The Niskanen Institute has a thesis. A density divide sorts and polarizes rural and urban areas. Economic and values factors combine to create different in-group uniformities. Zero-sum game mindsets have emerged nationally to play one group against another, with purity, loyalty and scapegoating as social controls that reinforce group congruence. Could this density divide pattern hold if we substitute liberal suburban whites for conservative rural whites?
Yes, the pattern transposes well. Liberal whites have sorted and segregated to North Bay suburbs. Here a polarizing wedge is driven to any newcomers. Growth, sprawl and speculators are the enemies. The mostly white, uniform population has an aversion to density, which represents all bad things. Local control is code for minimizing density as much as possible, especially in single family-zoned, suburban areas. Low density protection in very real ways rests on an unethical history of redlining, segregation and white flight, which are never acknowledged.
Measure of America’s 2020 Census analysis divides California into four groups, the One Percent (1%), Elite Enclave (19%), Main Street (50%), and Struggling (30%). In the North Bay, Main Street and Struggling are heavily cost-burdened, mostly renters.
Suburban protectors, NIMBYs, make any proposal for increased scale and density into a zero-sum game attack on their gentrified lifestyle. Elite speculators are scapegoated. Local development code serves as a tool to protect low-density and single-family home neighborhoods. Density is a power struggle among the top 20% largest fish with the most wealth. North Bay essential workers, who happen to be mostly Latinos, end up as collateral damage. Welcome to the food chain.
For low-density suburban land use policy, equity and inclusion is all talk and no action. Low density is always the highest value. The equity pillar of the sustainability triple bottom line is functionally left out of all policy. Territoriality and protectionism fuse North Bay NIMBYs with “green values.”
The result is suburban liberal white parochialism, protectionism, in-group loyalty, values conformity and a tendency to zero-sum game thinking analogous to the national density divide between urban liberals and rural low educated rural whites. The only difference is in who gets scapegoated. Bubbled cultural isolation is the same.
North Bay NIMBYs fight the same battles over and over: hotels, winery events, tasting rooms, casinos, raceway, Amazon warehouse, UGB, SDC, SB 9, Springs Specific Plan, Board of Supervisors Redistricting, etc. These battles are not for equity but rather to protect low-density character. The North Bay density divide is all about Elite Enclave tribal territoriality.
Who is dominating the SDC conversation and the City’s effort to subvert SB 9? It’s all a battle between the One Percent and Elite Enclave cohorts who together only make up only 20% of the population. Main Street and Baltic Ave., the other 80%, are struggling to be heard and instead of a seat at the table they are more likely to be had for dinner.
Sleepy Hollow Elite Enclaves, through density-restricted protections, make for high inflation and not enough housing. UGBs prevent any housing at the edges creating a “green checkmate” land-use pattern: nothing allowed anywhere. Dense infill near transit and shopping is called smart growth, even as suburban property owners reserve dumb growth (low-density pleasantry and high property values) for themselves.
Unfortunately, no one here wants any density near them and no one addresses the racial implications. Elite Enclaves are in a liberal bubble. Smart growth means stuffing all the poor into the worst areas under the guise of climate protection. Climate justice, equity and smart growth all suffer the same fate: all talk, no action.
The density divide is national. It’s the difference between suburbs and rural, between incorporated and unincorporated areas, between property owners and renters, between the moderate and far left, between the haves and have-nots. Moderates benefit from the status quo and don’t rock the boat. No wonder the left’s boat is losing water, the base is kept outside the castle gates.
Elite Enclaves make themselves the primary victims, scapegoating Park Place 1% speculators like Darius Anderson and Ken Mattson. Yet suburban liberal whites are no more on the same team as local working class people of color than they are with low-educated rural whites. All whites share an aversion to equity, some are just more explicit about it.
As low-wage, essential workers and renters continue to be collateral damage of bigger fish battles, what holds these smaller fish from switching to Trumpism? Or from class revolution? A quarter of Latino men already support Trump populism.
Meanwhile, Elite Enclave land-use rationales inevitably lead to the maintenance and perpetuation of segregation even as weak-tea claims for equity are mouthed. Sleepy Hollow parochialism is likely to drive even more small fish away from the liberal camp because at the end of the day, suburban liberals care more about protecting low density and open space than they do about social equity.
The cure for this business-as-usual limbo and density divide? Elite Enclaves give on the green space/low-density protection, make equity an equal plank, and get everyone on the same team against the One Percent. Will Elite Enclaves sacrifice some Mayberry character for equity? Or stay locked in their status quo, low-density liberal bubble?
.
"low" - Google News
December 31, 2021 at 09:53AM
https://ift.tt/31cUvrm
Commentary: No equity in low-density neighborhoods - Sonoma Index-Tribune
"low" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2z1WHDx
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Commentary: No equity in low-density neighborhoods - Sonoma Index-Tribune"
Post a Comment