Why are you opposed to people having places to live and an ability to get to a job?

That would make sense. However, it’s all in the execution. In Montgomery County they are trying to change zoning in SFH neighborhoods based on a system of buses that will travel in “bus only” lanes that can’t exist until approved by the state, which might take years if approved at all. To compound the issue, the county is working to (or already has in certain areas) ease parking space requirements. So, more density based on a magic bus that no one will take traveling in lanes that don’t exist and at the same time worsening parking and traffic, and without any real plans to deal with infrastructure and schools. I guess the plan is to just “see what happens” and deal with schools and traffic in decades after the areas are already ruined.

So, the devil is in the details.

It’s a Trump-world type argument. Take a general idea which seems good on the surface, sell it, and execute it without any plan in place and without taking into account any negative externalities. It’s a recipe for disaster, and politicians know this.

I wouldn’t vote for anyone supporting this, there are plenty of other Democrats to vote for.

I think you missed the point. If construction and infrastructure upgrades were easier then everything you mention could happen more quickly and cheaply - the bus lanes, new schools, any underlying infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/08/house-democrat-abundance-caucus-00333760
Ugh it appears the Dems and some Reps want to get donations from developers by overriding the will of their local voters. This is completely unacceptable. Lobbyists in Washington and not be able to steamroll local communities to benefit their special interest groups. Zoning is a local issue and Congress should stay out it.

As a Dem, we are ridiculous. We can't build nice things because it takes forever. We take the local zoning thing too far. The fact that you can delay something through litigation for more than 10 years and the thing gets built anyway is ridiculous.

I live near McMillan reservoir in DC. 11 years of litigation by a group of people who did not represent most in the neighborhood, only for it to be developed anyway.

A few were able to delay what the neighbors wanted and needed.

+1. I live in a neighborhood where the “neighbors” pulled out all the stops (including extensive litigation) to block a PRESCHOOL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/08/house-democrat-abundance-caucus-00333760
Ugh it appears the Dems and some Reps want to get donations from developers by overriding the will of their local voters. This is completely unacceptable. Lobbyists in Washington and not be able to steamroll local communities to benefit their special interest groups. Zoning is a local issue and Congress should stay out it.

This is also very stupid because Dems are threatening their change of winning the midterms for no good reason. Local government rules have a larger impact on most people’s daily lives. They will be very upset that bureaucrats and policy wonks that don’t even live in their communities are overriding their local decision authority because they apparently know better than the people that actually live there.

By “people” you mean the few old cranks who show up to try to tank everything they personally disagree with? The personality disordered who have fixated on bicycles? The rich who believe they own public space?

What’s so unacceptable about wanting to remove red tape? Anyone who has had the most minimal involvement in local zoning/licensing knows the process is wholly dysfunctional. I can’t think of a better area for democrats and republicans to make common ground.

Anonymous wrote:Article doesn't say what the proposals are but mentions building houses and transit with less red tape and cost. Why are you opposed to people having places to live and an ability to get to a job?

That would make sense. However, it’s all in the execution. In Montgomery County they are trying to change zoning in SFH neighborhoods based on a system of buses that will travel in “bus only” lanes that can’t exist until approved by the state, which might take years if approved at all. To compound the issue, the county is working to (or already has in certain areas) ease parking space requirements. So, more density based on a magic bus that no one will take traveling in lanes that don’t exist and at the same time worsening parking and traffic, and without any real plans to deal with infrastructure and schools. I guess the plan is to just “see what happens” and deal with schools and traffic in decades after the areas are already ruined.

So, the devil is in the details.

It’s a Trump-world type argument. Take a general idea which seems good on the surface, sell it, and execute it without any plan in place and without taking into account any negative externalities. It’s a recipe for disaster, and politicians know this.

I wouldn’t vote for anyone supporting this, there are plenty of other Democrats to vote for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article doesn't say what the proposals are but mentions building houses and transit with less red tape and cost. Why are you opposed to people having places to live and an ability to get to a job?

Progressiveness simultaneously want a strong government and want that government to do nothing.

The book doesn't say that at all. A lot of the stuff that slows down construction and progress is bipartisan, especially hollering about "fraud, waste, abuse" to stymie projects.

A LOT of the wealthier property owners that scuttle infrastructure are conservatives/Republicans in Red areas.

Anonymous wrote:Article doesn't say what the proposals are but mentions building houses and transit with less red tape and cost. Why are you opposed to people having places to live and an ability to get to a job?

Progressiveness simultaneously want a strong government and want that government to do nothing.

Anonymous wrote:Is that what Abundance means? I haven't read the book and the Politico article didn't expand clearly on it. I looked at the wiki page for the book and it is about infrastructure and building new projects rather than merely obstructivism.

We all know that regulations to protect X, Y, Z are well-intentioned but cause massive delays and cost-increases. Look at regular projects that are years behind schedule and millions/billions over budget compared to the 95 repair of the bridge collapse in Philadelphia that was quick, due to ignoring some regulations using emergency powers.

