Jindal: Something Is Wrong With The GOP, Face The Nation: Republicans Discuss The Future Of Their Party Following Election Losses - CBS News:"'As Republicans, we need to do three things to get back on track,' he said on CBS' Face The Nation. 'Number one, we have got to stop defending the kind of spending and out-of-control spending that we would never tolerate in the other side. You know, when voters tell us that they trust Democrats more to cut their taxes [and] control spending, that tells you something is wrong with the Republican Party. We've got to match our actions with our rhetoric.
'Number two, we've got to stop defending the kinds of corruption we would rightfully criticize in the other party. The week before the election, our most senior senator is convicted on federal charges - and that's only the latest example.
'Number three, we have got to be the party that offers real solutions to the problems that American voters, American families are worried about. We don't need to abandon our conservative principles; we can't just be the 'party of no.' We need to offer real solutions on making health care more affordable, on the economic challenges facing families, on the international threats.'"
-----------------
Government spending, corruption, and problem-solving. Fine. That will respond to the 40% of the electorate that votes on policy. But the other 60% of the electorate just leaves one party in power until things are going badly in the country, and then they vote for the other party.
So I think no matter what the Republicans do they are going to be waiting in the wings until the public loses patience with the Democrats. That means that policy areas such as housing will simply be run by Democrats, according to their priorities, for the forseeable future. That means high density housing in the cities and inner ring suburbs, and that means more CIDs.
3 comments:
I've been meaning for awhile now to ask your opinion about CIDs relationship to political parties, actually. My impression has been that conservatives and libertarians love CIDs because they are private contracts vs governments. However, I've noticed that many people think liberals love CIDs because they squelch individual rights for the (supposed) good of the community.
Your post seems to imply that CIDs are particularly favored by Democrats. Is that an impression based on your general knowledge of HOAs & your own political leanings, or is there research that investigates that point?
You know much more about this subject than me, so I am willing to accept your general impression, but I wondered if there was more to it than that.
(Actually, if I had to take a guess, I'd say that the popularity of CIDs was a nonpartisan result of municipalities trying to increase their tax base, control their expenditures, & please developers. And maybe your post just means that CIDs are an inseparable part of condos and so forth. Still, do you think there also is a partisan tilt to CIDs?)
By now it is pretty clear that the rise of CIDs is driven by developers and municipalities mainly. Developers want higher density and municipalities want a cash cow. They find a lot to agree about with these planned developments that put the burden on the owners. This isn't really ideological--it is a pragmatic way to deal with the high cost of land and the tax resistance of the public.
There is also a percentage of the public that actually wants to live in HOAs, but most buyers really don't know what they are getting into.
As for political parties, it seems to me that this hasn't turned into a partisan issue at this point. Some Republicans, especially the libertarian-oriented free-marketers, do love the idea because it suits their fantasies about life without government, based on contract. That isn't what is really going on, but they keep insisting that it is. They see HOAs as an alternative to government.
However, lots of Democrats have supported CID projects because of the heavy overlay of planning, smart growth, and so forth that goes along with many New Urbanist projects, the HOPE VI experiment with redeveloped public housing projects, etc. Those ideas are clearly associated with Democrats and "progressives." They want to use HOAs as tools of the government--an extension of the state.
It's like that story about the elephant and the blind men, each one feeling a different part and generalizing about the whole.
And in the anti-HOA camp you can find some Republicans and some Democrats, because both parties can embrace reform in the interest of consumer protection.
Right now, though, in Washington I feel certain we will be hearing the Obama administration talking up the virtues of planning, smart growth, green communities, traditional neighborhood design, transit oriented developments, and higher density. They think suburbanization means "sprawl," which they believe is killing the planet, and they are convinced they can make us move into high-density condos and townhouses. Look at what lefty mayor Villaraigosa of LA has proposed: stuffing Angelenos in high-rise condos. The place that has epitomized the suburban dream is going to become like Hong Kong? Hard to believe this will work out in the market, but that is the proposal. I think whoever Obama puts in charge of the FHA and HUD and so forth will have a similar vision.
So, in then near term, the spread of CIDs will probably take on a Democratic hue, and maybe for a long time. I wonder when, if ever, there will be another resurgence of the quasi-libertarian, free-market right. We are looking at things going pretty hard in the opposite direction for at least four years, maybe a lot longer, and some of the changes will be impossible for Republicans to reverse.
Thanks, Evan, for answering my question. If CIDs do become more of a "Democrat thing," maybe that will help the more-right parties come back to power quicker.
In the meantime, it's rather a relief to think about an issue that doesn't divide conveniently into red v blue. :)
Post a Comment