Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson on the abundance agenda and liberals - Housing 🏠, Energy ⚡️, Infrastructure 🚊, Transportation 🛣️, etc

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,942
Reputation
-34,080
Daps
635,193
Reppin
The Deep State

Can the ‘Abundance Agenda’ Save the Democrats?

Dispirited liberals are embracing—and feuding over—a new book’s call for cutting red tape

Molly BallJune 1, 2025 at 5:00 am
A recent ‘Abundance Happy Hour’ in San Francisco featured a taping of a podcast whose guests have included prominent Democratic politicians.
The party’s postelection angst has found an unexpected life raft in the idea of “abundance,” catalyzed by the recent publication of a book by that name that argues that regulatory obstacles and an obsession with procedure have caused liberal governance to fail to deliver on its promises.

Democratic politicians are rushing to embrace the new mantra. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis have all name-checked it publicly. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker discussed it at length in his recent 25-hour Senate speech. Former Vice President Kamala Harris and the U.S. Senate’s Democratic caucus are among the many politicians who have recently sought the authors’ counsel. Not one but two congressional caucuses have recently formed to push legislation advancing the ideas laid out in the book.

It isn’t just party elders who have bought into the idea. Local Abundance clubs have formed in multiple cities and on college campuses. At a recent “Abundance Happy Hour” in San Francisco’s Mission district, hundreds gathered on a weeknight this month to mingle with fellow devotees. Banners at the gathering read “BUILD AMERICA. DEFEAT FASCISM.”


Connor Skelly, 35, the COO of a residential remodeling company, said he was drawn to the ideas of “Abundance” because he wants his four children to be able to afford to live in San Francisco. “I think Democrats are looking for something to be for right now,” he said. “With Trump, there’s so much to be against. People are looking for something positive to be excited about.”

The book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson has been a surprise hit, with a sold-out national tour, hundreds of thousands of copies sold and two months on the bestseller list since its release in March.

The policy tome argues that Democrats must grapple with—and shoulder some blame for—the fact that blue states like California are mired in high-price stagnation, while red states such as Texas and Florida offer a dynamism and quality of life that keep attracting new residents. Regulations intended to protect consumers, communities and the environment, they say, have metastasized to create an administrative regime that prevents anything from getting built, from high-speed rail projects to housing.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently hosted Klein on his podcast for an in-depth 90-minute discussion, where he waxed somewhat defensive about the way the book depicts his state as Exhibit A for Democratic dysfunction; Newsom nonetheless proclaimed the book “essential reading for Democrats” and said he has been handing out copies to the leaders of the state legislature.


While Klein and Thompson’s diagnosis has echoes in conservative critiques of government and Elon Musk’s DOGE, the authors’ prescription is very different. Instead of taking a wrecking ball to the bureaucracy, the authors propose cutting red tape and unleashing the state as a stimulant to growth and innovation.

“The system is broken. The government is too inefficient and ineffective to meet the challenges of the 21st century,” Rep. Ritchie Torres (D., N.Y.) recently wrote on X. “But the answer is not DOGE. It is ABUNDANCE.”

As Democrats grope for a way forward in the wake of their 2024 election loss, advocates hope the party can present a new vision for the future by embracing the book’s call to streamline housing, transit, energy and scientific research.

“I want the 2028 primaries and the presidential race to be about who is for progressive abundance,” Steve M. Boyle, one of the San Francisco happy hour’s organizers and the executive director of the newly formed YIMBY Democrats for America, said in an interview. Proving that government can improve people’s lives, he argued, is the only way to prevent voters from turning to authoritarian strongmen.

The Abundance movement cuts across the party’s ideological fissures, attracting support from elements of the moderate establishment and the socialist left alike. “Look, I’m for Medicare for all and taxing billionaires more, but I also want effective government to make sure when we pass those things it actually works,” said Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Calif.), a progressive ally of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.).

The book’s call to action has helped popularize and accelerate a movement that’s been brewing for a decade among policy experts and activists. “YIMBY,” or “yes in my backyard,” activists have pushed for housing reform across the country over the past decade and have become a political force in California. An Abundance conference in Washington last November drew 300 participants.


“The book has given voice to a feeling that people have had for a while—that it’s just too hard to build things,” said Rep. Josh Harder (D., Calif.), a swing-district moderate who recently launched the Build America Caucus on Capitol Hill. The 30-member bipartisan group hopes to push for policies such as permitting reform for energy transmission.


