zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
> favoring moderate causes and candidates and targeting progressives

for us non-americans, can someone please explain what general political aims the 'moderate' and 'progressive' parties represent? And where are they on the republican democrat spectrum?

>>willva+i7
The article goes out of its way to avoid naming the cause which is: housing! More affordable homes! Valuing people over historic buildings and neighborhood character! You know, the kind of stuff that actually should be considered progressive

>>habitu+C8
so the progressives want more affordable homes, and the moderates don't?

>>willva+Q9
Moderates believe supply and demand applies to housing, and that building more housing, regardless of whether it is explicitly "low income", is the most important thing to improve housing affordability. In practice, this means favoring upzoning (allowing duplexes/triplexes/apartment buildings in more places), and minimizing burdens on developers. Eg, advocating against "inclusionary zoning requirements" that require X% of a given building to be rented out at below market rate and against long development approval processes.

Progressives believe that allowing developers to build housing will only create "luxury" housing that is unaffordable to all but the rich, increasing gentrification and displacement. Therefore it's necessary to mandate things like "inclusionary zoning" and tight review of every single development project.

Empirically, the progressive stance results in a lot less housing of any sort getting built, whether "affordable" or otherwise, and consequently higher housing prices for all but the lucky lottery winners who grab the limited number of BMR ("Below Market Rent") units. Some would say that that's actually the goal of progressives (ie, they're using "progressive" window dressing to preserve property values/neighborhood aesthetics of the very rich).