54 ms·

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

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 maybe they outbid someone else, and someone else is displaced.” “It’s easy to see the problem when you’re tearing down someone’s home. But when you’re not building, it’s hard to see whose home it is.”

ChuckMcM 11y ago
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.
- x0x0 11y ago
  I live in an sf suburb. I talk to local homeowners in the dog park at night and they're all wildly opposed to density, often with a nice core of racism too (I'm white so white people say some wild shit to me; you hear references to "those people" and it's not that deeply coded.) The only thing that cheers me about all the nimbys where I live is all their kids are getting kicked out. Seriously. In 20 years when their kids want a house, it will cost $2.5mm on the low end to own a home here. There will be a tiny handful of careers that pay the necessary wages.
  - mc32 11y ago
    To be fair, lots of people who are minorities who live in gentrifying neighborhoods also tinge their conversation with racism. To presume one "race" should be less or more prone to racism is problematic, as if they are or should be better than they show.
    - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
      People in gentrifying neighborhoods always blame the people moving in for, apparently, bullying the poor helpless landlords into increasing the rent. I'm really not sure how that mindset propagates, but the landlords must love it.
    - rtpg 11y ago
      The situations are radically different. The reason gentrification is even a thing is because of the massive wealth imbalance between whites and minorities. It's not "oh my god these people are going to ruin my culture" it's "Oh great the people are flying in to price me out of my home in 3 years."
  - vasilipupkin 11y ago
    it's not irrational to be opposed to density. Racism aside, density changes the character of the neighborhood and potentially lowers property values of existing homeowners. So, it's not surprising people are apprehensive
    - hueving 11y ago
      'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share' or even worse 'I bought in and if we make more housing, my price won't go up as much'
      - vasilipupkin 11y ago
        No, that's not correct. Character is what the neighborhood looks like, visually. Some people like to live on quiet tree lined streets not in a Manhattan like neighborhood. Immediately assuming they are racist is ridiculous
        hueving 11y ago
        >Some people like to live on quiet tree lined streets not in a Manhattan A.k.a they don't want to share.
      - rodgerd 11y ago
        > 'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share' Nonsense. I don't live in San Fran, I do live in a city whose character has changed. I don't mind that people saw the cool inner city and wanted to share. I do mind that developer put up cheap high-rises with shit sound insulation, and then waged war on music venues, getting most of them shut down. I do mind that rents escalate massively year-on-year so that the hitherto broad range of inhabitants have steadily whittled down to a richer and richer (and frankly less interesting) rump. I do mind that many landlords would apparently rather see an empty shopfront than an interesting store that's no longer viable because apparently the thing to do is year-on-year 30% rent rises.
        mahyarm 11y ago
  - pbreit 11y ago
    What's your point? The parents could transfer the home to the kids. Or they could sell it for top dollar and help their kids out financially. And perhaps the kids might need to live a few towns over where it's not quite as expensive. I don't really understand what your point is.
- hugh4 11y ago
  "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"
  - ChuckMcM 11y ago
    Cool, so when are you moving? (only half kidding) But that is the right answer right? Once they admit they have the flexibility of living anywhere they want then they should exercise that power if the city council votes in ways they don't like right? I get that it is a very complex patina of things that make up change, and when you have lived somewhere 20 years to have it change inexorably makes you feel powerless, but change is the constant. My experience so far in talking with people is that they somehow want to keep things the way they were when they got there, and can't internalize that this merely put a pin in spectrum of change they experienced, rather than stopped it or changed it. In Sunnyvale, it used to be all orchards so most people are living on what was once productive farmland, and by moving there they helped destroy hundreds of jobs of people who worked at the Del Monte fruit packing plant (now gone). So they were the bad guys, and now we have this new set of people who are asking for a denser, less car centric, sort of existence with a walkable space and good public transit. So who are "we", the current residents, to judge "them" by what they want? Everyone wants a living and thriving city. And what it takes to be that changes over the years, people lose sight of that though.
