3 ms·
And I as well, would tell those who are unhappy with the cost of housing in SF to just move to a cheaper area. By your argument, they have no right to tell peop
by greedo 8y ago
And I as well, would tell those who are unhappy with the cost of housing in SF to just move to a cheaper area. By your argument, they have no right to tell people living there what they can do with their property.
That's obviously not how it works though. By voting and electing people who want to change the status quo, they can tell people what to do with their property.
(edited for typos)
- rayiner 8y ago> By your argument, they have no right to tell people living their what they can do with their property. That's a false equivalence. People moving in aren't telling people in San Francisco what to do with their property. There is a mutual transaction (between a developer in San Francisco that wants to build say a high-rise apartment and people who want to rent it), that is being blocked by NIMBYs who have no property interest in the land on which the apartment would sit. > By voting and electing people who want to change the status quo, they can tell people what to do with their property. Only because Euclid was wrongly decided: http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2011/11/ever-since-euclid.html http://oldurbanist.blogspot.com/2011/11/ever-since-euclid.ht....
- greedo 8y agoTax policy and zoning is clearly telling people what they can do with their property. Eminent domain is clearly telling people what they can do with their property. The problem is that those who want cheaper housing don't have the votes to win on that issue. And if building a high rise damages the value of an adjacent property with no compensation, that's a taking, no?