4 ms·

> instead of complaining about what hasn't been handed to them While I understand this sentiment, it's certainly glossing over the opposing view of people bein

> instead of complaining about what hasn't been handed to them While I understand this sentiment, it's certainly glossing over the opposing view of people being kicked out of the homes/neighborhoods they grew up in.

sintaxi 9y ago
Except they are not. Anyone is free to purchase any property that someone else is willing to sell. If you don't own the property you live in then you may not always be able to live there. Its pretty simple. If you want guarantees own the things you use.
- alpha_squared 9y ago
  I don't know if you're aware of this, but your statements are coming off awfully privileged. From the idea that people need to "earn" things, a strangely unique American perspective that you "earn" anything at all (completely pretending that you didn't start off ahead in a lot of ways anyway). To the idea that "its pretty simple" [sic] and that the blindingly obvious solution is to just "own the things you use" - a luxury that not many people can do.
  - sintaxi 9y ago
    I'm sure anyone who doesn't join into the circle jerk sounds privileged to you.
  - chii 9y ago
    but the point is that it cant be any other way. property owners aren't going to do sell or rent below market price. if you're poor, you get shoved around, which has been more or less the same since the dawn of humanity. the modern day of today doesn't mean that changes. not until there's unlimited frer resources.
- eecc 9y ago
  Ah the same old: "it's your fault if you're poor" argument. What's the next one, "poor life choices"?
CuriouslyC 9y ago
I don't think people being forced out of the neighborhood they live in is necessarily a bad thing, if it means that the new residents are paying more to society for the privilege of living there, and thus lowering the tax burden on everyone else. The problem from my perspective is that land taxes aren't sufficiently high. Land should not be an easy, safe long term investment. Land should be something you gain title to in order to put to a highly productive use, i.e. live in. A lot of property in growing cities is owned by foreign investors who rarely (if ever) occupy it. If land was no longer a good investment, this would instantly liberate a lot of housing to be used by people who need it.
- jefurii 9y ago
  > I don't think people being forced out of the neighborhood they live in is necessarily a bad thing I wish my account would let me downvote this
  - ghaff 9y ago
    Gentrification has plusses and minuses. It is one of the processes by which a city improves in various respects. However, in spite of (very imperfect) mechanisms like rent control and caps of property value assessments, an inevitable result of a neighborhood becoming more upscale is that prior residents and business owners find it increasingly hard to remain there.

sintaxi 9y ago

Except they are not. Anyone is free to purchase any property that someone else is willing to sell. If you don't own the property you live in then you may not always be able to live there. Its pretty simple. If you want guarantees own the things you use.

alpha_squared 9y ago
I don't know if you're aware of this, but your statements are coming off awfully privileged. From the idea that people need to "earn" things, a strangely unique American perspective that you "earn" anything at all (completely pretending that you didn't start off ahead in a lot of ways anyway). To the idea that "its pretty simple" [sic] and that the blindingly obvious solution is to just "own the things you use" - a luxury that not many people can do.
- sintaxi 9y ago
  I'm sure anyone who doesn't join into the circle jerk sounds privileged to you.
- chii 9y ago
  but the point is that it cant be any other way. property owners aren't going to do sell or rent below market price. if you're poor, you get shoved around, which has been more or less the same since the dawn of humanity. the modern day of today doesn't mean that changes. not until there's unlimited frer resources.
eecc 9y ago
Ah the same old: "it's your fault if you're poor" argument. What's the next one, "poor life choices"?

CuriouslyC 9y ago

I don't think people being forced out of the neighborhood they live in is necessarily a bad thing, if it means that the new residents are paying more to society for the privilege of living there, and thus lowering the tax burden on everyone else. The problem from my perspective is that land taxes aren't sufficiently high. Land should not be an easy, safe long term investment. Land should be something you gain title to in order to put to a highly productive use, i.e. live in. A lot of property in growing cities is owned by foreign investors who rarely (if ever) occupy it. If land was no longer a good investment, this would instantly liberate a lot of housing to be used by people who need it.

jefurii 9y ago
> I don't think people being forced out of the neighborhood they live in is necessarily a bad thing I wish my account would let me downvote this
- ghaff 9y ago
  Gentrification has plusses and minuses. It is one of the processes by which a city improves in various respects. However, in spite of (very imperfect) mechanisms like rent control and caps of property value assessments, an inevitable result of a neighborhood becoming more upscale is that prior residents and business owners find it increasingly hard to remain there.