The kid blew her shofar for 90 minutes straight. She was just having fun but at moments it felt like a true channeling of the book of Isaiah.

For Cass yes but I think Ned is right about the broader point. My hypothesis is that energy policy brings in different advocates targets and esp. funders—but isn’t on the local agenda.

I take this to be about the insertion of energy policy into the conversation, but I'm frankly not sure what explains it. Do you have a good theory?

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.