ԜаӀtеr Ⅼарсһуnѕkі is a user on soc.ialis.me. You can follow them or interact with them if you have an account anywhere in the fediverse. If you don't, you can sign up here.
ԜаӀtеr Ⅼарсһуnѕkі @wxl

Sad to see shares as gentrification symbol, but it's not about the bike. The communities they are installed in are completely ignored until the privileged move in. Then the city and corporate sponsors rush to do what they can. Ford is only in it to make the privileged "suffer" on bikes so they can sell them cars. Hard to do that to those without money.

theguardian.com/us-news/2017/a

@wxl Yet the single most effective and determinative solution to housing affordability, which is allow more housing, meaning more density, gets kicked the wayside Every. Single. Time. by the NIMBYs and the power-trippers on boards, all across the political spectrum.

"San Francisco has no land" it's been said. Right it has no land, it has 121 km² and a population density of 6.6K per km², less than Paterson. Singapore is 20K/km². If you let developers build towers they will reclaim land from the ocean if they have to at current prices. Not letting anyone build up and refusing to raise grandma's taxes is how SF ends up with >>$3000 rent for a studio. Just throwing income-capped "affordable" percentage on the paltry developments that are allowed only raises the market prices & volatility & stretches the wait-lists/odds for getting an affordable spot.

Prop 13 was one (of many) of CA's dumbest self-inflicted wounds. East Coast doesn't do direct-dem populism, we do old-school corruption.

bit.ly/2wnZODb

@wxl It's no coincidence that the anti-gentrification ugly-neighborhood people and the wealthy-neighborhood beautiful-house people present a united, equally noisy front in total opposition to incumbent developers.

@wxl Sorry to derail your point, but all gentrification is always about housing affordability at its root. Whether it's a bikeshare, a coffeeshop, an art gallery, or a white guy.