Surely the way to handle this is to honor all current union contracts but phase in a new system where new hires are something besides a conductor? Change one line at a time?

I want you to be correct but I don't think you are. In my experience people's brains turn off the second it is understood that a "developer" will make a profit by building something, no matter what it is. People will even scaremonger about affordable senior housing with this line of attack.

I do the same with housing. Do I "trust" developers? Not inherently, no. Do I realize that it's good when they build stuff that is a net positive for the city, like walkable density served by transit? Yes. That stuff is good whether the state builds it or not.

I keep these two thoughts in my head at once: (1) vaccines are a medical miracle and (2) big pharma is motivated by profit. I can be suspicious of big pharma and also know that vaccines save lives whether they are manufactured by the government or by P&G.

The uphill battle is convincing people that it's ok if someone makes a profit by building things we need, like dense housing in places served by transit. I prefer if the state builds the housing but I understand that it's not bad when the private market builds good stuff.

I personally think it's more important to house people and support social services than it is to maximally punish people who privately finance home construction but I guess it's not very radical of me to value housing the homeless over """sticking it to the man"""

It's never been a secret that chemo is in many ways "bad for you", but the whole point is that it's even worse for the cancerous cells specifically than it is for you overall. Literally everything in medicine is risk vs. reward. Chemo is no different.

Psychology research shows that left-of-center voters are broadly supportive of YIMBY policies until they are reminded that new buildings are designed and constructed by people with the job title of "developer".

She's giving every indication of running for either Senate or President.

She's clearly eyeing a run for higher office. We're not done with her.

Areas further from downtown or a major transit line are gonna stay sleepier. That's always how it works. Some smaller apartment buildings will probably crop up and we won't notice them but they will be a more helpful part of the housing ecosystem than a SFH would have been.

Would you really expect a medium-sized metro with slow population growth to be radically transformed in 8 short years?

The areas right around Green Line stations have changed pretty quickly. Northeast near downtown is popping, too. That infill development is great and a logical first step.

Legalize single-stair apartments so more families can live near downtown!

Have you ever in your life looked at a graph comparing housing prices in cities that build more or fewer housing units? What did that graph tell you?

More housing supply is a pro-worker outcome, period. My ideal is that much of it is public housing but privately built housing is not the enemy.

The way I frame this to my fellow socialists is like this - imagine the ideal social housing. Modest but quality family-sized apts built densely (tall) near quality transit.

Everyone should be allowed to build such units, including the private sector, since we all agree it's what we want more of.

We can really stick it to the gReeDy DevElOpErS if we just tear down every tall apartment building that went up in the last ten years, right? That would decrease housing costs, surely, according to this poster?

Yeah, that mono blue deck that Autumn Burchett used to win a pro tour was famously inexpensive even when the cards were all legal in standard.

Stellar band

Eh, "regular vehicle travel" was sloppy language. Cars have to behave as polite guests in the streets from your images - they are not the priority.