4 ms·

I don't think that's any more selfish than someone wanting to move into the Bay Area from somewhere else.

davidw 9y ago
Moving to areas of opportunity is about the most American thing ever. Do you think everyone should just stay where they happened to be born?!
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  No, not at all. But I don't see why wanting things to stay similar to when you bought the house is any more selfish than wanting to barge yourself into an area that may not be able to absorb the additional population.
  - davidw 9y ago
    That area absolutely could 'absorb' the additional population. They just choose not to. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality
  - kelnos 9y ago
    I think it's a bit obtuse to suggest that someone who had the luck to be born a little earlier and move into an area somehow has some sort of a natural right to keep others out through obstructionist policies, and expecting them to act with compassion is somehow selfish. But I suppose that's par for the course for the US, where individual expression and selfishness is valued over collective good.
    - asimpletune 9y ago
      Not saying my opinion one way or another, but there is definitely a “natural right” just in the simple sense of physically being present before others.
      - kelnos 9y ago
        How so? All "rights" are manufactured by humans. We would like to say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "natural rights", but they're not: a bunch of people just agree that they should be, so they are. (And imperfectly, at that! We wouldn't have capital punishment or prisons if we actually believed in these rights.) And if we recognized "physically being present before others" as a natural right, I imagine the Native Americans would have a much better situation than they do. Thinking that's a right for some but not for others is the height of hypocrisy, but that seems to be what a lot of incumbent property owners here seem to believe.
        asimpletune 9y ago
        Sorry, I didn't mean to say "right" as in the kind manufactured by humans. I just meant that two people can not be in the same place at once. It's a right in a very literal sense, I.e. it's "right".
        davidw 9y ago
        If only we had the technology to place one dwelling unit on top of another one.
        humanrebar 9y ago
        I agree with you about housing but natural rights exist regardless of legal recognition. Rape, murder, genocide, and slavery are all wrong regardless what a bunch of people agree about. That's what natural rights are. They are things that can be violated by an all powerful dictator. But the dictator would be wrong and terrible for doing so. That being said, I'm hard pressed to call desired housing density a natural right.
        davidw 9y ago
        You're correct: the most important right, if you follow NIMBY conversations, is the god-given right to a free parking spot for your dockless automobile wherever you may happen to go with it.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      You keep talking about "natural right", but nowhere did I mention that. I just said that I don't believe what they're doing is any more selfish than what the people moving in are doing.

Moving to areas of opportunity is about the most American thing ever. Do you think everyone should just stay where they happened to be born?!

s73v3r_ 9y ago
No, not at all. But I don't see why wanting things to stay similar to when you bought the house is any more selfish than wanting to barge yourself into an area that may not be able to absorb the additional population.
- davidw 9y ago
  That area absolutely could 'absorb' the additional population. They just choose not to. https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-costs-tokyo https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12390048/san-francisco-housing-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawbridge_mentality
- kelnos 9y ago
  I think it's a bit obtuse to suggest that someone who had the luck to be born a little earlier and move into an area somehow has some sort of a natural right to keep others out through obstructionist policies, and expecting them to act with compassion is somehow selfish. But I suppose that's par for the course for the US, where individual expression and selfishness is valued over collective good.
  - asimpletune 9y ago
    Not saying my opinion one way or another, but there is definitely a “natural right” just in the simple sense of physically being present before others.
    - kelnos 9y ago
      How so? All "rights" are manufactured by humans. We would like to say that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "natural rights", but they're not: a bunch of people just agree that they should be, so they are. (And imperfectly, at that! We wouldn't have capital punishment or prisons if we actually believed in these rights.) And if we recognized "physically being present before others" as a natural right, I imagine the Native Americans would have a much better situation than they do. Thinking that's a right for some but not for others is the height of hypocrisy, but that seems to be what a lot of incumbent property owners here seem to believe.
      - asimpletune 9y ago
        Sorry, I didn't mean to say "right" as in the kind manufactured by humans. I just meant that two people can not be in the same place at once. It's a right in a very literal sense, I.e. it's "right".
        davidw 9y ago
        If only we had the technology to place one dwelling unit on top of another one.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        I agree with you about housing but natural rights exist regardless of legal recognition. Rape, murder, genocide, and slavery are all wrong regardless what a bunch of people agree about. That's what natural rights are. They are things that can be violated by an all powerful dictator. But the dictator would be wrong and terrible for doing so. That being said, I'm hard pressed to call desired housing density a natural right.
        davidw 9y ago
        You're correct: the most important right, if you follow NIMBY conversations, is the god-given right to a free parking spot for your dockless automobile wherever you may happen to go with it.
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    You keep talking about "natural right", but nowhere did I mention that. I just said that I don't believe what they're doing is any more selfish than what the people moving in are doing.