Cea Weaver

Sorry Cea, I should have saved that one for a thread because the connection isn't obvious or commonly discussed. But basically it's about a core assumption about what is more important to our economies: private property (real estate) to privately financialize or full employment.

seems to me you are confusing a problem of local government project in general (everything funded by property taxes means that land values have to go up for school funding to go up, etc) with a question of what participatory land use policy should look like

ULURP is just a community engagement process. absent a plan i suppose it's a terrain on which organized groups compete to get resources for their interests (more affordable housing, capital $$ for NYCHA, etc)

but even if we were a lot more comfortable with municipal/state debt (NYCHA? lol) we would still need a democratic public engagement process for land use decisions. so maybe you have a problem with whether or not ULURP is THAT, but still don't grasp the MMT connection.

The connection lies in the very first step (developer proposal), which prioritizes private developer & investor choices from the start, thereby discouraging the public from investing more time and energy into fighting the proposal. I'd like to add many steps before step 1.

yeah but that to me still is here:https://twitter.com/ceaweaver/status/1471869259907272711?s=20 …

i mean i think i basically agree with you re: the municipal debt and public projects but i don't agree that it really has anything to do w ULURP

Ah ok I see. So here's one example of something I have in mind: flip the order of steps of the process by having the city proactively fund local public engagement processes before any specific developer app is submitted to build more local political power over the developer.