4 ms·

At least we're not getting evicted. To me the evictions dwarf every other concern. It's a result that's straightforwardly inhumane, and I don't think any reas

At least we're not getting evicted. To me the evictions dwarf every other concern. It's a result that's straightforwardly inhumane, and I don't think any reasonable person would disagree. Personally, I'm inclined to blame NIMBY San Francisco homeowners for this, but of course they would blame me and other "tech bros" for moving here. In the meantime, those hardest hit, low-income renters, are a member of neither bickering party.

forrestthewoods 7y ago
Evicting someone who doesn’t pay rent is definitely not inhumane. Prices changing alongside supply and demand is not inhumane. Policies which artificially constrain supply for no good reason? I’ll agree that’s inhumane.
- doublement 7y ago
  > Prices changing alongside supply and demand is not inhumane. It is. It is inhumane. I agree with you that policies which artificially constrain the supply bear much of the blame, but an outcome can be inhumane in and of itself, even if it emerges from "supply and demand". People getting thrown out of their homes because the value of their labor no longer covers the cost of their dwelling is bad.
  - bandrami 7y ago
    So you're saying the value of housing stock should not appreciate? That's going to be a tough sell to its owners. If we want housing to be an investment, we have to acknowledge it's going to rise in value faster than inflation (otherwise it's a crap investment), which means it won't be affordable. Conversely, if we want housing to be affordable, it cannot rise in value faster than inflation, which means it can't be a good investment. As Charles Marohn says, it's not even a "problem", in that problems have solutions. It's a predicament.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      > If we want housing to be an investment That seems to be the problem at its core.
      - bandrami 7y ago
        I agree, but the word hasn't gotten out very well.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - winfred 7y ago
      It's called "housing", seems to me that the core functionality is to house, not to gain wealth. We might have comingled it with investing, but there's no need for that. Also housing can't rise faster in value than inflation long term. It can for a while but eventually it'll reach a point where even with a 30 year loan you can't purchase it with any job in the area where the house is located. So if housing is fundamentally unsuited for gaining wealth in the long term for anyone but the wealthy and if it's core function is to house people, then I don't see a need for housing cost to appreciate above inflation.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    Is not giving food to those who cannot afford buying that particular food inhumane? Sure demanding people to leave the place they are used to live in isn't the nicest thing to do. But it can be done in a reasonable way, e.g. with a plenty of warning ahead of time. (Disclaimer: I was asked to leave a rented apartment twice, not in SF; both times I was told so just a month ahead of time.)
  - forrestthewoods 7y ago
    > It is. It is inhumane. That isn't an argument. Someone having to rent a smaller apartment in a less desirable neighborhood is not inhumane. SF has far more housing demand than it has housing supply. The pie is a fixed size. Policy can pick and choose the winners this way or that way. Either way you have the same number of winners and same number of losers. All you're doing is arguing over who you think should win and who you think should lose. The net amount of "inhumanity" is the same. Maybe in your preferred policy the people who were there first get to be the winners. Good for them, I guess. You picked one winner. But there's 5 losers who are denied access to economic opportunity because they didn't rent someone else's home 15 years ago. That's inhumane if you ask me. SF is one of the most desirable places to live in the entire world. Not everyone gets to live there. There's no universe in which everyone gets to live there. If we lived in a fantasy Star Trek future with no money then even still not everyone who wants to live in SF would get to. The fact that not everyone can live in a highly desirable location is not inhumane. Someone living there and then later having to live somewhere else is not inhumane.
bandrami 7y ago
The question of who "deserves" to live in a city, and who gets to decide that, is as old as cities themselves, and nobody's found a good answer yet. Remember that every current resident who isn't evicted means one person who wants to move in to the city isn't able to.
- epistasis 7y ago
  There's a great answer: everybody who wants to live there. Any other answer or non-answer is fundamentally unjust and wrong.
  - throwawaybbb 7y ago
    Ok give me your address. I'll call a developer and well start a 120 story highrise where you live. You'll end up living in a much worse place when it's all said and done but anything else would be immoral.
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      Most SF techies are YIMBYs, so that is a very much "please don't throw me into the briar patch" threat.
    - nine_k 7y ago
      I don't know about 120, but an edifice with just 102 stories, the Empire State Building, sort of made the vicinity of it better. At the very least, nearby properties did not depreciate. Of course if you don't like bustling city life, you may see it differently. I would recommended moving to suburbia it the countryside then.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - Redoubts 7y ago
      > Ok give me your address. I'll call a developer and well start a 120 story highrise where you live. Good. Maybe the US will have a third city then.
epistasis 7y ago
What's fucked up is that the people evicting get no blame, the people deciding that the city is full and should not accept more people get no blame.

