> If you look at this in broad spectrum, its hard not to draw that conclusion, however, if you look at how the city tends to vote on a more issue to issue basis, or responds to issues like this, it tends to go up and to the right in terms of supporting liberal policies, by overwhelming majority.
Well, the city is somewhat more liberal than the county as a whole, but even there, compared to the state as a whole, I think you are wrong. (But, yes, a +16 advantage for D's over R’s at even the county level is an overwhelming majority to start with; Decline to State even has a two-point advantage over the GOP in the county.)
> Then you look at housing, and they get more right of center to very conservative, depending on the neighborhood (California famous NIMBY stuff).
Compared to other California local governments? Again, I don’t think so.
> Then, if you swing back to issues like water rights, they get pretty conservative again.
>Compared to other California local governments? Again, I don’t think so.
Maybe not, though the Sacramento Metro Region has more land for housing availability than say, the Bay Area, or Los Angeles, in part thanks to being able to build on what used to be massive flood planes by Natomas.
When it comes to augmenting your neighborhood / city laws around housing to make them more friendly for things like housing density, much like other cities in California, they fail more often than not. Mid town in particular wants to keep its "charm" at all costs, and that district of Sacramento pretty reliably opposes any real change in housing policy that would move the needle on this neighborhood to make it more affordable as a result.
Due to being out able to build out though, the region is less pressured on the housing issue than others, but it costs have been rising significantly there none the less, esp. since WFH jobs became more mainstream, housing pressures are heating up significantly again, its why we moved.
With all this said, I would say that in general, the liberal attitudes around other issues doesn't permeate to housing, and thats all I really meant. What you would think liberal leaning town would support around housing doesn't come to fruition, which I think often surprises outside observers. Some of the most liberal areas in California (and the US, for that matter) have some of the most conservative housing politics in the country, as you may well know.
>What even is “conservative” in this context?
Sacramento region, and the city proper, there are lots of familial relationships with farmers because of its proximity to the Central Valley. The city is made up of a lot of people who moved from Stockton, Modesto, Turlock etc. and still have a lot of ties to that area.
They oppose, overwhelmingly, when voting on state initiatives things that limit water rights for farmers in the Central Valley. That's what I mean. Due to the surrounding region and close proximity to the Central Valley, it permeates this upward on state initiatives and politics, based on my lived experience during the droughts when I was part of a campaign to enforce more water conservation practices in farming
Well, the city is somewhat more liberal than the county as a whole, but even there, compared to the state as a whole, I think you are wrong. (But, yes, a +16 advantage for D's over R’s at even the county level is an overwhelming majority to start with; Decline to State even has a two-point advantage over the GOP in the county.)
> Then you look at housing, and they get more right of center to very conservative, depending on the neighborhood (California famous NIMBY stuff).
Compared to other California local governments? Again, I don’t think so.
> Then, if you swing back to issues like water rights, they get pretty conservative again.
What even is “conservative” in this context?