One of the founding principles of this country is “no taxation without representation.” Disregarding the will of the voters seems to run contrary to that.
Pro-housing principles have been quite popular with California voters; Scott Wiener (the state senator with the most aggressive upzoning bills) is the most popular elected official in SF even. It's just they're only popular at the state level, not the local level - that's what it means to be a NIMBY. But none of the major YIMBY policies have lost anyone an election yet that I know of.
If the law obliges construction to happen, and the law prevents it from being prevented, then the will of the people is expressed legislatively. This would normally be considered an expression of representation. This kind of a SEZ could be terminated if the relevant people elected relevant representatives to the relevant legislature.
The will of the voters is sometimes different depending on what you ask them.
If you ask people if they support a constitutional right to free speech, they'll probably say yes. If you ask them if someone should have a right to say some specific disagreeable thing, many people will say no.
Similarly with NIMBYism, people say they want houses built and support candidates who say they'll fix the housing crisis, but if you ask them about some specific planned development close to them, they say no.
I have no idea what the will of the voters actually is on this issue. Everyone agrees there's a problem, but most people are against all solutions.
> If you ask people if they support a constitutional right to free speech, they'll probably say yes. If you ask them if someone should have a right to say some specific disagreeable thing, many people will say no.
Source? I think most people are going to understand that speech you disagree with is part of freedom of speech.
astrange|3 years ago
nirimda|3 years ago
kaashif|3 years ago
If you ask people if they support a constitutional right to free speech, they'll probably say yes. If you ask them if someone should have a right to say some specific disagreeable thing, many people will say no.
Similarly with NIMBYism, people say they want houses built and support candidates who say they'll fix the housing crisis, but if you ask them about some specific planned development close to them, they say no.
I have no idea what the will of the voters actually is on this issue. Everyone agrees there's a problem, but most people are against all solutions.
uup|3 years ago
Source? I think most people are going to understand that speech you disagree with is part of freedom of speech.