4 ms·
Part of the solution will be a realisation that not everyone has a right to live in SF. Just like not everyone has a right to live in Newport. A part, but not
by m1sta_ 11y ago
Part of the solution will be a realisation that not everyone has a right to live in SF. Just like not everyone has a right to live in Newport.
A part, but not a big part :)
- sandworm101 11y agoOr the solution may be to accept that the city owes a duty to everyone in it's boarders and cannot deport human beings based on circumstance. The city could tax the rich heavily, to the point that a balance is struck that both shelters the poor and dissuades further gentrification.
- packetized 11y agoWhat do we do when some of the poor simply do not want to be sheltered?
- knowaveragejoe 11y agoI hate that gentrification has become this bogeyman. It is the effects of gentrification that can sometimes be negative.
- m1sta_ 11y agoWhat makes you think this duty exists? Can any person on earth move to SF and expect this to be fulfilled?
- foldr 11y agoNo, because of international borders. But within the USA there is freedom of movement.
- 15charlimit 11y ago>owes a duty to everyone in its borders No. A local government owes a duty to tax-paying citizens who legally inhabit it. >tax the rich heavily Yes, drive out the people who are capable of starting and maintaining businesses, investing in area improvements, and spending money. That's a good idea. /s
- yoo1I 11y ago> not everyone has a right to live in SF. Ah, to see the American Dream expressed in such clarity in a comment on the internet. /me wipes a tear