Among those in attendance at the Abundance happy hour was Nancy Tung, the chairwoman of the San Francisco Democratic Party, who said the book offers an answer to recent political backlash to perceived progressive overreach. Tung was part of a slate of self-styled moderates who won a majority on the party’s publicly elected central committee last spring. Rank-and-file voters want to see “results, not renaming schools,” she said.

“It’s the only really new, original thing happening on the left,” said Noah Smith, a center-left economics blogger cited as one of the movement’s intellectual leaders. Democrats, he said, should embrace abundance as a counterargument to President Trump’s zero-sum vision of restricted trade and immigration.

In her short-lived 2024 campaign, Harris’s promise to build 3 million new homes in America was the best-testing of her proposals, according to both her campaign and Trump’s. A “Yimbys for Harris” Zoom fundraiser drew 30,000 participants and raised more than $130,000.

To be sure, “Abundance” has enemies on the left, who have attacked the book in many essays, podcasts and book reviews. Critics argue the authors are blind to—or stooges of—the corporate power that is the true culprit for the problems the book lays out. Abundance, Aaron Regunberg and David Sirota argued recently in Rolling Stone, “encourages Democrats to focus on the wrong solutions, and elevates deregulatory narratives already being weaponized by the right.”

But Abundance proponents say making government more effective and limiting corporate power aren’t mutually exclusive. They argue that their platform is a route to the hearts of working-class voters, who may not follow politics closely but believe that rents are too high and progress too slow. They also hope it can help Democrats win back young voters by explicitly renouncing the prior generation’s failures.


The book’s authors, Thompson and Klein, said in interviews they hoped to galvanize a political movement but never dreamed it would catch on the way it has. Originally slated to come out last year, the book’s release was delayed by the authors’ procrastination—a delay that ended up being fortuitous when it landed the release in the middle of Democrats’ postelection soul-searching.

Klein said it was telling that so many Democratic pols intuitively grasped the book’s message. “I didn’t write a book that’s substantially about zoning reform and state capacity and think, ‘We’re headed to No. 1, baby,’” he joked. “When a book like this hits, it’s because it’s creating a way for people to have a conversation that they already wanted to have.”
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,942
Reputation
-34,080
Daps
635,193
Reppin
The Deep State
Hey nap if deregulation is so great why do we see higher cancer and asthma rates for Black people in places like Louisiana?
whats this have to do with housing?

health and building codes are different from zoning laws

You progressives are quick to leap on a hair trigger when you hear “deregulation” and not “pro-housing policies"

Regulations aren’t good or bad. They are tools.
 

Wargames

One Of The Last Real Ones To Do It
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
28,781
Reputation
6,208
Daps
109,215
Reppin
New York City
Part of the reason we are seeing growth in texas are the 4 major cities are not too far from each other meaning the suburbs in between these areas can grown since people can buy a house an hour away from a major city and just commute to the city if needed, plus the rise of Amazon for delivery of goods. They are literally building highways to do this

California could maybe copy this model but I think the have significant roads and would have to ignore their higher environmental standards to build these places out. texas doesn’t give a fukk. As for NYC and NJ I don’t think they have the physical properties to make building new homes a significant goal. Also worse winter weather makes the prospects of living an hour from a city by car not as viable to benefit from in the winter months. Maybe if Hochul could try and build up westchester as an alternative hub above NYC but I think in the end it would take a better understanding of reality than most people understand.

The idea of abundance is great, but it’s not Universal. This could work in California but it’s not designed for NYC where honestly we been building new apartment and it doesn’t matter because of the influx of gentrifiers. NYC would be better off creating co-ops as a form of affordable housing And a lot of that could be done by converting homes already owned by private entities instead of building new ones.
 

Loose

Retired Legend
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
50,369
Reputation
3,042
Daps
145,096
Part of the reason we are seeing growth in texas are the 4 major cities are not too far from each other meaning the suburbs in between these areas can grown since people can buy a house an hour away from a major city and just commute to the city if needed, plus the rise of Amazon for delivery of goods. They are literally building highways to do this

California could maybe copy this model but I think the have significant roads and would have to ignore their higher environmental standards to build these places out. texas doesn’t give a fukk. As for NYC and NJ I don’t think they have the physical properties to make building new homes a significant goal. Also worse winter weather makes the prospects of living an hour from a city by car not as viable to benefit from in the winter months. Maybe if Hochul could try and build up westchester as an alternative hub above NYC but I think in the end it would take a better understanding of reality than most people understand.

