3 ms·

I like your framing of the question, "Do we have a moral obligation to make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people? I disagree th

by imh 10y ago

I like your framing of the question, "Do we have a moral obligation to make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people? I disagree that the answer is yes. Some places are desirable precisely because of their lack of density, and making them denser (a.k.a. less desirable) seems like the wrong answer. There's still plenty of space elsewhere. This is most often derided as NIMBYism, but I don't agree. We could instead focus on making other locations more favorable.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
Devil's advocate: So why not kick out tech workers instead? What makes us so special? Because of the Facebook/Google/Apple lottery?
- imh 10y ago
  Honestly, I feel like the market works. If you want to sell your home, you sell it to the highest bidder. If I want a spacious home, I have to compete with everyone else who wants one. If I had the money for it, I might buy a 2000 square foot home in SF, but I don't and that's ok with me. It doesn't feel unfair. Because I would like something like that, I'll end up moving somewhere cheaper in a few years. I'm 100% ok with that dynamic. I feel like changing the landscape for the people who are already there just because I can't afford it is the wrong solution. They settled down there because they like it, and I'd rather move than ruin it just so I can stay. There tons of second order effects, and I'm not arguing for a complete "let the market decide all things" libertarian stance or a "don't ever change things" stance either, but I don't like the other extreme either, where we are willing to discard the character of a place because jobs are dense there. I don't really know what I'm rambling about now, I just don't agree with the extreme of "make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people." I'm happy to be priced out of places were I would love to live, and prefer that to the alternative of making them places I wouldn't want to live, I guess?

by imh 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

Devil's advocate: So why not kick out tech workers instead? What makes us so special? Because of the Facebook/Google/Apple lottery?

imh 10y ago
Honestly, I feel like the market works. If you want to sell your home, you sell it to the highest bidder. If I want a spacious home, I have to compete with everyone else who wants one. If I had the money for it, I might buy a 2000 square foot home in SF, but I don't and that's ok with me. It doesn't feel unfair. Because I would like something like that, I'll end up moving somewhere cheaper in a few years. I'm 100% ok with that dynamic. I feel like changing the landscape for the people who are already there just because I can't afford it is the wrong solution. They settled down there because they like it, and I'd rather move than ruin it just so I can stay. There tons of second order effects, and I'm not arguing for a complete "let the market decide all things" libertarian stance or a "don't ever change things" stance either, but I don't like the other extreme either, where we are willing to discard the character of a place because jobs are dense there. I don't really know what I'm rambling about now, I just don't agree with the extreme of "make housing as accessible as it could be for the largest number of people." I'm happy to be priced out of places were I would love to live, and prefer that to the alternative of making them places I wouldn't want to live, I guess?