This comment sort of falls between this article and the medallion piece. With the medallions in NYC, the holders of the assets are (not PC...) largely lower income immigrants with little political power. I imagine this must be part of the reason their monopoly pricing power wasn't protected.
This comment sort of falls between this article and the medallion piece. With the medallions in NYC, the holders of the assets are (not PC...) largely lower income immigrants with little political power. I imagine this must be part of the reason their monopoly pricing power wasn't protected.
The rentier class in the coasts are middle/upper class voters with considerable political power at the state/federal level and extraordinary power at the local level. I struggle to see how meaningful and overdue reform, like the ones you described, can be accomplished when the changes directly harm incumbents.
What I was trying to get at is that the rentier class on the coasts isn't really that numerous or powerful measured at the federal level. We might have a 66% homeownership rate in this country but the class we are talking about is at most the top quartile of that, and they're concentrated in big blue states like CA/NY which dilutes their power even more. In that way they're not that much different than any other special interest group that collects economic rents - they have to stay under the radar and/or use some misdirection to sway public opinion, because they can't carry many votes by themselves. If public opinion goes against them, then politicans can score an easy political win by going after them.
It's interesting to see how these special interest groups manage to defend their interests (or don't). I think it's some combination of managing the court of public opinion and their skill at lobbying. You can see over time how the NCAA has lost the PR war in a way that pro sports haven't. Doctors and universities have mostly done a good job so far protecting their interests. The airlines mismanaged their position, but I would say local TV stations and cable providers are examples of companies that have made a lot of money with the help of favorable government regulations.
Realtors are one of the biggest lobbying groups and have been very successful at defending their interests and they are generally pro-development - they make more money when we are building more homes. So there is an interesting contrast there.
I think there is a social justice/equity layer here too - I didn't get into it but of course land use regulations are historically closely intertwined with segregation and discrimination, so there is this dissonance where you have liberal cities wanting to appear progressive but also not wanting to give up what they perceive as "theirs".
Excellent article.
This comment sort of falls between this article and the medallion piece. With the medallions in NYC, the holders of the assets are (not PC...) largely lower income immigrants with little political power. I imagine this must be part of the reason their monopoly pricing power wasn't protected.
The rentier class in the coasts are middle/upper class voters with considerable political power at the state/federal level and extraordinary power at the local level. I struggle to see how meaningful and overdue reform, like the ones you described, can be accomplished when the changes directly harm incumbents.
Thanks!
What I was trying to get at is that the rentier class on the coasts isn't really that numerous or powerful measured at the federal level. We might have a 66% homeownership rate in this country but the class we are talking about is at most the top quartile of that, and they're concentrated in big blue states like CA/NY which dilutes their power even more. In that way they're not that much different than any other special interest group that collects economic rents - they have to stay under the radar and/or use some misdirection to sway public opinion, because they can't carry many votes by themselves. If public opinion goes against them, then politicans can score an easy political win by going after them.
It's interesting to see how these special interest groups manage to defend their interests (or don't). I think it's some combination of managing the court of public opinion and their skill at lobbying. You can see over time how the NCAA has lost the PR war in a way that pro sports haven't. Doctors and universities have mostly done a good job so far protecting their interests. The airlines mismanaged their position, but I would say local TV stations and cable providers are examples of companies that have made a lot of money with the help of favorable government regulations.
Realtors are one of the biggest lobbying groups and have been very successful at defending their interests and they are generally pro-development - they make more money when we are building more homes. So there is an interesting contrast there.
I think there is a social justice/equity layer here too - I didn't get into it but of course land use regulations are historically closely intertwined with segregation and discrimination, so there is this dissonance where you have liberal cities wanting to appear progressive but also not wanting to give up what they perceive as "theirs".