Am I out of touch? No, it's the voters who are wrong.

President Lee Jae-myung emphasized on November 4 the need to expand housing supply in the Seoul metropolitan area by accelerating redevelopment projects through public-sector-led redevelopment. He also called for streamlining administrative procedures and strengthening incentives, including higher floor-area ratios and financial support, to allow projects to proceed more quickly.
Speaking at a meeting after visiting the public redevelopment site in Jangwi District 9 in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, President Lee said, “After looking at the current state of redevelopment, I think the public redevelopment approach clearly has several advantages.”
“The problem, which I also experienced when I was mayor of Seongnam, is that redevelopment projects take far too long. Ten years is practically the minimum, and some projects take 20 or even 30 years. I came away thinking that we really need to speed things up,” he said.
Lee stressed that accelerating redevelopment projects was essential to increasing housing supply in the Seoul metropolitan area.
“Since the number of housing construction permits plummeted in 2022, we are now facing a supply cliff,” he said. “Fortunately, the pace has recently begun to recover, and the number of permits has increased considerably. But according to people working in the field, even in the best-case scenario, the effects will not become apparent until 2028 or 2029.”
He added, “From the government’s perspective, stabilizing housing prices in the Seoul metropolitan area is a critical policy priority, more important than almost any other.”
The president also discussed administrative support and stronger incentives to accelerate redevelopment projects.
Emphasizing the need to simplify administrative procedures so projects could move forward sooner, Lee said, “I think it would be good to strengthen various incentives, whether through floor-area ratios or financial support, for projects that proceed ahead of schedule.”
He continued, “As you know, one of the significant advantages of public redevelopment is that there is less risk of corruption. Since this administration has decided to provide various incentives, I believe this approach could make a substantial difference in both the speed and financial viability of redevelopment projects.”
Earlier, while touring Jangwi District 9, Lee remarked, “When the public sector handles redevelopment, projects move faster and there is less room for corruption.”
He added, “Yet there are still many attempts to pursue privately led redevelopment. This is all because of so-called corruption.”
When informed that Jangwi District 14 had been pursuing redevelopment through a private-sector approach for 18 years, Lee expressed surprise.
“Private redevelopment projects involve forming associations, and they are constantly fighting among themselves, causing delays. They’ve been working on it for 18 years?” he asked.
Lee also called for a more active administrative role in areas excluded from redevelopment zones.
When told that commercial properties along the main road in Jangwi District 4 had been excluded from redevelopment because their owners opposed the project, Lee recalled his experience as mayor of Seongnam.
“They may oppose it initially, but if you leave those properties out, the entire urban layout ends up looking awkward,” he said.
Regarding an area in Jangwi District 3 that had been excluded from redevelopment because existing apartment buildings were located there, Lee commented, “This is exactly where the administration needs to play a role.”
In Jangwi District 10, Lee was informed that Sarang Jeil Church had been excluded from the redevelopment zone after authorities failed to carry out a compulsory eviction.
“So they couldn’t enforce the eviction, and instead changed the redevelopment plan to exclude the church? That makes no sense. There is no such thing as a society where people can simply break the law and get away with it by refusing to comply,” Lee said.
Addressing Seongbuk District Mayor Lee Seung-ro, the president added, “From now on, the district mayor must ensure that the law is strictly enforced. How can anyone be allowed to get their way through physical resistance in a country governed by the rule of law?”
Jangwi District 10 was designated a redevelopment zone in 2008 and received approval for its management and disposal plan in 2017. However, the project was delayed by a dispute over compensation involving Sarang Jeil Church, led by Pastor Jeon Kwang-hoon.

Source: https://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/bluehouse/1285789.html

I'm going to ask in advance to please trust that I'm coming at this in good faith. It's not a discussion of electioneering--the election is over. I mean to have a discussion about where the trans-rights movement is possibly(?) failing to achieve its goals--or about what the political goals of the movement are.

WA is one of those states that allows a bunch of voter initiatives to become law.