    - megablast 11y ago
      > Cool, so when are you moving? When someone goes back in time and convinces the dev not to make the house.
- wahsd 11y ago
  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.
  - tmorton 11y ago
    The downvotes here are really inappropriate. I disagree with most of this comment, but it's well up to the standards of political discourse on HN.
    - epistasis 11y ago
      Nonsense, it's just inflammatory language unbound by facts, it should never have been posted. > It's really a kind of liberal tyranny... >I bet that if the government had not or would cut off the economic centers in the country from government spending >...only perversion of a manipulated, mutated, and distorted market due to the spike in oil prices... >...authoritarian dicks??? These are not the ramblings of one based in reality or the basis for a reasonable discussion.
- brudgers 11y ago
  In general [1], people who hate developers and/or development live, work, shop, and worship in places developed by developers. Someone subdivided and sold the land. The infrastructure of deeds, insurance and mortgages that makes the contemporary housing markets possible exists because development has and continues to take place. [1]: In the United States.
  - 0xcde4c3db 11y ago
    In my experience (albeit not SFBA), people tend to support development in the abstract while loathing any specific development that is currently ongoing or proposed in their own cities. It might have something to do with the sausagemaking aspects of getting municipal approval and the back-and-forth about who pays for which infrastructure upgrades.
  - Retric 11y ago
    IMO, there is a reasonable complaint that people who live somewhere for 30 years might be continuously paying for infrastructure that's only needed because more people moved into the area. Basically, when an area needs to build a new school to accommodate new people that cost is split among everyone not just the new people. Then in 10 years when they need another school you pay for it again etc. This results in developers being able to pawn off the majority of infrastructure costs. Currently, areas often use zoning to try and limit growth, but that just means whoever get's to build new property get's to pocket the difference which opens the way to graft etc. IMO, the reasonable solution to that problem is simply to tax people who build new property a share of the existing infrastructure costs. (Note: Bonds seem like a way to side step this, but your still splitting the costs with everyone not just immigrants.) Of course there is also NIMBY issues where people don't want change. But, that's a separate issue.
    - joelwilliamson 11y ago
      Are there no development fees in the US? In Canada, municipalities will levy fees on developers to pay for all the new infrastructure. In some cities, this also helps keep taxes low for other residents by paying for operating costs as well.
- gozo 11y ago
  I think people are quite aware of that line of thinking. Most people who live in slightly unpopular areas live there because they couldn't afford other places and now when the area has become more desirable they fear being pushed out. This is an especially legitimate concern if you are renting, since building might very well rise demand more than it does supply.
  - sampo 11y ago
    So they live in an old, bad quality building in a relatively good location. And they oppose replacing the old bad buildings with modern, well build buildings, because then they could not afford them anymore?
    - gozo 11y ago
      It could be, but more commonly it's just a quiet area with fewer amenities for people with more money.
- pbreit 11y ago
  If someone didn't build your house, you'd go find another house! How is that sobering?
  - CapitalistCartr 11y ago
    You're missing the point. If you "found another house", you would displace someone else. Restricting housing below demand is playing musical chairs with homes.
    - rubyfan 11y ago
      Why is musical chairs with a finite resource a problem? We do this with most finite things right, oil, gas, water, food, etc? The supply is usually slightly less than needed, pegging prices such that it's available (not free) at a profitable rate. The problem here seems like people feel entitled toward something they cannot afford and will sue in light of their inability to pay.
      - apendleton 11y ago
        You're talking like this is a free-market situation. It's not, because supply is being artificially constrained below what the market could naturally and profitably support, by overregulation of new construction. We don't take too kindly to all of the holders of oil, gas, water, or food conspiring to restrict its availability to drive prices up either.
