4 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Improving walkability cost me an election
The problem is that when people think or hear "more density" they quickly associate it with higher cost of living and inconvenience to their existing lifestyle. They aren't exactly wrong in this aspect.
Voters are concerned about their family, income, and preferred lifestyle. It's going to take a lot of convincing that more density is an overall good thing when people like the way it is.
Comment by SabbathBoiseSabbath at 12/11/2024 at 13:15 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yes, exactly so. And politicians need to read the room. People moved to Eagle (and places like Eagle) because they want larger lots, sprawl, etc., and they don't want to live in density and have to walk or ride a bus. Most of them explicitly moved away from more dense and congested places... so of course they're never going to tolerate attempts to make these places more dense (even if it is necessary or good planning).
People need to realize the public ultimately decides one way or another - via their preferences, the market, our representative government, democracy, etc. As you point out, voters are going to reject policy that isn't in their immediate self interest - this book should be closed on this point after the 2024 elections.
Yeah, it sucks we have to cater to poor or suboptimal policy preferences because it is the will of the public, but there is room there to make some gains. It is better than outright rejection of good policy and never getting voted into office.
Comment by espressocycle at 12/11/2024 at 14:03 UTC
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
They quickly associate it with people they don't want to live next door to.