5 ms·

Don’t confuse yourself - YOU don’t see it as an unjust assault, not “people.” The 64% of Americans who do own a home would say otherwise. Also, houses are not

by prklmn 9y ago

Don’t confuse yourself - YOU don’t see it as an unjust assault, not “people.” The 64% of Americans who do own a home would say otherwise. Also, houses are not like stock, nobody lives in stock.

Clubber 9y ago
It seems to me that the group of people with nothing to lose (equity) and everything to gain (lower rents) never see it as unjust.
asabjorn 9y ago
We all need shelter and anything you do to artificially suppress the markets ability to serve this need has extremely negative consequences on a majority of the bay area population. Would it be fair to artifically limit access to other essentials like education or proper nutrition? By artificially constraining supply you are forcing externalities onto renters as well as new homebuyers, and in the same breath limiting others ability to meet this demand with the land they own. For the majority that can't afford the inflated rent you just kicked them out or made it impossible for them to even move here to seek opportunity. I do not see how this can be just.
- prklmn 9y ago
  We all need shelter - I cannot argue with that. However, we all don’t need shelter in the Bay Area. There is a great sense of entitlement in thinking that anyone should be able to move to any city they so choose and live comfortably. Pick a different city to find opportunity if you can’t afford to move to San Francisco. Space is at a premium, it’s no secret. I’m not against development in general, but in the case where you buy a piece of property in an area on the premise that there are 5 other homes in the area, and then artificially, as you say, 3 homes replace what used to be 1 home for a total of 7 homes, I wouldn’t be happy, and neither would you.
  - asabjorn 9y ago
    For the character to change a large percentage of landowners need to decide to meet the demand by building new housing or increasing density. Why is it reasonable for possibly a minority of landowners to limit a large percentage of other landowners from changing the use of their land to meet demand? Especially if a voting majority desire the change in density?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - prklmn 9y ago
      It’s reasonable because that how land ownership works. It appears that perhaps you are not in favor of the principals that come along with land ownership, like zoning. Put yourself in the position of a landowner. You buy a house (the largest investment you’ll ever make) in an area zoned for single family homes. Then along comes a tech boom/bubble and your home goes way up in value. Awesome, you made a great investment. But now the city has become overpopulated and someone wants wants to build a 60 story apartment building a block away from your house in the area zoned for single family homes because people feel entitled to live in San Francisco and change the zoning laws to allow them to build more housing. Well, tough day for you, parking is a nightmare now, traffic is a mess, oh and by the way the value of your most valuable asset, your home, was just halved. In reality if they do start building up the city extensively, the bubble will have burst by the time the housing capacity is much higher and people won’t want to live there at that time anyway, they’ll move somewhere cheaper - just my two cents.
      - asabjorn 9y ago
        Zoning has its uses, but the core of your argument seem to rest on a belief that cities should not rezone because it violates some agreement. I am not aware of any such agreement in law or moral codes, although I do appreciate the sentimental attachment to what was when things inevitably change. Quite to the contrary rezoning is a normal way for cities to respond to changes in needs. You do however have a right to decide over your own land and to negotiate with other interests on changes to zoning rules, and I wholeheartedly support that. Considering that land value has generally risen with density in western society and the economic drivers denser cities have become, I do not think your argument that higher density reduces monetary land value holds up to scrutiny.
Noumenon72 9y ago
You missed his analogy -- he didn't say that people who own a home don't see unjust assault, he said that people who own stock don't see unjust assault and people who own a home should be like them.

by prklmn 9y ago

Clubber 9y ago

It seems to me that the group of people with nothing to lose (equity) and everything to gain (lower rents) never see it as unjust.

asabjorn 9y ago

We all need shelter and anything you do to artificially suppress the markets ability to serve this need has extremely negative consequences on a majority of the bay area population. Would it be fair to artifically limit access to other essentials like education or proper nutrition? By artificially constraining supply you are forcing externalities onto renters as well as new homebuyers, and in the same breath limiting others ability to meet this demand with the land they own. For the majority that can't afford the inflated rent you just kicked them out or made it impossible for them to even move here to seek opportunity. I do not see how this can be just.

prklmn 9y ago
We all need shelter - I cannot argue with that. However, we all don’t need shelter in the Bay Area. There is a great sense of entitlement in thinking that anyone should be able to move to any city they so choose and live comfortably. Pick a different city to find opportunity if you can’t afford to move to San Francisco. Space is at a premium, it’s no secret. I’m not against development in general, but in the case where you buy a piece of property in an area on the premise that there are 5 other homes in the area, and then artificially, as you say, 3 homes replace what used to be 1 home for a total of 7 homes, I wouldn’t be happy, and neither would you.
- asabjorn 9y ago
  For the character to change a large percentage of landowners need to decide to meet the demand by building new housing or increasing density. Why is it reasonable for possibly a minority of landowners to limit a large percentage of other landowners from changing the use of their land to meet demand? Especially if a voting majority desire the change in density?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - prklmn 9y ago
    It’s reasonable because that how land ownership works. It appears that perhaps you are not in favor of the principals that come along with land ownership, like zoning. Put yourself in the position of a landowner. You buy a house (the largest investment you’ll ever make) in an area zoned for single family homes. Then along comes a tech boom/bubble and your home goes way up in value. Awesome, you made a great investment. But now the city has become overpopulated and someone wants wants to build a 60 story apartment building a block away from your house in the area zoned for single family homes because people feel entitled to live in San Francisco and change the zoning laws to allow them to build more housing. Well, tough day for you, parking is a nightmare now, traffic is a mess, oh and by the way the value of your most valuable asset, your home, was just halved. In reality if they do start building up the city extensively, the bubble will have burst by the time the housing capacity is much higher and people won’t want to live there at that time anyway, they’ll move somewhere cheaper - just my two cents.
    - asabjorn 9y ago
      Zoning has its uses, but the core of your argument seem to rest on a belief that cities should not rezone because it violates some agreement. I am not aware of any such agreement in law or moral codes, although I do appreciate the sentimental attachment to what was when things inevitably change. Quite to the contrary rezoning is a normal way for cities to respond to changes in needs. You do however have a right to decide over your own land and to negotiate with other interests on changes to zoning rules, and I wholeheartedly support that. Considering that land value has generally risen with density in western society and the economic drivers denser cities have become, I do not think your argument that higher density reduces monetary land value holds up to scrutiny.

Noumenon72 9y ago

You missed his analogy -- he didn't say that people who own a home don't see unjust assault, he said that people who own stock don't see unjust assault and people who own a home should be like them.