4 ms·

> Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? Just to be clear, "move to an area" includes "move out of their parents' house a

> Why is it important to accommodate people who might want to move to an area? Just to be clear, "move to an area" includes "move out of their parents' house and live on their own". > because it serves existing constituents above new ones Because the "new ones" are the kids of the "existing ones", in many cases, if not most. As in, they are also existing constituents.

throwawaysea 8y ago
> Because the "new ones" are the kids of the "existing ones", in many cases, if not most. Do you have a source for this? Personally I don't buy it. But just for a second, let's assume that's the case. Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)? I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  > Do you have a source for this? Non-anecdotal? Not at the moment, sorry. I'd have to go dig. But anecdotally, most of the people I hear complaining about rents (not in SV, various places on the East Coast) are complaining about it being impossible to stay near aging relatives. > Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)? I personally? It really depends on the form the "rent subsidies" take and how they're financed. I do think that thinking of "build more housing if there's more demand" as a "rent subsidy" is a bit odd, if that's the sort of thing we're talking about here. > I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there. Now we're talking about the moral and ethical dimension of things, right? Opinions on this differ widely; I personally do not have strong opinions that would apply in a blanket way, and would prefer to analyze specific cases (i.e. specific cities) on a case-by-case basis.

throwawaysea 8y ago

> Because the "new ones" are the kids of the "existing ones", in many cases, if not most. Do you have a source for this? Personally I don't buy it. But just for a second, let's assume that's the case. Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)? I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there.

bzbarsky 8y ago
> Do you have a source for this? Non-anecdotal? Not at the moment, sorry. I'd have to go dig. But anecdotally, most of the people I hear complaining about rents (not in SV, various places on the East Coast) are complaining about it being impossible to stay near aging relatives. > Would you be OK with limiting rent subsidies to just those who either have provably been residents for multiple years (let's say 5+ years) or have long-time roots (e.g. family)? I personally? It really depends on the form the "rent subsidies" take and how they're financed. I do think that thinking of "build more housing if there's more demand" as a "rent subsidy" is a bit odd, if that's the sort of thing we're talking about here. > I don't think any city owes expansion and housing supply and a re-architecture to accommodate just anyone who wants to move there. Now we're talking about the moral and ethical dimension of things, right? Opinions on this differ widely; I personally do not have strong opinions that would apply in a blanket way, and would prefer to analyze specific cases (i.e. specific cities) on a case-by-case basis.