The idea of abundance is great, but it’s not Universal. This could work in California but it’s not designed for NYC where honestly we been building new apartment and it doesn’t matter because of the influx of gentrifiers. NYC would be better off creating co-ops as a form of affordable housing And a lot of that could be done by converting homes already owned by private entities instead of building new ones.
This whole project basically is Cali versus texas and doesn't really apply anywhere else in the United states which is my issue with this brand of neoliberalism
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,942
Reputation
-34,080
Daps
635,193
Reppin
The Deep State
Abundance is winning :mjgrin:

After half a century, California legislators on the verge of overhauling a landmark environmental law​

May 31, 2025

Construction on a 48-unit apartment building at Crenshaw Boulevard and 54th Street in Los Angeles near the Metro K line in November.
(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)
When a landmark state environmental law threatened to halt enrollment at UC Berkeley, legislators stepped in and wrote an exemption. When the Sacramento Kings were about to leave town, lawmakers brushed the environmental rules asidefor the team’s new arena. When the law stymied the renovation of the state Capitol, they acted once again.
Lawmakers’ willingness to poke holes in the California Environmental Quality Act for specific projects without overhauling the law in general has led commentators to describe the changes as “Swiss cheese CEQA.”
Now, after years of nibbling at it, Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature are going in with the knives.

Two proposals have advanced rapidly through the Legislature: one to wipe away the law for most urban housing developments, the other to weaken the rules for most everything else. Legal experts say the efforts would be the most profound changes to CEQA in generations. Newsom not only endorsed the bills last month, but also put them on a fast track to approval by proposing their passage as part of the state budget, which bypasses normal committee hearings and means they could become law within weeks.
“This is the biggest opportunity to do something big and bold, and the only impediment is us,” Newsom said when announcing his support for the legislation.

Nearly the entire 55-year history of the California Environmental Quality Act has featured dueling narratives about its effects. On its face the law is simple: It requires proponents to disclose and, if possible, lessen the environmental effects of a project. In practice, this has led to tomes of environmental impact reports, including volumes of soil testing and traffic modeling studies, and sometimes years of disputes in court. Many credit CEQA for helping preserve the state’s scenic vistas and waterways while others decry its ability to thwart housing and infrastructure projects, including the long-delayed and budget-busting high-speed rail.
On the latter point, evidence supports both sides of the argument. One study by UC Berkeley law professors found that fewer than 3% of housing projects in many big cities across the state over a three-year period faced any litigation. But some contend that the threat of a lawsuit is enough to chill development, and examples continue to pile up of CEQA stalling construction of homeless shelters, a food bank and child-care center.
What’s clear is that CEQA has become embedded as a key point of leverage in California’s development process. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass once recalledthat when she worked as a community organizer in the 1990s, Westside land-use attorneys who were successful in stopping development in their communities taught her how to use CEQA to block liquor stores in South L.A.
Organized labor learned to use the law to its advantage and became one of its most ardent supporters, alongside environmentalists — major constituencies within Democratic politics in the state. Besides carve-outs for individual projects in recent years, lawmakers have passed CEQA streamlining for certain kinds of housing and other developments. These fast-track measures can be used only if proponents agree to pay higher wages to construction workers or set aside a portion of the project for low-income housing on land considered the least environmentally sensitive.

Labor groups’ argument is simple, said Pete Rodriguez, vice president-Western District of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners: CEQA exemptions save time and money for developers, so some benefit should go to workers.

“When you expedite the process and you let a developer get the TSA pass, for example, to get quicker through the line at the airport, there should be labor standards attached to that as well,” Rodriguez said at a Los Angeles Business Council panel in April.

The two bills now under debate — Assembly Bill 609 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Senate Bill 607 by Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) — break with that tradition. They propose broad CEQA changes without any labor or other requirements.

Wicks’ bill would exempt most urban housing developments from CEQA. Wiener’s legislation, among other provisions, would in effect lessen the number of projects, housing and otherwise, that would need to complete a full environmental review, narrowing the law’s scope.

“Both are much, much more far-reaching than anything that has been proposed in living memory to deal with CEQA,” said Chris Elmendorf, a UC Davis law professor who tracks state environmental and housing legislation.

The legislation wouldn’t have much of an effect on rebuilding after L.A.’s wildfires, as single-family home construction is exempt and Newsom already waived other parts of the law by executive order.
The environment inside and outside the Legislature has become friendlier to more aggressive proposals. “Abundance,” a recent book co-written by New York Times opinion writer Ezra Klein, makes the case that CEQA and other laws supported by Democrats have hamstrung the ability to build housing and critical infrastructure projects, citing specifically California’s affordability crisis and challenges with high-speed rail, in ways that have stifled the American Dream and the party’s political fortunes.

