Noah Kazis

That isn't to say that abundance is purely procedural--that's not right--but the great value of the turn is to let people ID certain political/intellectual/legal habits of the last half century and whether those habits are serving *their own* goals. That's of value for all of us.

And that's baked in. Abundance has a lot to say about means but much less about ends. It's perfectly cogent to want to deploy its toolkit to build more housing and not more junkyards, or for one abundance-type to compromise on labor standards but not enviro laws (or vice versa).

This simply doesn't make any sense. First, it's just descriptively true that "abundance" in reality includes Elizabeth Warren and Scott Weiner (and Niskanen and Mercatus and rightwards from there).

It's a separate axis of politics. You can be left-abundance, center-left-abundance, etc.

It's time for abundance Democrats to embrace cultural moderation The left argues that economic populism lets you ignore voters' cultural concerns. Abundance Democrats know that is wrong, and they should say it.

There has been an effort by all sides to define "abundance" as an inherently centrist project. You see that from supporters like Matt Yglesias and the WelcomeFest centrists, and from left-wing opponents, especially those who self-ID as anti-monopoly.

hypertext.niskanencenter.org/p/its-time-f...

Another thought on the politics here too: This is from Elizabeth Warren and Tim Scott. It's not "four moderates" bipartisanship, it's the real left and right.

That tells us something important about "abundance" politics.

The effort to reduce administrative burdens in affordable housing programs is very welcome! That's a step further outside my lane, but my understanding is the voucher inspection stuff could be very helpful.

Feels like a blast from a different political universe.

The largest gap I see is that exclusionary suburbs are getting the biggest pass. I get the politics there, sure. To my mind, the solution is more incentives pointing at *states*, who can then choose whether/how to take on that fight (it's a lot of the high-demand land, but a lot of resistance).

One thing I like a lot: even just on land use, it's helping multiple kinds of housing market. The NEPA infill fixes (which look carefully done) will matter more in poorer places where more housing is subsidized; the CDBG $ targets more affluent cities. Multiple political theories of change too.

Obviously, all the caveats about legislative text--can't claim I know what's buried in those strike-outs just yet. But this looks like really thoughtful work in broad strokes and at least a bunch of the details.

Scott, Warren Announce Markup of Landmark Bipartisan Housing Legislation from Banking Committee Members | United States Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs The Official website of The United States Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

I finally had time to digest it, and the big bipartisan housing package looks impressive. A little of everything, from zoning and NEPA to mortgages and vouchers. Lots of smart sensible tweaks, but also a sea change getting the feds in the game on zoning reform

www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/min...

My old local!

Home | Neighbors for More Neighbors A2

I get the focus on national politics now, but in Ann Arbor our city plan is facing anti-growth pushback and needs support. Growth is good! Families *want* to live here, and we should make that possible.

Learn about this cause and get involved here!
www.moreneighborsa2.org?utm_source=n...

Well, I'd vote yes on Props A and B, which involve rebuilding the Downtown library, with some additional housing on the site! aadl.org/node/643329

But the big thing to do is contact your Council Members, who are getting a LOT of heat on this issue, if you support more housing/density.

The one time Cuomo had a truly great bureaucrat (Byford), he pushed him out b/c he was petty and jealous.

And if there's a policy area that Cuomo can't micromanage for political advantage-all he cares about-he'll just ignore it. He's an awful manager (even before the harassment).

Don't rank Cuomo

My NYC mayor take: The best accomplishments of the Bloomberg, deBlasio, and Adams admins each came on issues where they hired great staff and gave them room to execute.

Andrew Cuomo has never done that in his life. He's uniquely unsuited for being mayor -- whether you're left, right or center.

lol to youth group.

I almost worked for him as my first job out of college and it’s a real “path not taken” for me. But I definitely know (and like) lots of folks in his world.

In the past week, a union leader has been arrested, a U.S. Rep charged with a crime, a U.S. Senator violently handcuffed, and reporters shot with rubber bullets and detained. There is no ambiguity. This is a regime operating as an authoritarian. Americans who believe in liberty must oppose it.

Pretty sure my followers will like Greg's chapter, but the whole thing is fascinating in the best, speculative way, and chock-a-block with great thinkers from all areas.

Many thanks to Abbe Gluck, Anne Alstott and Eugene Ruston for making this happen.

This was a very fun project to join. I got to think about how local gov will be transformed in a world of longer life spans. Think over-represented seniors at public meetings and property tax revolts over the schools.

www.cambridge.org/core/books/l...

At a time when civil rights laws are under assault, it's important to note that this is not novel or peripheral, but a core and longstanding feature of fair housing, rooted in the drafter's choices of who and what are covered.

The FHA asks if there's enough kinds of housing, if people have access to housing prerequisites like credit and insurance, and whether these resources are allocated fairly across space.

While the FHA canonically gets compared to Title VII, it's doing something different-and sometimes more ambitious

Very happy to see this in print--and thank you to the amazing editors at the Virginia L. Rev. for getting it here.

virginialawreview.org/articles/the...

I argue that the Fair Housing Act uses a distinctive conception of discrimination. It questions market structures and not just transactions.

I really love this paragraph, which captures what's both valuable-to-necessary and annoying-to-dangerous about Abundance Politics (as opposed to various abundance policies)

The Right Understands That All Governance Is Data Governance The tech arm of Trump 2.0 isn't just reshaping government — it's consolidating control over the data infrastructure that makes modern governance possible. By centralizing data flows and gutting public...

This is a terrific and extremely important post by @salome.bsky.social

lpeproject.org/blog/the-rig...

To be clear, this eliminates the market-based demand side and market-based supply side programs.

As Russ Vought himself explained, the goal is nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with segregation

Writing this comment is insisting that good research can—must—still inform policy. It's insisting that we still have the rule of law. And it’s insisting that the government must still work for equality. Will they listen? Doubt it. But that’s going to be on them. Not on me.

A final, personal note. This rule is lawless and this administration is lawless. “Why bother” is a fair question—and one I asked myself a lot when working on this. It’s pretty clear HUD doesn’t care about comments here (even if a lot of folks at HUD really do).

But we just can’t think that way.

The comment period is open through today. Let them know what you think.

www.regulations.gov/document/HUD...

As my comment lays out, today, we know more than ever about how harmful housing discrimination and segregation are, and more than ever about how to effectively address them. Yet HUD has chosen to violate its statutory obligations and roll out the carpet for housing discrimination.