we’re still living with the consequences of wrecking-ball redevelopment decades ago, and in the process perpetuating the affordability and displacement crisis
@Sr_Lazarus If we keep asking neighbors if they want development we will get none. No one wants a tall building next to them but they have to go somewhere.
@Sr_Lazarus Answer is a resounding NO. No “democratic control” of private people’s property who develop it according to rules & regulations. What they disguise as “democratic” is actually collectivism. These people want to implement communes — not the political culture of our country or SF.
@Sr_Lazarus Your development booster predecessors assured us that blight had to be redeveloped while they assured us that suburban sprawl was the future. Boosters were wrong then and boosters are wrong now as YIMBY.
@Sr_Lazarus Of course the public should have input... during the general planning phase (not building-by-building.)
@Sr_Lazarus The Democratic process has resulted in a plan for development which we don’t use bc individuals can arbitrarily block it.
@Sr_Lazarus How NIMBYs can say this with a straight face knowing that it was public redevelopment agencies that used eminent domain and took a wrecking ball to our cities is beyond me.
@Sr_Lazarus ... Are there no municipal elections? There's you democratic input, and it's actually democratic unlike letting whoever can show up to a meeting a 1 in the afternoon on a weekday make the decision.