Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm just hearing about this, but is anyone following the Golf Course vote in Denver? My understanding is that a private developer owned a golf course and wanted to develop it and had some sort of agreement with the city to build apartments, with some being subsidized, and leave some parkland. A vote was held yesterday on whether to go with the developer plan or keep it a golf course and the keep it a golf course plan won.
The Denver branch of DSA supported a NO vote to prevent the developer from developing the site which seems absurd to me. It seems like Denver DSAs reasoning for supporting this is gentrification concerns and wanting public housing. This seems absurd to me because Denver is gentrifying with or without this development and not building new units assures people have to compete for the existing housing stock. Secondly, from the little research I have done, Denver doesn't have an existing coalition that would make public housing at this site even a remote possibility so instead of some subsidized (I know it's not enough) units we get zero. On top of all that denser urban development is one of the best things we can do to fight climate change but instead we have an empty golf course.
My local DSA chapter has done similar things and I feel like people aren't interested in improving people's lives or building actual power but just want to larp as fighting against the "Man". I don't think aligning with NIMBYs is going to accomplish anything. Most of the DSA people I know are white college educated people that are only low income because they work in the non profit sector and in a couple years will jump ship to corporate and buy a house in the suburbs.
I also feel like DSA falls into the social democratic trap of wanting government services but at the same time opposing projects that would increase government revenue to fund these projects. It just seems like a strategy destined for failure.
I voted in line with DSA’s endorsements, with my own research of course. But I voted yes on this even though I agree with DSA’s reasoning for no because I believe the developers will simply turn it into a golf course instead of doing anything with it or allowing people to vote on its plans.
Plus if it does go through, the developers have been in the process of suing the city for allowing a vote on the easement so that could take forever to resolve. Yeah it’ll be another concrete jungle, but the alternative was the developers keeping it unused or keeping it as a golf course and delaying any public housing developments.
The DSA is just very bad at PR because they allowed liberals to make them seem like NIMBY fools, but it doesn’t matter since people voted no at 60%. Now the DSA will need to show its chops or else they’re just annoying removed. They need to immediately release some sort of proposal for constituents to read and understand for the next election.
It’s hard to imagine that the DSA had much influence though.
I think there's an argument that the DSA should not make endorsements on every issue, especially if it's contentious and does not have a clear socialist line. They should have stayed out of this one
I don't think DSA had much of an influence considering all their endorsed candidates lost but it's more the principle of it and having a coherent platform.
I've been losing faith in my local DSA because they opposed a similar development in my city. We had an empty lot right next to a light rail stop and activists managed to kill it because it wasn't subsidized enough. Now the lot is empty and that neighborhood has some of the fast growing home prices in the city despite no apartment development in like 50 years. Ironically the "activist" was a middle aged white guy that lived in the neighborhood and was like the definition of gentrification. Like half of DSA are gentrifiers.