Live data from Hacker News

Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

grist.org

11–20 of 141 posts

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#11

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

The author here is essentially describing the classic 'seen vs unseen' problem which Bastiat outlined in his 1850 essay titled "What is Seen and What is Not Seen".[1][2]

[1] http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#C...

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#12
Is she suggesting that land be taken through eminent domain? Or is she merely suggesting that developers who own land should be allowed to build on it?

Their DSP proposal is so clouded by the political language that it is difficult to determine their true intentions.

Also, I'm quite troubled by their suggestion that tearing down homes is morally equivalent to not building them in the first place. Tearing down homes immediately destroys value; hundreds of thousands of dollars are put into a home with the expectation that at least part of it can be recovered after a sale. A government that destroys homes without taking into account this investment destroys the value that the developers put into it. On the other hand, having the homes not be built in the first place does no such thing.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#13
post #9

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

That's a rather odd perspective. Does this person also view murder as morally equivalent to contraception?

Do you view tearing down a house as equivalent to murder? The syllogism depends on the process in question -- hypothesizing a different version by swapping out nouns contributes nothing to the conversation.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#14
post #5

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here." It is very sobering.

"Then I would have bought a different home, for slightly more money"

But what if there had been no houses built here at all?

"Then I guess I'd live somewhere else"

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#15
post #9

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

That's a rather odd perspective. Does this person also view murder as morally equivalent to contraception?

Next time they're drinking a latte or beer, smack it out of their hands.

After all, having your drink taken from you is morally equiavlent to never having it in the first place, right?

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#16
It's disappointing that this type of activism is only gaining traction in places like the Bay Area. For years, I pushed for more affordable housing in Aspen, but nobody listened even though I was willing to walk 1.7 miles to get to the nearest lift.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#17
post #4

Here's Scott Wiener's post about meeting 2040 housing growth plans: https://medium.com/@Scott_Wiener/want-to-know-why-the-bay-ar... Looks like East bay is falling behind schedule. Here's housing prices since crash peek: http://west.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/hugolefebvre-ch... I live several doors down from the old KFC. I miss the old Sugoi Sushi that was there - but am fine with the new construction. Am lucky…

"Am lucky to have rent control."

You are (party to) using the state to withhold justly earned economic value from your landlord.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#18
post #5

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

I was coming to say the same thing. I think this is a good question to ask of the folks who object to building homes, "What if the people who lived in this town before you moved here had blocked the building of the home you are living in?" You wouldn't have had that wonderful experience you are trying to preserve because you would never have lived here." It is very sobering.

Sorry, that's nonsense. The problem not only in the bay area is the irrational and unnecessary concentration of people. It is quite unsettling to me that just because some people don't like what you do on or with your private property that you feel entitled to impose yourself and your will upon them. It's really a kind of liberal tyranny that is not only sweeping this country but it seems at least the western world. It strikes me as a kind of lower class hacking order / squabbling and anger that really should be focused on the only legitimate and justifiable target for anger and animosity, the wealthy. Just because you and your fellow drones are frustrated that they can't afford to live in the place they want to live does not justify some sort of right or privilege to simply demand it or throw a tantrum about it and impose your will in an oppressive manner.

The real problem here is why this concentration of people and opportunity and economic activity is happening in the first place. I bet that if the government had not or would cut off the economic centers in the country from government spending and made a deliberate effort to inject money into slightly less economically active areas that only need an money injection, the housing problem in SF, NYC, Austin, etc. would essentially evaporate overnight.

Ultimately the real problem is a concentration of opportunities in a few economic centers, which is irrational in and of itself and only perversion of a manipulated, mutated, and distorted market due to the spike in oil prices that have dropped off and the Fed pumping money into the highest layers of society, which has led the little rat and roaches to squabble over the crumbs and droppings of the wealthy all around their hives and layers. You want to solve the housing problem far faster than being authoritarian dicks??? Vote for Bernie Sanders, or really anyone who will break up the grotesque concentration of wealth with a few and in a few places.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#19
Handy hint for people who want to live in the Bay Area and can't afford to: tough cookies. Have you considered living somewhere else?

I'd like to live on a private island in the Whitsundays, but there aren't enough to go around. It has never occurred to me to whine about this fact.

Re: Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

#20

Love this quote: “Most people would be very uncomfortable tearing down 315 houses. But they don’t have a similar objection to never building them in the first place, even though I feel they’re morally equivalent. Those people show up anyway. They get born anyway. They get a job in the area anyway. What do they do? They live in an overcrowded situation, they pay too much rent, they have a commute that’s too long. Or m…

By that logic, we shouldn't be building houses, but hospitals, homeless shelters, orphanages, and retirement homes.

After all, what kind of a monster tears down those things?

Post reply on HN