Kathy Hochul limped to re-election but wants to push bold housing reform; Democrats struggle on crime and with Asian and Hispanic voters; Knicks owner James Dolan thinks he's invincible
The analysis of Hochuls proposal is missing 2 critical pieces: 1. Unlike CA under NY constitution municipalities have the right to "Home Rule", i.e. the state has no legal right to change zoning - so not sure how this works legally. 2. The densification around transit centers is worthwhile idea but horrible in the details. For example, I live in a 2 square mile village of 6,000 on the edge of the Bronx with a total of 4 buildings 4-5 stories and a commuter rail station at its center. Under Hochul's proposal we would have to add housing for an ADDITIONAL 12,000 people with 10 story buildings surrounded by single family homes. And that's before we try to figure how to add police, fire and schools to support all these new residents.
It seems to me from that conversation that Hocul should focus on education. Crime is not monocausal and spending political cache on a reform you get no credit for and might not have an effect seems bad. NIMBYism is a scourge but is rampant on both the left and the right.
The issues on education seem 100% set inflicted and can be fixed. Affirmative action is deeply unpopular except among the most progressive of elites. Expanding the number of magnet schools while tweeking the entry criteria seems to be the best way to get what you want without reducing the spots for immigrant working-class students because their skin is the wrong hue. I don’t know if that falls under charter school expansion or not, but that is where I would focus my policies if I were Hochul from a politics standpoint. (I’m a libertarian so the correct policies are 1. Screw the NIMBYs 2. Leave bail reform alone and 3. Backpack funding or expanding charter schools).
If that's accurate, I think it's possible that the pro-homes policy being proposed by Hochul may actually be a positive for her in places like Long Island. Some places with a perceived NIMBY slant have voting majorities that are silently pro-housing.
A good example is famously anti-Housing San Francisco. In the last 5+ years, pro-housing candidates like Breed, Weiner, and Haney beat their anti-housing opponents. Their elections reveal a preference by voters that is hard to discern when you look at public comments at zoning boards, or read both-sides coverage in local newspapers.
Anyhow, just wanted to suggest that Hochul may not be taking as big of a risk as you seemed to suggest. She may even have polling about these issues that confirm they're popular with voters in places like Long Island.
Really great episode. Josh not sure if you are following the Chicago mayoral race but would love your thoughts on that primary given the candidates running and the push/pull to and from progressives there and the ongoing crime issues.
Barring humans from witnessing the New York Knicks should be viewed as a public service.
The analysis of Hochuls proposal is missing 2 critical pieces: 1. Unlike CA under NY constitution municipalities have the right to "Home Rule", i.e. the state has no legal right to change zoning - so not sure how this works legally. 2. The densification around transit centers is worthwhile idea but horrible in the details. For example, I live in a 2 square mile village of 6,000 on the edge of the Bronx with a total of 4 buildings 4-5 stories and a commuter rail station at its center. Under Hochul's proposal we would have to add housing for an ADDITIONAL 12,000 people with 10 story buildings surrounded by single family homes. And that's before we try to figure how to add police, fire and schools to support all these new residents.
It seems to me from that conversation that Hocul should focus on education. Crime is not monocausal and spending political cache on a reform you get no credit for and might not have an effect seems bad. NIMBYism is a scourge but is rampant on both the left and the right.
The issues on education seem 100% set inflicted and can be fixed. Affirmative action is deeply unpopular except among the most progressive of elites. Expanding the number of magnet schools while tweeking the entry criteria seems to be the best way to get what you want without reducing the spots for immigrant working-class students because their skin is the wrong hue. I don’t know if that falls under charter school expansion or not, but that is where I would focus my policies if I were Hochul from a politics standpoint. (I’m a libertarian so the correct policies are 1. Screw the NIMBYs 2. Leave bail reform alone and 3. Backpack funding or expanding charter schools).
Most of the polling I've seen about policy to allow more home construction shows that it's popular in most places. And that includes even in places where anti-housing activists are loud, appear to be the majority, and succeed in getting their way. (One example - https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-america-build-yimby-20221121-6mrccfkg2rchvc4asrxm2u74hi-story.html)
If that's accurate, I think it's possible that the pro-homes policy being proposed by Hochul may actually be a positive for her in places like Long Island. Some places with a perceived NIMBY slant have voting majorities that are silently pro-housing.
A good example is famously anti-Housing San Francisco. In the last 5+ years, pro-housing candidates like Breed, Weiner, and Haney beat their anti-housing opponents. Their elections reveal a preference by voters that is hard to discern when you look at public comments at zoning boards, or read both-sides coverage in local newspapers.
Anyhow, just wanted to suggest that Hochul may not be taking as big of a risk as you seemed to suggest. She may even have polling about these issues that confirm they're popular with voters in places like Long Island.
Great episode!
Really great episode. Josh not sure if you are following the Chicago mayoral race but would love your thoughts on that primary given the candidates running and the push/pull to and from progressives there and the ongoing crime issues.