forrestthewoods 7y ago

Evicting someone who doesn’t pay rent is definitely not inhumane. Prices changing alongside supply and demand is not inhumane. Policies which artificially constrain supply for no good reason? I’ll agree that’s inhumane.

doublement 7y ago
> Prices changing alongside supply and demand is not inhumane. It is. It is inhumane. I agree with you that policies which artificially constrain the supply bear much of the blame, but an outcome can be inhumane in and of itself, even if it emerges from "supply and demand". People getting thrown out of their homes because the value of their labor no longer covers the cost of their dwelling is bad.
- bandrami 7y ago
  So you're saying the value of housing stock should not appreciate? That's going to be a tough sell to its owners. If we want housing to be an investment, we have to acknowledge it's going to rise in value faster than inflation (otherwise it's a crap investment), which means it won't be affordable. Conversely, if we want housing to be affordable, it cannot rise in value faster than inflation, which means it can't be a good investment. As Charles Marohn says, it's not even a "problem", in that problems have solutions. It's a predicament.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    > If we want housing to be an investment That seems to be the problem at its core.
    - bandrami 7y ago
      I agree, but the word hasn't gotten out very well.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - winfred 7y ago
    It's called "housing", seems to me that the core functionality is to house, not to gain wealth. We might have comingled it with investing, but there's no need for that. Also housing can't rise faster in value than inflation long term. It can for a while but eventually it'll reach a point where even with a 30 year loan you can't purchase it with any job in the area where the house is located. So if housing is fundamentally unsuited for gaining wealth in the long term for anyone but the wealthy and if it's core function is to house people, then I don't see a need for housing cost to appreciate above inflation.
- nine_k 7y ago
  Is not giving food to those who cannot afford buying that particular food inhumane? Sure demanding people to leave the place they are used to live in isn't the nicest thing to do. But it can be done in a reasonable way, e.g. with a plenty of warning ahead of time. (Disclaimer: I was asked to leave a rented apartment twice, not in SF; both times I was told so just a month ahead of time.)
- forrestthewoods 7y ago
  > It is. It is inhumane. That isn't an argument. Someone having to rent a smaller apartment in a less desirable neighborhood is not inhumane. SF has far more housing demand than it has housing supply. The pie is a fixed size. Policy can pick and choose the winners this way or that way. Either way you have the same number of winners and same number of losers. All you're doing is arguing over who you think should win and who you think should lose. The net amount of "inhumanity" is the same. Maybe in your preferred policy the people who were there first get to be the winners. Good for them, I guess. You picked one winner. But there's 5 losers who are denied access to economic opportunity because they didn't rent someone else's home 15 years ago. That's inhumane if you ask me. SF is one of the most desirable places to live in the entire world. Not everyone gets to live there. There's no universe in which everyone gets to live there. If we lived in a fantasy Star Trek future with no money then even still not everyone who wants to live in SF would get to. The fact that not everyone can live in a highly desirable location is not inhumane. Someone living there and then later having to live somewhere else is not inhumane.

bandrami 7y ago

The question of who "deserves" to live in a city, and who gets to decide that, is as old as cities themselves, and nobody's found a good answer yet. Remember that every current resident who isn't evicted means one person who wants to move in to the city isn't able to.

epistasis 7y ago
There's a great answer: everybody who wants to live there. Any other answer or non-answer is fundamentally unjust and wrong.
- throwawaybbb 7y ago
  Ok give me your address. I'll call a developer and well start a 120 story highrise where you live. You'll end up living in a much worse place when it's all said and done but anything else would be immoral.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    Most SF techies are YIMBYs, so that is a very much "please don't throw me into the briar patch" threat.
  - nine_k 7y ago
    I don't know about 120, but an edifice with just 102 stories, the Empire State Building, sort of made the vicinity of it better. At the very least, nearby properties did not depreciate. Of course if you don't like bustling city life, you may see it differently. I would recommended moving to suburbia it the countryside then.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Redoubts 7y ago
    > Ok give me your address. I'll call a developer and well start a 120 story highrise where you live. Good. Maybe the US will have a third city then.

epistasis 7y ago

What's fucked up is that the people evicting get no blame, the people deciding that the city is full and should not accept more people get no blame.