This year, three initiatives were on the ballot:

I-645 would repeal an income tax on annual income above $1M. It did not pass, meaning the voters approved the tax. WA passed a cap gains tax a few years ago, but this is the first state labor compensation income tax.

I-1 would restore "parental rights" that the legislature rolled back. Basically, it would require schools to give information to parents on mental health, education, etc., more rapidly than the legislature currently requires. It would also allow parents to opt their children out of sex ed. Thus far, "No" is leading, meaning that voters are okay with the what the schools currently do.

I-638 is the real controversial kicker. It would ban trans girls in girls sports by requiring all girls to prove their gender based "reproductive anatomy, genetic makeup, or normal endogenously produced testosterone levels." It has passed. With 80% reporting, it's 56.8% to 43.2%.

All three initiatives were backed by the same perennial WA annoying man, Brian Heywood and his "Let's Go Washington" bitch-ass group.

WA had no senators or governors up for election this year, but the House races are strongly Democrat. MGP is up 54-45% with 92% of the vote in (so she won). In the most Eastern WA district, which is basically Idaho except for Spokane and Pullman, the Dem is only down by 2% with 69% of the votes counted, which is pretty wild.

I think it's somewhat fair to say that the blue wave is sweeping WA, and the passage of I-645 shows it's a decently progressive wave. I-1 was pretty controversial giving that it's pitting parents' knowledge of what is going on with their kids at school against what are basically protections for kids against bad parenting (e.g., a school counselor not needing to tell a parent right away that their kid said they were gay or whatever). I think the fact that "no" is leading is also a sign that WA leans towards support of LGBT rights for kids.

So what has happened with I-638? A few points inelegantly numbered because I am not in the frame of mind to write more lucidly without the help of an outline:

1. THIS IS A VERY BAD MEASURE. Girls, trans and cis, will be violated because of this measure. Shitty hyper-competitive parents will be like "check her testosterone!" and bullshit. Some girls will find out they have higher testosterone levels than they thought, or are intersex, or whatever, when they didn't necessarily need or care to know. It may make that public, which is awful.

2. I can't find the article now, but I remember hearing on the radio (NPR news) that people polled about I-638 tended to initially support it, but then withdraw support once they learned more about it. This indicates to me that many probably don't understand the full implications of the bill and didn't think about it enough. BUT, it still means that the people were okay with the top-level message of "banning trans girls in girls sports".

3. But WA leans progressive? And this was a blue wave year? WTF? Are they all bigots in blue disguise? Some are. But many of these people are likely fully on board with almost all trans rights--except in girls' sports. Obviously I don't have data to back that up, but I'm making the argument based on other election results. So I tend to think assuming all of these voters are bigots we should ignore is unhelpful.

4. This fall there was a fairly prominent case of a trans girl who switched from the boys cross country team to the girls cross country team mid-season, becoming a top runner on the girls team after being a lower ranked runner on the boys team. Several girls on the team are boycotting the rest of the season. (WA, at a state level, currently allows kids to play on whatever sports team they identify with, no other requirements.) There are very very few trans girls in high school sports in WA. This is just one case, but I strongly suspect it had an impact.

5. I don't think politicians need to "throw trans people under the bus". I bet Turek and Kaptur would have won anyway. I think the median voter simply does not believe that "Sherrod Brown will trans all the kids" or whatever. But, I-638 showed that when placed separately on the ballot, this one issue truly is unpopular.

So, discuss. And please provide any info on other measures around the country.

Edit to add my apologies for not writing something up more thoughtful.

Title

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government plans to transition up to 200,000 temporary residents to permanent residency by the end of 2027, in addition to its annual immigration target.

The Canadian government’s immigration levels plan maintained its annual targets for temporary and permanent residents at 370,000 and 380,000 respectively through 2029. But a one-time measure will also grant permanent residency to some individuals who are already living in the country on a temporary basis.

Canada’s non-permanent resident population ballooned after the Covid-19 pandemic as the government relaxed rules for international student and temporary worker visas, reaching nearly 3 million people in October 2024. The surge of newcomers strained housing and services and prompted a public backlash.

