4 ms·

> Not a lot of ten story apartment buildings go up in the middle of a hundred square miles of farmland. You already said "The problem obviously being that ther

by shados 7y ago

> Not a lot of ten story apartment buildings go up in the middle of a hundred square miles of farmland. You already said "The problem obviously being that there are people who work in the city and would like to live there". So people who are already there and already have that should give it up so others can have it. Got it. > even though they have a stake A stake for sure, but compared to people who not only work there, but sleep there, go to school there, pay taxes there, shaped it, took part in the decisions that made it what it is? A very minuscule stake. I don't live in the city I work in. Short of them shutting down the roads and the subway, those who do can do whatever they want. Fortunately they seem to like those roads and subway, so there's no big push (that I've seen) to do so.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
> You already said "The problem obviously being that there are people who work in the city and would like to live there". So people who are already there and already have that should give it up so others can have it. Got it. The people who want to live there want to live in a city, i.e. a place with ten story apartment buildings. The people who are already there can continue to live there all they like, but if you don't want to live in a city with all that entails then why are you? There are suburbs all over the place if that's what you want. > A stake for sure, but compared to people who not only work there, but sleep there, go to school there, pay taxes there, shaped it, took part in the decisions that made it what it is? A very minuscule stake. Explicitly because you're imposing rules that prohibit them from having those things, even though both they and the owners of the property that could be used to allow them to do that would like to allow it. > I don't live in the city I work in. Short of them shutting down the roads and the subway, those who do can do whatever they want. Fortunately they seem to like those roads and subway, so there's no big push (that I've seen) to do so. There is a clause in the US Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. It's used as an excuse for them to regulate everything under the sun, but its purpose is to deal with conflicts between regions. If Texas has a bunch of oil companies and wants to enact protectionist rules to impede the rise of electric cars, there is a national interest in preventing them from doing that. It's no different between cities and towns. Everybody wants protectionist policies that benefit themselves at the expense of everybody else, but those policies are net negative for society and the people you're screwing over have every right to try to stop you.
- shados 7y ago
  > There are suburbs all over the place if that's what you want. Not SF obviously, but most places where these debates pop up ARE suburbs. Thats the whole problem. People spend forever finding a place that suits their need, and then others come in trying to transform them into something that suits theirs instead. Which is fine I guess, but I'd be hard pressed to say one side has the moral high ground.
  - davidw 7y ago
    100 years ago they were farmland or forest. Things change. We can't expect our cities to stop evolving.

by shados 7y ago

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

> You already said "The problem obviously being that there are people who work in the city and would like to live there". So people who are already there and already have that should give it up so others can have it. Got it. The people who want to live there want to live in a city, i.e. a place with ten story apartment buildings. The people who are already there can continue to live there all they like, but if you don't want to live in a city with all that entails then why are you? There are suburbs all over the place if that's what you want. > A stake for sure, but compared to people who not only work there, but sleep there, go to school there, pay taxes there, shaped it, took part in the decisions that made it what it is? A very minuscule stake. Explicitly because you're imposing rules that prohibit them from having those things, even though both they and the owners of the property that could be used to allow them to do that would like to allow it. > I don't live in the city I work in. Short of them shutting down the roads and the subway, those who do can do whatever they want. Fortunately they seem to like those roads and subway, so there's no big push (that I've seen) to do so. There is a clause in the US Constitution that allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. It's used as an excuse for them to regulate everything under the sun, but its purpose is to deal with conflicts between regions. If Texas has a bunch of oil companies and wants to enact protectionist rules to impede the rise of electric cars, there is a national interest in preventing them from doing that. It's no different between cities and towns. Everybody wants protectionist policies that benefit themselves at the expense of everybody else, but those policies are net negative for society and the people you're screwing over have every right to try to stop you.

shados 7y ago
> There are suburbs all over the place if that's what you want. Not SF obviously, but most places where these debates pop up ARE suburbs. Thats the whole problem. People spend forever finding a place that suits their need, and then others come in trying to transform them into something that suits theirs instead. Which is fine I guess, but I'd be hard pressed to say one side has the moral high ground.
- davidw 7y ago
  100 years ago they were farmland or forest. Things change. We can't expect our cities to stop evolving.