This was an enjoyable conversation and left me with a positive impression of Steve Hilton. I think that, even with his slight cognitive dissonance on local control of housing, Hilton’s position is still leagues above the California status quo. It’s pretty gutsy for a California politician, even a Republican, to project this level of opposition to unions. I would have been curious to see how Hilton intends to govern with a Democratic supermajority in the legislature (line item veto, executive authorities, etc.).
Steve Hilton: The unions are shaking down housing developers using bogus environmental lawsuits. This is part of the reason housing prices are high. As California governor, I would put an end to this.
Michael Tracey: That's great but what are your thoughts on the Strait of Hormuz?
I appreciate your follow ups on allowing density and deciding via market forces, but I could only hear him dodge that so many times before I lost faith he would have interesting solutions.
It’s unfortunate because his points on unions and environmental review are likely sound, but he comes across as ridiculous to me. I do not understand how “pro greenfield single family homes” and “pro yimby” are the same.
Lol what a joker. I don’t live in CA, but I also have a hostility to sprawl that’s not in the slightest about ideology, it’s just about not wanting to commute for several hours every day.
His story about alleged trafficking victim/s seemed to jump around a lot. Age went from 14 to 17 to 12? I don’t know if he was combing several different anecdotes there, but he seemed to be referring to the same case. Seemed schizophrenic to me.
Mixed feelings about this guy. Puts too much blame on ideology in the first half of the interview. For a guy who used to bike in London, now he hates bikes way too much. He even quotes the study on Friesland where they got rid of traffic regulations but with a wrong conclusion: deregulation makes cars go slower, not faster! Which is also the reason why the deaths and injuries fell to zero.
The housing issue is primarily a matter of trust. If you trust that the government will patrol the area and enforce the law, then you're likely willing to support denser zoning and more housing.
If you think that the government will let crime run amok, refuse to address basic quality-of-life issues, and target the people who actually pay taxes, then you'll want housing prices as high as possible and oppose new housing. Similar concerns apply to the local public schools.
Hilton probably thinks that "local control" of housing is the one area where you might peel off affluent liberal homeowners (see the persistence of Prop 13), but that approach hasn't worked out well for Republicans in CA.
This was an enjoyable conversation and left me with a positive impression of Steve Hilton. I think that, even with his slight cognitive dissonance on local control of housing, Hilton’s position is still leagues above the California status quo. It’s pretty gutsy for a California politician, even a Republican, to project this level of opposition to unions. I would have been curious to see how Hilton intends to govern with a Democratic supermajority in the legislature (line item veto, executive authorities, etc.).
Steve Hilton: The unions are shaking down housing developers using bogus environmental lawsuits. This is part of the reason housing prices are high. As California governor, I would put an end to this.
Michael Tracey: That's great but what are your thoughts on the Strait of Hormuz?
“Does that mean the local property owner gets to decide whether or not they build a highlight or the local community”
“The local community, I believe in decentralized power”
I do not understand how you could say this with a straight face and so little self reflection.
“There is only one acceptable way to live it’s in an apartment building down town and you need to walk to work”
Does this guy live in California??? What is he talking about?
I appreciate your follow ups on allowing density and deciding via market forces, but I could only hear him dodge that so many times before I lost faith he would have interesting solutions.
It’s unfortunate because his points on unions and environmental review are likely sound, but he comes across as ridiculous to me. I do not understand how “pro greenfield single family homes” and “pro yimby” are the same.
Overall pretty good, but the sex trafficking stuff was bizarre, borderline schizo
Lol what a joker. I don’t live in CA, but I also have a hostility to sprawl that’s not in the slightest about ideology, it’s just about not wanting to commute for several hours every day.
His story about alleged trafficking victim/s seemed to jump around a lot. Age went from 14 to 17 to 12? I don’t know if he was combing several different anecdotes there, but he seemed to be referring to the same case. Seemed schizophrenic to me.
Mixed feelings about this guy. Puts too much blame on ideology in the first half of the interview. For a guy who used to bike in London, now he hates bikes way too much. He even quotes the study on Friesland where they got rid of traffic regulations but with a wrong conclusion: deregulation makes cars go slower, not faster! Which is also the reason why the deaths and injuries fell to zero.
Will hanania keep Michael Tracey off the next episode so he doesn’t ask F tier irrelevant questions if I buy a copy of his book?
You really shouldn't have let Tracey co-host this one...
"Can a Republican win California?"
OOH! OOH! I KNOW this one!!
Farage should be behind bars for treason: the economic damage that Brexit has done can be all attributed to all the BS the "leave" campaign spewed!
The housing issue is primarily a matter of trust. If you trust that the government will patrol the area and enforce the law, then you're likely willing to support denser zoning and more housing.
If you think that the government will let crime run amok, refuse to address basic quality-of-life issues, and target the people who actually pay taxes, then you'll want housing prices as high as possible and oppose new housing. Similar concerns apply to the local public schools.
Hilton probably thinks that "local control" of housing is the one area where you might peel off affluent liberal homeowners (see the persistence of Prop 13), but that approach hasn't worked out well for Republicans in CA.
you guys