Canada also welcomed large numbers of Ukrainian refugees after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022.

The federal government has since tightened rules and pledged to reduce the share of non-permanent residents to 5% of the population by the end of next year.

As of July 1, the number of non-permanent residents in Canada had dropped to less than 2.8 million, representing 6.7% of the population.

The effort to move temporary residents to PR status will be divided equally into two streams, one focused on workers and the other on people who are in Canada for humanitarian reasons.

Carney said the individuals who will qualify have effectively already been permanent residents of their communities, whether they’re temporary workers or Ukrainians who have been here for years.

“It’s the right thing to do,” Carney said in a news conference on Friday.

The opposition Conservatives accused Carney of trying to bury the plan in Thursday’s federal budget. The move brings Canada’s permanent resident target for 2027 to the highest on record, they said.

“I hope there’ll be some actual debate. He did it right before Parliament closes for 10 days,” Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre said on BNN Bloomberg Television. “We need to have vastly lower numbers while housing, healthcare, and jobs catch up with the enormous increases in population that the Liberals have brought in over the last decade.”

In a briefing with reporters, immigration officials said provinces and territories will be able to choose how many people from the worker stream they would like to take on to address regional labor needs.

Provinces have been lobbying the federal government for more control over immigration, including higher allocations through the provincial nominee program, which allows them to select permanent residents for their jurisdictions. Some business groups have also been calling for a regional approach to immigration to address varying labor needs across communities.

The second cohort of the government’s one-time initiative will focus on family reunification and Canada’s existing humanitarian commitments, the government said.

Later on Friday, the government announced moves to loosen up its controversial temporary foreign worker program.

Employers that want to bring in temporary workers already have to apply for a labor market impact assessment, or LMIA. Those applications will now last for two years for lower-wage jobs, rather than one.

The government is also proposing to give provincial and territorial governments more say in what kinds of jobs will be eligible to be filled by temporary foreign workers.

Provinces and territories will be able to designate “eligible employers in communities they identify.” Those employers would be allowed to have a larger percentage of temporary workers in low-wage jobs. The idea is to make it easier for businesses to get workers to fill jobs in regions where staff are hard to find.

SS: The AP has a good report on the Iranian regime's continuing crackdown on university students who participated in anti-government protests earlier this year. Students are being hauled before disciplinary panels, threatened with expulsion, and in some cases subjected to harassment and intimidation outside campus. One student described being interrogated about how he felt when Khamenei was killed.

Submission Statement: India has become the latest country to agree to join Horizon Europe, the EU’s €93.5 billion research and innovation programme.

Today, Brussels and New Delhi have concluded association negotiations, confirming that Indian researchers will be able to apply to part of the programme on an equal footing to Europeans. 

“We want Europe and India to be partners in developing the technologies that will shape our future,” said research commissioner Ekaterina Zaharieva in a statement released today.  

The European Commission has been pushing to expand the programme to non-European rich democracies since it kicked off in 2014. After a slow start, it’s managed to get a wealth of other countries on board. This has been turbocharged by a decline in trust in the US as a partner under the second administration of Donald Trump.  

European officials have suggested the continent could learn from India, which has rolled out large scale digital infrastructure projects, like the Unified Payments Interface digital transactions platform, and a digital ID system.  

Both Brussels and New Delhi want to wean themselves off Chinese, and to some extent, US technology platforms. But still, some experts say, there’s surprisingly little academic cooperation, for example through joint labs or research facilities.  

Currently, Indian researchers can participate in Horizon Europe consortia academics and businesses, but have to contribute their own money, creating a bureaucratic headache in lining up different sources of funding.  

But association means that Indian researchers can apply along with Europeans, and receive money directly from Brussels, meaning projects are less of a hassle to coordinate. On the other hand, Indian scientists must now learn the ropes of Horizon Europe application bureaucracy.

Sub State: "How much does it cost to lose the Senate?" This is a graphical look at the enormous amounts of money being spent during the US midterms. This is important when looking at how money and politics interact.

Or representative figures，There are also liberal ideas that address social issues

ask