[bb2018]

I am in favor of looser zoning laws and generally consider myself a YIMBY. However, I wouldn't say it is good politically to only support local low-income housing conditional on the fact that there is no negatives. I think that is the best policy but also acknowledge that there will be some tradeoffs.

As others have said I don't think looking at home values in major cities like Boston or Seattle is that interesting. Cities are used to having very rich areas next to poor ones. I grew up in a town of about 20,000 that had close to no housing that wasn't zoned as single family. As a result, the median income was very high, property taxes stayed extremely low as a percentage (since everyone was contributing a lot), and the schools were considered great despite people not having to pay a lot in taxes. The neighboring town had higher taxes (because the median property value was significantly lower) and the schools were known to be bad. I wish there was more state level funding at the time - but there wasn't and don't think there is now.

[pydry]

>However, I wouldn't say it is good politically to only support local low-income housing conditional on the fact that there is no negatives.

It obviously isn't but the history of progressive politics demonstrates that ideological purity is a great way of never getting anything real done.

E.g. planned Parenthood's murky beginnings, food stamps (buyer of last resort for leftover agricultural produce), schools (training kids to be obedient factory workers).

I doubt there are any progressive institutions which aren't partly borne out of an uneasy alliance with some powerful but unethical group whose interests either align or are at least aren't all that badly affected.