3 ms·

I agree this can be a good outcome, but there’s a big difference between forcing seniors to do this versus letting them opt into it. Especially when hiking taxe

I agree this can be a good outcome, but there’s a big difference between forcing seniors to do this versus letting them opt into it. Especially when hiking taxes does not guarantee that the “magic of the market” will provide a good solution in each case. There is a lot of intangible value built up in a home you’ve lived in for decades with the goal of retiring in it.

jogjayr 8y ago
"intangible value" is the type of thing I'm less sympathetic to. People are living on the streets because they can't afford housing, because there isn't enough being built. Emotional attachments to a piece of property are not more important than solving the human misery caused by the current state of affairs.
- abalone 8y ago
  It's not just emotional attachment. There's a lot of investment that goes into building community relationships and the living space itself that doesn't translate into market value. > People are living on the streets because they can't afford housing, because there isn't enough being built. So you're making an ethical appeal that old people should be forced to sell their homes to solve homelessness. Ok, I'll take you up on that. You've only cited the supply side of the problem. You could just as well say "People are living on the streets because they can't afford housing, because too many techies are moving into town. Young people living in a fun adult playground is not more important than solving human misery cause by the current state of affairs." Now which is more important: helping wealthier people live in a funner city or keeping seniors in their homes? What's the first priority here?
  - jogjayr 8y ago
    > There's a lot of investment that goes into building community relationships and the living space itself that doesn't translate into market value. My proposed solution preserves community relationships. > So you're making an ethical appeal that old people should be forced to sell their homes to solve homelessness Nope. I'm arguing that people shouldn't be able to use zoning to wield power over other people's property to the unreasonable extent we're seeing now. That they can do so is a result of laws like Prop 13 - there's no personal cost to being anti-development. > People are living on the streets because they can't afford housing, because too many techies are moving into town You're literally arguing that no city should ever increase in population - it should stay frozen forever because god forbid, otherwise the neighborhood might change. > Young people living in a fun adult playground What does that have to do with higher rent and property prices? Or anything else? > Now which is more important: helping wealthier people live in a funner city or keeping seniors in their homes? What's the first priority here? You can do both and have no homelessness. Oppressive zoning laws prevent it.

jogjayr 8y ago

"intangible value" is the type of thing I'm less sympathetic to. People are living on the streets because they can't afford housing, because there isn't enough being built. Emotional attachments to a piece of property are not more important than solving the human misery caused by the current state of affairs.

abalone 8y ago
It's not just emotional attachment. There's a lot of investment that goes into building community relationships and the living space itself that doesn't translate into market value. > People are living on the streets because they can't afford housing, because there isn't enough being built. So you're making an ethical appeal that old people should be forced to sell their homes to solve homelessness. Ok, I'll take you up on that. You've only cited the supply side of the problem. You could just as well say "People are living on the streets because they can't afford housing, because too many techies are moving into town. Young people living in a fun adult playground is not more important than solving human misery cause by the current state of affairs." Now which is more important: helping wealthier people live in a funner city or keeping seniors in their homes? What's the first priority here?
- jogjayr 8y ago
  > There's a lot of investment that goes into building community relationships and the living space itself that doesn't translate into market value. My proposed solution preserves community relationships. > So you're making an ethical appeal that old people should be forced to sell their homes to solve homelessness Nope. I'm arguing that people shouldn't be able to use zoning to wield power over other people's property to the unreasonable extent we're seeing now. That they can do so is a result of laws like Prop 13 - there's no personal cost to being anti-development. > People are living on the streets because they can't afford housing, because too many techies are moving into town You're literally arguing that no city should ever increase in population - it should stay frozen forever because god forbid, otherwise the neighborhood might change. > Young people living in a fun adult playground What does that have to do with higher rent and property prices? Or anything else? > Now which is more important: helping wealthier people live in a funner city or keeping seniors in their homes? What's the first priority here? You can do both and have no homelessness. Oppressive zoning laws prevent it.