        eggy 11y ago
        I agree, it is hard to talk of free-market solutions when there are so many government restrictions and regulations already in place. You can't make more houses if there is not enough area on a give plot, unless you build up, which is not easy to do safely, and inexpensively in a seismic zone. I was born and raised in Brooklyn, and lived in Manhattan later. I had no problem seeking a life outside of NYC when I couldn't afford it. My father moved out of the apartment he was in for over 40 years, and found a new place for a bit more, that has given him a new life and social circle. It's not always a bad scenario. You find your way or place.
- megablast 11y ago
  Ok, all good points. The other side is that they moved into a neighborhood that has a certain number of houses in it, and parks. And they of course want it the same as what they paid for.
  - fixermark 11y ago
    The assumption that a neighborhood will not change over 10, 20, 30 years is never an economically-wise assumption.
  - moultano 11y ago
    I was born into a world with a certain number of people (4.5 billion) and now there are a whole lot more. (7 billion.) I didn't want any more people. Those people are violating my rights. /s
    - marincounty 11y ago
      I get what you are saying, but sometimes it's about narrow streets, sewer systems that are at capacity, water mains that are too small, traffic, horrid transportation systems, just towns that weren't built to scale? Yes, you will find groups of people who don't want new people moving in, or the town they founded spoiled with overbuilding. Bolinas comes to mind. These guys(Basically Hippies) built houses out here when no one realized just how beautiful a small community can be, and just how beautiful it is out there. They designed their little town with only a certain number of water hookups. They were upfront about their desires--they didn't want developement, nor other people. It essentiall stopped all building. As a young man who wanted to build out there, I thought it was unfair; but I can also see the wisdom in what they did. It's just a complex problem. I am sympathetic to people who need housing. I actully belive in rent control. I just don't have a answer. On a slightly different note, I belive we need to end homelessness yesterday. Every town should be required to have an area where people can camp. It doesn't need to be fancy. Just a place where a person can pitch a tent, without getting a ticket, or killed. There can be porta potties, and mobile wash stations. Cops can patrol the camp sites if needed. I don't think everyone will want to live in these primitive campsites. If that became a problem, you could require proof of previous residency. Got off track--sorry.
hugh4 11y ago
That's a rather odd perspective. Does this person also view murder as morally equivalent to contraception?
- dogecoinbase 11y ago
  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.
- gavazzy 11y ago
  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?
  - fineman 11y ago
    And you're going to pay for it? Because there's a big difference in simply not having a latte, and having paid for one only to have to knocked all over your shirt...
    - gavazzy 11y ago
      This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house. My point is that if Person A purchases something, and then Person B says that having that thing taken is equivalent to not having it in the first place, then Person B is ignoring the cost that Person A had to incur in the first place.
      - cowsandmilk 11y ago
        > This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house. You do realize the speaker is advocating for developers, who have the money (typically through financing, which is fairly straightforward to get if you are a competent developer), to be allowed to build the projects they propose. Not for housing to magically appear out of the ether.
nickff 11y ago
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 http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#CITEREFBastiat1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#C...
cbd1984 11y ago
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?
- icebraining 11y ago
  Building houses doesn't prevent building hospitals and etc. And if they are needed, of course you should.
avz 11y ago
Looks like a case of the Copenhagen Interpretation of ethics recently discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855
pbreit 11y ago
Sorry, but destroying something and not building something are not even slightly morally equivalent. And that's the problem with some activists: they are so far removed from common sense.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

