iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

I wonder how they landed on Evans for the article. There's a distressingly large amount of highly dubious scholarship constructed to affirm left-NIMBY priors out there, but he doesn't do that; his published research is only tangentially related to housing policy.

041

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Seattle is a good one too! It's just all very decentralized, whoever shows up gets to decide that chapter's direction.

010

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 30/09/2026

1. Guardians/Rays/Brewers 2. White Sox 3. field (large gap) 4. Dodgers 5. Yankees (chasm so massive it makes the Grand Canyon look like a tiny creek you casually step over) 6. Astros

030

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

I agree. Of course, if people only ever discussed political controversies they had the direct capacity to meaningfully impact, we'd barely have any political discussions at all.

010

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

I don't have any reason whatsoever to believe San Francisco voters care what I think, so I'm not in a position to do that.

101

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 29/09/2026

Voters are capable of making mistakes, including mistakes of excessive snobbery. I did not say, nor did I imply, that it was not enacted in a lawful manner. I said it was a bad law, and those who support it should be ashamed of themselves

110

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

I am also untroubled by my own preference for local merchants over chains! Obviously that's not an issue here. The controversy isn't about anyone's personal preferences, it's about whether it's appropriate to use the power of the state to force your preferences on your fellow citizens.

110

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

That's a fair rejoinder. It's a close call for me, with similarly compelling arguments in both directions. (There's no remotely similarly compelling case for term limits to any other elected office.)

010

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

I think you should be troubled by how easily you talk yourself into using the police power of the state to impose your tastes on others. It's fundamentally and deeply undemocratic behavior and "but if we don't, an entity I dislike might make money" doesn't change that fundamental characteristic.

120

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 28/09/2026

But if they do, it's because people like them. (I don't think they will, because enough people in SF have better taste than that.) I am quite certain the films of Hirokazu Kore-eda are vastly superior to dreary MCU dreck, but I would oppose a law forcing movie theatres to run them instead.

130

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

I generally oppose term limits for that reason. I'm mildly in favor for President because of the danger in too much power accreting in one person over time. To state the blindingly obvious, there is no parallel worry associated with allowing McDonalds in the mission or Starbucks in North Beach.

100

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

What's offensive about the law isn't the harm it does to some multinational corporation, it's the corrosive, anti-democratic message behind it: "You must be protected from own shitty taste; I, your aesthetic superior, will restrict your freedom for your own good."

130

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 27/09/2026

Pitta was at the meeting! Quoted in the story lamenting that the dastardly Scott Wiener created laws that allow this to happen.

000

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

Ah yes, I see what you're saying now. I don't agree but I see now your position makes sense in the way I thought it didn't. Apologies for the misunderstanding on my part.

120

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

Correct. At that moment, they have 200k housing wealth. As time goes on, they pay down the principle & the value may go up, increasing their housing wealth. It's easily measured real wealth, and the next good reason I hear this wealth should be uniquely tax-free will be the first.

120

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

CA state housing law is providing these people with a very badly needed civic education. No, "democracy" isn't measured by the degree to which the state facilitates your ability to harass and frustrate your neighbors when they try to build a perfectly legal-to-build building.

030

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 26/09/2026

I don't understand what you mean by "problem." The existence of mortgages is a well-understood fact; an individual's housing wealth is still real wealth, even when a portion of it is shared with a lender. What "problem" do are you referencing here?

100

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 25/09/2026

Yeah, I went poking around expecting to find something, probably on wikipedia; a little surprised there isn't one.

110

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 25/09/2026

Good question, not aware of one. Althing and Tynwald as 1 and 2 is a factoid that gets tossed around here and there; no idea what #3 is. (I assume English parliament is up there)

111

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 25/09/2026

STR Bans often amount to (better organized) hotel workers sticking it to the workers in the rest of the hospitality industry.

010

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 19/09/2026

Common sense "shoulds" quite frequently don't happen just because they should. If they're not happening, redirecting towards them counts as a real accomplishment despite the underlying truth of a "in a more logical/less ridiculous timeline this wouldn't be necessary" caveat.

131

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 18/09/2026

I'm convinced Eyman did this intentionally, so he could get paid for running the same initiative campaign multiple times. (Heywood, probably not, he seems like less of a grifter and more of a true believer, and has plenty of his own money.)

010

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 17/09/2026

GOB Bluth is a great fictional analogy for Saka. Lots of grandiose pomposity and showmanship, so little beneath it

010

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

The use of the phrase "the problem" is confusing. There are many problems, not just one, and one of them is that some people seem to sincerely think helping the most anti-trans candidate win counts as taking a stand on behalf of trans people. (That's not "the problem" but it is a problem.)

