11–20 of 22 posts
i never understood how newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there any counter arguments, or just downvotes?
I suspect the downvotes are more about your passive-aggressive reframing of the subject, and also your bullshit "I never understood" opening. Act like a child and you'll get treated like one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so what you're saying is you don't have an argument. i genuinely have never understood the claim that residents of an area are obligated to change it in order for more people to move there and change their existing quality of life
You keep posting strawman after strawman, and that's why you're getting downvoted. > newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there Nobody said that besides you. > residents of an area are obligated to change it in order for more people to move there and change their existing quality of life Again, nobody said that besides you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep posting strawman after strawman, and that's why you're getting downvoted. > newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there Nobody said that besides you. > residents of an area are obligated to change it in order for more people to move there and change their existing quality of life Again, nobody said that besides you.
the entire premise of the article is literally about how those mean single family home owners prefer to keep single family zoning and how the california government is advancing a bill to go ahead and increase density anyway
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Higher density is more economically efficient for local authorities, does less harm to the environment per resident and encourages greener behaviour from individuals, for example discouraging car use. Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer residents.
suburbs typically cost less per sq foot than dense areas. higher density only benefits developers who can now get revenue on the N plots of land they converted from 1.
What?
i never understood how newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there any counter arguments, or just downvotes?
The options are:
1) rent control, plus a lottery or waiting list to determine who gets to live there. This is similar to what they did in sweden, where they have nine year waiting lists. That would be catastrophic for the growth of the city, so it might not happen.
2) allow the market to build new housing, so the rich newcomers will have somewhere to go that doesn’t require displacing existing residents
Of course, if you don’t care about locals being displaced, you don’t have to do either of these, you can make apartments illegal and watch land rents go up and do nothing about it. That’s the choice SF voters have made, up to you whether you think it makes sense
i never understood how newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the people who already live there any counter arguments, or just downvotes?
You’ve got it backwards. The newcomers will come - if rich people want to move somewhere, they’ll easily outbid any poor people currently living somewhere when it comes to finding a place to rent. The existing population will be displaced if you do nothing. The options are: 1) rent control, plus a lottery or waiting list to determine who gets to live there. This is similar to what they did in sweden, where they have…
If California made any existing rental property only eligible to retain Prop 13 tax status by expanding the number of available bedroom units on the property, the rental price problem would be solved almost immediately.
This is about profit for housing developers, period. They can make more money on units on established areas with highly rated schools, instead of building apartments or townhouses further out. It’s no different than the school redistricting initiatives democrat-leaning school boards are pushing under the guise of ‘equity,’ so that more housing can be built near highly rated schools for a higher profit. There’s no nob…
Higher density is more economically efficient for local authorities, does less harm to the environment per resident and encourages greener behaviour from individuals, for example discouraging car use. Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer residents.
California's forty-year "just say no" anti-housing campaign simply cannot be sustained while retaining functional cities, towns, and a state as a whole.
Or to put a twist on the tired argument: propertyowners and banks have no right to an ever-accellerating rate of asset inflation if it renders both society and economy unsustainable.
(That housing is now a crisis across the US, and in numerous other countries, doesn't diminish this argument at all.)
From friends who'd grown up, or watched their children grow up, in California, and then discovered that they simply could not afford to remain there --- with family, friends, neighbourhoods, and landscapes they'd grown up and identified with --- this isn't just about providing housing for new arrivals. It's about housing the population that is there already. Likewise those who've retired and would like to remain in t…
From friends who'd grown up, or watched their children grow up, in California, and then discovered that they simply could not afford to remain there --- with family, friends, neighbourhoods, and landscapes they'd grown up and identified with --- this isn't just about providing housing for new arrivals. It's about housing the population that is there already. Likewise those who've retired and would like to remain in t…
The society and economy in California have become unsustainable because the people who have been priced out would prefer to not have too long of a drive? How is this a credible argument?
The median home price is $800,000, over 10x the median income of $75,235 (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA)
This isn't 100,000 people, an entire city's worth of people, who would prefer a shorter commute. It's 100,000 people, an entire city's worth, 40,000 families, a generation of children, who need a roof over their head, a bathroom, a kitchen, places to study and rest.
Your comment utterly ignores and misrepresents the reality.