ChuckMcM 11y ago

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.

x0x0 11y ago
I live in an sf suburb. I talk to local homeowners in the dog park at night and they're all wildly opposed to density, often with a nice core of racism too (I'm white so white people say some wild shit to me; you hear references to "those people" and it's not that deeply coded.) The only thing that cheers me about all the nimbys where I live is all their kids are getting kicked out. Seriously. In 20 years when their kids want a house, it will cost $2.5mm on the low end to own a home here. There will be a tiny handful of careers that pay the necessary wages.
- mc32 11y ago
  To be fair, lots of people who are minorities who live in gentrifying neighborhoods also tinge their conversation with racism. To presume one "race" should be less or more prone to racism is problematic, as if they are or should be better than they show.
  - PhasmaFelis 11y ago
    People in gentrifying neighborhoods always blame the people moving in for, apparently, bullying the poor helpless landlords into increasing the rent. I'm really not sure how that mindset propagates, but the landlords must love it.
  - rtpg 11y ago
    The situations are radically different. The reason gentrification is even a thing is because of the massive wealth imbalance between whites and minorities. It's not "oh my god these people are going to ruin my culture" it's "Oh great the people are flying in to price me out of my home in 3 years."
- vasilipupkin 11y ago
  it's not irrational to be opposed to density. Racism aside, density changes the character of the neighborhood and potentially lowers property values of existing homeowners. So, it's not surprising people are apprehensive
  - hueving 11y ago
    'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share' or even worse 'I bought in and if we make more housing, my price won't go up as much'
    - vasilipupkin 11y ago
      No, that's not correct. Character is what the neighborhood looks like, visually. Some people like to live on quiet tree lined streets not in a Manhattan like neighborhood. Immediately assuming they are racist is ridiculous
      - hueving 11y ago
        >Some people like to live on quiet tree lined streets not in a Manhattan A.k.a they don't want to share.
    - rodgerd 11y ago
      > 'character' is just code for 'I don't want to share' Nonsense. I don't live in San Fran, I do live in a city whose character has changed. I don't mind that people saw the cool inner city and wanted to share. I do mind that developer put up cheap high-rises with shit sound insulation, and then waged war on music venues, getting most of them shut down. I do mind that rents escalate massively year-on-year so that the hitherto broad range of inhabitants have steadily whittled down to a richer and richer (and frankly less interesting) rump. I do mind that many landlords would apparently rather see an empty shopfront than an interesting store that's no longer viable because apparently the thing to do is year-on-year 30% rent rises.
      - mahyarm 11y ago
- pbreit 11y ago
  What's your point? The parents could transfer the home to the kids. Or they could sell it for top dollar and help their kids out financially. And perhaps the kids might need to live a few towns over where it's not quite as expensive. I don't really understand what your point is.
hugh4 11y ago
"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"
- ChuckMcM 11y ago
  Cool, so when are you moving? (only half kidding) But that is the right answer right? Once they admit they have the flexibility of living anywhere they want then they should exercise that power if the city council votes in ways they don't like right? I get that it is a very complex patina of things that make up change, and when you have lived somewhere 20 years to have it change inexorably makes you feel powerless, but change is the constant. My experience so far in talking with people is that they somehow want to keep things the way they were when they got there, and can't internalize that this merely put a pin in spectrum of change they experienced, rather than stopped it or changed it. In Sunnyvale, it used to be all orchards so most people are living on what was once productive farmland, and by moving there they helped destroy hundreds of jobs of people who worked at the Del Monte fruit packing plant (now gone). So they were the bad guys, and now we have this new set of people who are asking for a denser, less car centric, sort of existence with a walkable space and good public transit. So who are "we", the current residents, to judge "them" by what they want? Everyone wants a living and thriving city. And what it takes to be that changes over the years, people lose sight of that though.
  - megablast 11y ago
    > Cool, so when are you moving? When someone goes back in time and convinces the dev not to make the house.
wahsd 11y ago
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.
- tmorton 11y ago
  The downvotes here are really inappropriate. I disagree with most of this comment, but it's well up to the standards of political discourse on HN.
  - epistasis 11y ago
    Nonsense, it's just inflammatory language unbound by facts, it should never have been posted. > It's really a kind of liberal tyranny... >I bet that if the government had not or would cut off the economic centers in the country from government spending >...only perversion of a manipulated, mutated, and distorted market due to the spike in oil prices... >...authoritarian dicks??? These are not the ramblings of one based in reality or the basis for a reasonable discussion.
brudgers 11y ago
In general [1], people who hate developers and/or development live, work, shop, and worship in places developed by developers. Someone subdivided and sold the land. The infrastructure of deeds, insurance and mortgages that makes the contemporary housing markets possible exists because development has and continues to take place. [1]: In the United States.
- 0xcde4c3db 11y ago
  In my experience (albeit not SFBA), people tend to support development in the abstract while loathing any specific development that is currently ongoing or proposed in their own cities. It might have something to do with the sausagemaking aspects of getting municipal approval and the back-and-forth about who pays for which infrastructure upgrades.
- Retric 11y ago
  IMO, there is a reasonable complaint that people who live somewhere for 30 years might be continuously paying for infrastructure that's only needed because more people moved into the area. Basically, when an area needs to build a new school to accommodate new people that cost is split among everyone not just the new people. Then in 10 years when they need another school you pay for it again etc. This results in developers being able to pawn off the majority of infrastructure costs. Currently, areas often use zoning to try and limit growth, but that just means whoever get's to build new property get's to pocket the difference which opens the way to graft etc. IMO, the reasonable solution to that problem is simply to tax people who build new property a share of the existing infrastructure costs. (Note: Bonds seem like a way to side step this, but your still splitting the costs with everyone not just immigrants.) Of course there is also NIMBY issues where people don't want change. But, that's a separate issue.