040

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Again, the gap between the rhetoric and what's actually being done is just massive. Declining to help block the most anti-trans candidate in the race is not a "drawing a line in the sand" on behalf of trans people! That simply makes no sense, no matter how many times you repeat it.

070

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

That characterization doesn't make any sense. "Helping the more anti-trans candidate win when I could have helped stop them" is a pretty incompetent, incoherent way of "drawing a line in the sand on trans rights."

030

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

And also what "you guys" do you think I'm part of here? I'm just a guy who shows up to vote and tries to do the right thing, just as I presume you do. I have no more power to force Texas to adopt RCV (or some other voting reform) than you do.

160

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Or Ken Paxton, for that matter. My apologies for besmirching the name of a fine pitcher and as far as I know thoroughly decent Canadian.

010

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

That's sounds like a fine and good thing to fight for. Gifting James Paxton a senate seat doesn't accomplish that goal.

230

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Absolutely! That's why it's important to vote for the less anti-trans viable candidate. "This is such an important issue that I can't possibly be bothered to do harm reduction voting" is a nonsensical, self-refuting position.

2130

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Voting for the less anti-trans viable candidate in a 2 person race where someone has to win is the precise opposite of "compromising the rights" of trans people.

190

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Very bizarre notion of what voting means. It's a big country filled with all manner of scumbags and idiots, and you usually just get two viable options. If we all treated a vote for candidate X as an abandonment of any values not exemplified by X, no one would ever vote.

1413

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

That's exactly what democracy is. Refusing to do basic harm reduction in politics because there's not a candidate that lines up precisely with your views and politics is just another way of saying "democracy isn't something I'm interested in participating in."

0110

Reposted by David Watkins

Robert Farley @drfarls.bsky.social · 15/09/2026

Every single person who posted “Why doesn’t Beashear DO SOMETHING??!?!?” is either too stupid to be taken seriously, or a lying grifter. There are no exceptions to this rule.

69821

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 13/09/2026

when i do get around to writing about the intellectual foundations of NIMBYism (AND I WILL), I'm going to do my best to sneak Atta into the footnotes, perhaps with an aside about how he's "better known for his later work" (as a rogue mathematician once did w Ted Kaczynski).

020

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 13/09/2026

Over the years, the vast majority commentary that drifted near or into 'Al Queda apologia' territory was just dreary, unoriginal, paint-by-numbers bearded-Spock American exceptionalism. Mr. Maher deserves some limited credit for originality and creativity.

130

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 09/09/2026

This framing implies NIMBYism isn't a bipartisan phenomenon, which is not correct.

000

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 08/09/2026

"San Francisco socialist demonstrates class solidarity -- you'll never guess which one!"

140

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 07/09/2026

Perhaps inadvertently, you've put your finger on one of the most important reasons it's urgent CA curtails bad-faith litigation that abuses CEQA, on behalf of causes that have little, if anything, to do with environmental protection, and in some cases actively work against it.

020

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 06/09/2026

Looks quite sensible. Avoiding sprawling out into the mountains, focusing housing development on an area inside the city, surrounded by housing on three sides seems like exactly where preservationists should support putting new housing.

020

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 06/09/2026

Austin, Auckland, Phoenix, Nasheville, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Antonio are all places that evidently don't exist for you?

0130

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 05/09/2026

I have a certain Carly Simon song (you know the one) stuck in my head now, for some reason

120

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 30/08/2026

My not-strongly-held hunch is that if you remove Donald Trump from the data I'm not sure the evidence would support that claim.

100

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 30/08/2026

One #1, yes of course. On #2, though, if the overpromising gets you into office, it might rational to accept some low approval in year 2 as the cost of doing business, so to speak.

100

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 30/08/2026

But politicians always do that, are almost always don't fully deliver. Can't use a (near-)constant to explain variance.

110

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

I was never more than an occasional 8 rider but watching this still fills me with cathartic joy. Wilson deserves lots of credit, but it's also a testament to the car-brained cowardice of the last several mayors who refused to pick this juicy, ripe fruit hanging six inches off the ground.

0533

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

Based solely on their social media presence: Bainbridge Island NIMBYs seem like the most San Francisco-coded NIMBYs of the Northwest. Not just their comically absurd pretension to be critics-from-the-left of the status quo, but their whole aesthetic, vibe, tone, graphic design choices.

030

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 28/08/2026

The market for "mainstream Democrats suck" takes rewards novelty and hyperbole. She could simply criticize Scholten's petulance and leave it at that, which would be reasonable enough, but it wouldn't get much attention. Gotta go farther than banalities like that to get the clicks and attention.

051

David Watkins @djw172.bsky.social · 23/08/2026

It's Dan Wilson's world, Mariners fans trying to live in it

110