3 ms·
>And if you're starving and there is free food one block over you go and eat there. Well most people generally want to do better than that, surprisingly enough
by sdwa 9y ago
>And if you're starving and there is free food one block over you go and eat there.
Well most people generally want to do better than that, surprisingly enough.
> The problem is that no one wants to live there because living in dense cities for whatever reason is extremely appealing now
People want a better quality of life, is that not obvious? Not only that but its better for the environment as well. You don't need a car in London, but you definitely do in suburbia.
>The price of a house grows exponentially with the minimum travel time to a metropolis from it.
It becomes exponentially more expensive as you get further away from the city? I don't think that's true, and I don't know what the relevance is to the discussion anyway.
>Blaming home owners for this is very useful scapegoating while ignoring the context.
What context? You've provided none. Home owners aren't the problem, home owners who seek to deny people affordable housing are the problem. It's selfishness, plain and simple.
- zeth___ 9y agoMost people who are starving will eat rats if given the chance. What you're complaining about isn't a human right, it's bells and whistles on top of a luxury. There are plenty of places that you can afford to buy a house. As you've said you don't want to do it because it isn't as nice. So you've gone from necessities to Veblen goods. This is as daft as expecting the government to build gold toilets for everyone because the quality of toilets is so much higher when they are gold. As for your point in suburbia: it's easy enough to build a high-rise anywhere. They aren't being build because people don't want them.