  - joelwilliamson 11y ago
    Are there no development fees in the US? In Canada, municipalities will levy fees on developers to pay for all the new infrastructure. In some cities, this also helps keep taxes low for other residents by paying for operating costs as well.
gozo 11y ago
I think people are quite aware of that line of thinking. Most people who live in slightly unpopular areas live there because they couldn't afford other places and now when the area has become more desirable they fear being pushed out. This is an especially legitimate concern if you are renting, since building might very well rise demand more than it does supply.
- sampo 11y ago
  So they live in an old, bad quality building in a relatively good location. And they oppose replacing the old bad buildings with modern, well build buildings, because then they could not afford them anymore?
  - gozo 11y ago
    It could be, but more commonly it's just a quiet area with fewer amenities for people with more money.
pbreit 11y ago
If someone didn't build your house, you'd go find another house! How is that sobering?
- CapitalistCartr 11y ago
  You're missing the point. If you "found another house", you would displace someone else. Restricting housing below demand is playing musical chairs with homes.
  - rubyfan 11y ago
    Why is musical chairs with a finite resource a problem? We do this with most finite things right, oil, gas, water, food, etc? The supply is usually slightly less than needed, pegging prices such that it's available (not free) at a profitable rate. The problem here seems like people feel entitled toward something they cannot afford and will sue in light of their inability to pay.
    - apendleton 11y ago
      You're talking like this is a free-market situation. It's not, because supply is being artificially constrained below what the market could naturally and profitably support, by overregulation of new construction. We don't take too kindly to all of the holders of oil, gas, water, or food conspiring to restrict its availability to drive prices up either.
      - eggy 11y ago
        I agree, it is hard to talk of free-market solutions when there are so many government restrictions and regulations already in place. You can't make more houses if there is not enough area on a give plot, unless you build up, which is not easy to do safely, and inexpensively in a seismic zone. I was born and raised in Brooklyn, and lived in Manhattan later. I had no problem seeking a life outside of NYC when I couldn't afford it. My father moved out of the apartment he was in for over 40 years, and found a new place for a bit more, that has given him a new life and social circle. It's not always a bad scenario. You find your way or place.
megablast 11y ago
Ok, all good points. The other side is that they moved into a neighborhood that has a certain number of houses in it, and parks. And they of course want it the same as what they paid for.
- fixermark 11y ago
  The assumption that a neighborhood will not change over 10, 20, 30 years is never an economically-wise assumption.
- moultano 11y ago
  I was born into a world with a certain number of people (4.5 billion) and now there are a whole lot more. (7 billion.) I didn't want any more people. Those people are violating my rights. /s
  - marincounty 11y ago
    I get what you are saying, but sometimes it's about narrow streets, sewer systems that are at capacity, water mains that are too small, traffic, horrid transportation systems, just towns that weren't built to scale? Yes, you will find groups of people who don't want new people moving in, or the town they founded spoiled with overbuilding. Bolinas comes to mind. These guys(Basically Hippies) built houses out here when no one realized just how beautiful a small community can be, and just how beautiful it is out there. They designed their little town with only a certain number of water hookups. They were upfront about their desires--they didn't want developement, nor other people. It essentiall stopped all building. As a young man who wanted to build out there, I thought it was unfair; but I can also see the wisdom in what they did. It's just a complex problem. I am sympathetic to people who need housing. I actully belive in rent control. I just don't have a answer. On a slightly different note, I belive we need to end homelessness yesterday. Every town should be required to have an area where people can camp. It doesn't need to be fancy. Just a place where a person can pitch a tent, without getting a ticket, or killed. There can be porta potties, and mobile wash stations. Cops can patrol the camp sites if needed. I don't think everyone will want to live in these primitive campsites. If that became a problem, you could require proof of previous residency. Got off track--sorry.

hugh4 11y ago

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

dogecoinbase 11y ago
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.
gavazzy 11y ago
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?
- fineman 11y ago
  And you're going to pay for it? Because there's a big difference in simply not having a latte, and having paid for one only to have to knocked all over your shirt...
  - gavazzy 11y ago
    This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house. My point is that if Person A purchases something, and then Person B says that having that thing taken is equivalent to not having it in the first place, then Person B is ignoring the cost that Person A had to incur in the first place.
    - cowsandmilk 11y ago
      > This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house. You do realize the speaker is advocating for developers, who have the money (typically through financing, which is fairly straightforward to get if you are a competent developer), to be allowed to build the projects they propose. Not for housing to magically appear out of the ether.

nickff 11y ago

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 http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#CITEREFBastiat1850 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window#C...

cbd1984 11y ago

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?

icebraining 11y ago
Building houses doesn't prevent building hospitals and etc. And if they are needed, of course you should.

avz 11y ago

Looks like a case of the Copenhagen Interpretation of ethics recently discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10367855

pbreit 11y ago

Sorry, but destroying something and not building something are not even slightly morally equivalent. And that's the problem with some activists: they are so far removed from common sense.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]