1. Your focus on the practical work of building coalitions is extremely helpful. Thank you!
2. Eleven ideas are too many to serve as the core for any coalition.
3. Love the actionable ideas tied to theory of change, especially 1, 2, 3, and 10—though 10 (data infrastructure) is underspecified.
4. Love 9 (look inland)—it's not an action, but it calls attention to a neglected issue.
5. Surprised at the lack of discussion of how building and trades unions set floor under costs of around $500,000 because they pair living wage (good!) with resisting productivity improvements (terrible). When I read about good bills not getting through, their opposition comes up over and over.
6. Really surprised that you restrict discussion of "the type of reform that makes the fiscally-minded local vote yes on housing, isolating those who vote no only because of NIMBYism" to the last point. AFAICT this is the whole ballgame. Voters are old homeowners who by definition *do not need housing* and *have their wealth tied up in restricting housing supply*. You also don't discuss the related LA vs SF dynamic: e.g. Anthony Portantino is a problem.
7. To repeat myself: really like your approach. Thank you!
Hi Sam - Thanks for the great comments, and kind words. I think you will see more on the things you felt were missing as I dig into each point 1x1, starting next week! Appreciate it. Alex
1. Your focus on the practical work of building coalitions is extremely helpful. Thank you!
2. Eleven ideas are too many to serve as the core for any coalition.
3. Love the actionable ideas tied to theory of change, especially 1, 2, 3, and 10—though 10 (data infrastructure) is underspecified.
4. Love 9 (look inland)—it's not an action, but it calls attention to a neglected issue.
5. Surprised at the lack of discussion of how building and trades unions set floor under costs of around $500,000 because they pair living wage (good!) with resisting productivity improvements (terrible). When I read about good bills not getting through, their opposition comes up over and over.
6. Really surprised that you restrict discussion of "the type of reform that makes the fiscally-minded local vote yes on housing, isolating those who vote no only because of NIMBYism" to the last point. AFAICT this is the whole ballgame. Voters are old homeowners who by definition *do not need housing* and *have their wealth tied up in restricting housing supply*. You also don't discuss the related LA vs SF dynamic: e.g. Anthony Portantino is a problem.
7. To repeat myself: really like your approach. Thank you!
Hi Sam - Thanks for the great comments, and kind words. I think you will see more on the things you felt were missing as I dig into each point 1x1, starting next week! Appreciate it. Alex