3 ms·

I think it's incredibly ironic that San Francisco, the source of so much innovation lately, also seems to hate letting the free market just work. If people want

I think it's incredibly ironic that San Francisco, the source of so much innovation lately, also seems to hate letting the free market just work. If people want to rent out their place, just let them. Economic freedom used to be a liberal value, didn't it?

ryguytilidie 11y ago
You believe its "ironic" that a group of people whos foundation is "liberty and equality" don't want to "just let free markets work"? Seems like a bit of a stretch...
Spivak 11y ago
I suppose it depends on how you think laws like these developed. There are people who will place value on living in a purely residential area in which businesses don't operate. In a classically liberal or libertarian society (since they agree here) this would be solved by such people grouping together and/or making contractual agreements with their neighbors compensating them in some way for giving up their right to operate a business at their residence. Then people come to the conclusion that making these contracts individually or via HOAs is cumbersome, so citizens and their representatives voluntarily vote on laws which grant their local government the power to zone certain areas for certain purposes like residence and business. This is good in a sense since there is less effort spent to maintain the contracts and disputes of the self-regulated system. But it's bad because individuals cant negotiate with their neighbors for different terms (like if they wanted to run a BnB), but in the past few people wanted to negotiate different terms, so there was more gained than harmed. But the times they are a 'changin and now a non-trivial number of people want an exception but the law is applied globally. So now we're stuck since what should be a discussion and negotiation occurring on a neighborhood level is happening on a city/state level and the current proposed legislation is all-or-nothing. Since it seems that a majority prefers having residential districts it seems like the most reasonable solution would be having an "as long as your neighbors are okay with it" type law where would-be businesses owners can negotiate some compensation or additional restrictions to assuage their affected neighbors. I will agree that an essentially default-deny system is probably less liberal than a default-allow system but I'm not sure how to balance with the preferences of the majority and the economic disconnect between individuals and businesses. In a default-allow system a business could essentially make money by harming their neighbors by being dirty, loud, and disruptive and demand that their neighbors pay for it to stop.

ryguytilidie 11y ago

You believe its "ironic" that a group of people whos foundation is "liberty and equality" don't want to "just let free markets work"? Seems like a bit of a stretch...

Spivak 11y ago

I suppose it depends on how you think laws like these developed. There are people who will place value on living in a purely residential area in which businesses don't operate. In a classically liberal or libertarian society (since they agree here) this would be solved by such people grouping together and/or making contractual agreements with their neighbors compensating them in some way for giving up their right to operate a business at their residence. Then people come to the conclusion that making these contracts individually or via HOAs is cumbersome, so citizens and their representatives voluntarily vote on laws which grant their local government the power to zone certain areas for certain purposes like residence and business. This is good in a sense since there is less effort spent to maintain the contracts and disputes of the self-regulated system. But it's bad because individuals cant negotiate with their neighbors for different terms (like if they wanted to run a BnB), but in the past few people wanted to negotiate different terms, so there was more gained than harmed. But the times they are a 'changin and now a non-trivial number of people want an exception but the law is applied globally. So now we're stuck since what should be a discussion and negotiation occurring on a neighborhood level is happening on a city/state level and the current proposed legislation is all-or-nothing. Since it seems that a majority prefers having residential districts it seems like the most reasonable solution would be having an "as long as your neighbors are okay with it" type law where would-be businesses owners can negotiate some compensation or additional restrictions to assuage their affected neighbors. I will agree that an essentially default-deny system is probably less liberal than a default-allow system but I'm not sure how to balance with the preferences of the majority and the economic disconnect between individuals and businesses. In a default-allow system a business could essentially make money by harming their neighbors by being dirty, loud, and disruptive and demand that their neighbors pay for it to stop.