We are at a point where our infrastructure is aging and much is due for renovation. We could replace, instead. We could imagine a new vision of cities and we could enact it. If we have the will.

The basic gist of the book is that progressives/Blue States are good at designing new programs and being inclusive but terrible at execution. Further, the US has generally become terrible at executing big infrastructure projects - costs spiral out of control, everything is bogged down in lawsuits and mandatory impact reviews, incumbent property owners stymie any progress on much-needed housing and transportation infrastructure, the contracting process is too slow and mired in regulations to actually get started on tangible work, etc.

In short, a lot of policies and laws with good intentions - preventing fraud/waste, giving impacted parties a seat at the table, environmental reviews, the court system & judicial review - have created gridlock in actually getting things done. This, in turn, has turned otherwise patriotic Americans against their own government and created a sense of national malaise.

The book wants the government to take a heavier hand in dealing with these issues. It advocates for a China-like model where the citizenry and existing property owners gets less opportunities to bog down big projects. Of course, this would require changes to laws that could preempt local control. One way to do this is through federal legislation utilizing the Supremacy clause.

As a case study, they looked at PA Gov Josh Shapiro when he dealt with I-95 Highway collapse in 2023. He was granted emergency powers by the PA legislature, which enabled him to suspend all sorts of laws and policies when it came to contracting, sourcing construction materials, conducting public outreach, doing environmental reviews, etc. Within three days of the accident, a temporary road was constructed for I-95. Within a few weeks, the bridge was reopened for traffic. Within a few months, all work was completed at a total cost of only $20M. Had PA adhered to the regular course of business, it would've taken 5-10 years for the bridge to open and at a much higher cost (maybe 5-10x higher than what was spent in two weeks).

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/08/house-democrat-abundance-caucus-00333760
Ugh it appears the Dems and some Reps want to get donations from developers by overriding the will of their local voters. This is completely unacceptable. Lobbyists in Washington and not be able to steamroll local communities to benefit their special interest groups. Zoning is a local issue and Congress should stay out it.

As a Dem, we are ridiculous. We can't build nice things because it takes forever. We take the local zoning thing too far. The fact that you can delay something through litigation for more than 10 years and the thing gets built anyway is ridiculous.

I live near McMillan reservoir in DC. 11 years of litigation by a group of people who did not represent most in the neighborhood, only for it to be developed anyway.

A few were able to delay what the neighbors wanted and needed.

Good. More housing the merrier.

Anonymous wrote:Is that what Abundance means? I haven't read the book and the Politico article didn't expand clearly on it. I looked at the wiki page for the book and it is about infrastructure and building new projects rather than merely obstructivism.

We all know that regulations to protect X, Y, Z are well-intentioned but cause massive delays and cost-increases. Look at regular projects that are years behind schedule and millions/billions over budget compared to the 95 repair of the bridge collapse in Philadelphia that was quick, due to ignoring some regulations using emergency powers.

We are at a point where our infrastructure is aging and much is due for renovation. We could replace, instead. We could imagine a new vision of cities and we could enact it. If we have the will.

I agree. Too often, democrats let the perfect be the enemy of the good and we don’t get anywhere. So much money/projects is just held up for years and years.

Is that what Abundance means? I haven't read the book and the Politico article didn't expand clearly on it. I looked at the wiki page for the book and it is about infrastructure and building new projects rather than merely obstructivism.

We all know that regulations to protect X, Y, Z are well-intentioned but cause massive delays and cost-increases. Look at regular projects that are years behind schedule and millions/billions over budget compared to the 95 repair of the bridge collapse in Philadelphia that was quick, due to ignoring some regulations using emergency powers.

We are at a point where our infrastructure is aging and much is due for renovation. We could replace, instead. We could imagine a new vision of cities and we could enact it. If we have the will.

Article doesn't say what the proposals are but mentions building houses and transit with less red tape and cost. Why are you opposed to people having places to live and an ability to get to a job?

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/08/house-democrat-abundance-caucus-00333760
Ugh it appears the Dems and some Reps want to get donations from developers by overriding the will of their local voters. This is completely unacceptable. Lobbyists in Washington and not be able to steamroll local communities to benefit their special interest groups. Zoning is a local issue and Congress should stay out it.

This is also very stupid because Dems are threatening their change of winning the midterms for no good reason. Local government rules have a larger impact on most people’s daily lives. They will be very upset that bureaucrats and policy wonks that don’t even live in their communities are overriding their local decision authority because they apparently know better than the people that actually live there.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/08/house-democrat-abundance-caucus-00333760
Ugh it appears the Dems and some Reps want to get donations from developers by overriding the will of their local voters. This is completely unacceptable. Lobbyists in Washington and not be able to steamroll local communities to benefit their special interest groups. Zoning is a local issue and Congress should stay out it.