This isn't the first instance of something that can be interpreted as "Off-Topic" because it's a story "about politics" and "they'd cover it on TV news." Yet it hasn't been flagged.
It seems, almost arbitrarily, decided that our collective brainpower is allowed to focus on some political events. But, it's imperative that we're distracted from perhaps one of the most significant political events, arguably in our lifetimes, and that doesn't start/end with impeachment.
Democracy as we know it is changing. TPTB at HN have decided there are other [more capable?] people discussing this elsewhere.
I could beat the dead horse with the well known arguments. I could argue why the current policy is NOT in HN/YC's best interest. But who am I to deliver those arguments.
We know the best way to get to the bottom of an argument is to let the HN crowd have at it.
So I'll leave you with this.
I have a dream that one day the problems of the 99%, our brothers, sisters, parents, and children, that those problems will be as ferociously debated by the privileged technical class as are merits of the fleeting superiority of their ephemeral toys.
Probably has more to do with all the SVers being in California than any double standard.
> "We know the best way to get to the bottom of an argument is to let the HN crowd have at it."
We do? I think that rather overestimates HN's expertise outside the technology field, as amply demonstrated whenever any medical topics come up.
> "I have a dream..."
Launch your own site to do it in; this is HN. The person who is most famous for saying "I have a dream..." worked his tail off to make his dream come true.
What is this highly significant political event you talk of? I read your text several times, but couldn't find where you said what it actually is. Could you spell it out? (I don't read/watch much news lately, maybe I should know.)
Yes, of course. Tech communities are biased to one direction. Not really a bad thing, and its not really a big deal in this case either.
The 1% in California has never been that concerned about the high price of housing. They can afford it.
If they really cared (e.g. they perceived it hurt their business) they would have used market mechanisms and moved their business out.
What makes the SB50 result predictable is that ordinary homeowners benefit from the situation. (e.g. they can someday rent out or sell their house at an inflated price while paying low property taxes.) Homeowners vote more than renters, and importantly, the people who might move to CA if housing were more available don't vote.
Another way of thinking about it is that CA is crazy crowded anyway. I'm thinking of a neighborhood in Santa Monica where people live in pretty little single family homes with pretty little yards, well tended gardens.
In a place like that, people are very affected by what their neighbors are doing and they don't want more.
CA's style of development is also expensive economically and environmentally. If you do build more housing, it will need more infrastructure, and at American rates for building infrastructure it is hard to come out ahead.