3 ms·
Because the person who has owned the house a long time doesn't have higher income to make up for it, they're likely a retired person on a fixed income. Since y
by Grishnakh 11y ago
Because the person who has owned the house a long time doesn't have higher income to make up for it, they're likely a retired person on a fixed income.
Since you want them to move out so bad, why don't you have the government pay them to move out? I never see these local governments offer to pony up $10k or so for the moving expenses for people priced out of their houses to move out. These people bought a house in a town thinking it'd be a good place to settle down, not that they'd be forced out of their house in a decade or two. It's really no better than forced relocation, which is a form of genocide.
- oasisbob 11y agoI think that's a stretch. Being priced out of a market is not the same thing as genocide. Population transfer is a different thing from gentrification is a different thing from eminent domain is a different thing from genocide.
- Grishnakh 11y agoIt's not as extreme, but it is similar. Forcing people out of their homes is usually frowned upon when it's some Natives being forced at gunpoint to pack their stuff and walk across the continent, but somehow when it's old retirees being forced to sell their house just to pay the taxes and then hope to find a new place to live somewhere, where they don't know anyone and are completely unfamiliar, that's somehow OK. It's really the same thing as gentrification, just that it's a different demographic.