The idea has become a cause celebre in certain circles. Newsom invited Klein onto his podcast. This spring, Klein met with Wicks and Wiener and other lawmakers, including Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) and Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg), the leaders of the state Assembly and Senate, respectively.
Wicks and Wiener are veteran legislators and former chairs of legislative housing committees who have written much of the prior CEQA streamlining legislation. Even though it took bruising battles to pass previous bills, the resulting production hasn’t come close to resolving the state’s shortage, Wicks said.

“We need housing on a massive scale,” Wicks said.

To opponents of the bills, including dozens of environmental and labor groups, the effort misplaces the source of building woes and instead would restrict one of the few ways community groups can shape development.

Asha Sharma, state policy manager for Leadership Counsel for Justice & Accountability, said her organization uses CEQA to reduce the polluting effects of projects in neighborhoods already overburdened by environmental problems.

The proposed changes would empower public agencies and developers at the expense of those who would be affected by their decisions, she said.

“What folks aren’t realizing is that along with the environmental regulations comes a lot of public transparency and public engagement,” said Sharma, whose group advocates for low-income Californians in rural areas. “When you’re rolling back CEQA, you’re rolling back that too.”

Because of the hefty push behind the legislation, Sharma expects the bills will be approved in some form. But it remains uncertain how they might change. Newsom, the two lawmakers and legislative leaders are negotiating amendments.

Wicks said her bill will not require developers to reserve part of their projects for low-income housing to receive a CEQA exemption; cities can mandate that on their own, she said. Wicks indicated, however, that labor standards could be part of a final deal, saying she’s “had some conversations in that regard.”

Wiener’s bill was gutted in a legislative fiscal committee last month, with lawmakers saying they wanted to meet infrastructure and affordability needs “without compromising environmental protections.” Afterward, Wiener and McGuire, the Senate leader, released a joint statement declaring their intent to pass a version of the legislation as part of the budget, as the governor had proposed.

Wiener remained committed to the principles in his initial bill.

“What I can say is that I’m highly optimistic that we will pass strong changes to CEQA that will make it easier and faster to deliver all of the good things that make Californians’ lives better and more affordable,” Wiener said.

Should the language in the final deal be anything like what’s been discussed, the changes to CEQA would be substantial, said Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment. Still, he said the law’s effects on housing development were overblown. Many other issues, such as local zoning restrictions, lack of funding and misaligned tax incentives, play a much larger role in limiting construction long before projects can even get to the point where CEQA becomes a concern, he said.
“CEQA is the last resort of a NIMBY,” said Elkind, referring to residents who try to block housing near them. “It’s almost like we’re working backwards here.”

Wicks agreed that the Legislature would have to do more to strip away regulations that make it harder to build housing. But she argued that the CEQA changes would take away a major barrier: the uncertainty developers face from legal threats.

Passing major CEQA reforms would demonstrate lawmakers’ willingness to tackle some of the state’s toughest challenges, she said.

“It sends a signal to the world that we’re ready to build,” Wicks said.
 

Wargames

One Of The Last Real Ones To Do It
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
28,781
Reputation
6,208
Daps
109,215
Reppin
New York City

This guy is such a fukking hack…. Like he is being lined up for party leadership by AIPAC but he sucks. They gonna give him a ton of money to run for Governor and try to have him flood other races with it as a quid pro quo so he can have influence over the party, but he’s just a tool.
 

Wargames

One Of The Last Real Ones To Do It
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
28,781
Reputation
6,208
Daps
109,215
Reppin
New York City
This whole project basically is Cali versus texas and doesn't really apply anywhere else in the United states which is my issue with this brand of neoliberalism
Exactly, it’s all rebranding, based on a Localized California/Texas situation. It’s a bad attempt at convincing people in the middle the Neo liberal democratic policies will give them what they want….. by ignoring the level of Nimbyism all across America when dealing with housing policies on the local level.
 
Last edited:

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
328,942
Reputation
-34,080
Daps
635,193
Reppin
The Deep State
Exactly, it’s all rebranding, based on a Localized California/Texas situation. It’s a bad attempt at convincing people in the middle the Neo liberal democratic policies will give them what they want….. by ignoring the level of Nimbyism all across America when dealing with housing policies on the local level.


GsfeMPbW0AEFUpZ
 
Top