3 ms·

I would consider “ability to be evicted” to be a great moral wrong, and that access to comfortable housing that doesn’t cause an unreasonable commute to be a ba

by mlthoughts2018 7y ago

I would consider “ability to be evicted” to be a great moral wrong, and that access to comfortable housing that doesn’t cause an unreasonable commute to be a basic human right on par with free medical care & education. It’s hard for me to think of a way to square this without a concept of land ownership and exclusive property rights. I guess some type of lifelong lease from the government could be OK, but some land is more valuable than other land for living, so then how to allocate the best livable land? At any rate, I do view the capability to be evicted as a moral wrong.

jdmichal 7y ago
> I would consider “ability to be evicted” to be a great moral wrong, and that access to comfortable housing that doesn’t cause an unreasonable commute to be a basic human right on par with free medical care & education. These two ideals of yours are contradictory. The right to not be evicted (in order to better develop the land) can directly prevent the availability of housing with the qualities you require. With the help of zoning boards, which are really just an embodiment of their constituent land owners, isn't this more or less the sum of the housing issue in the bay area? You certainly cannot say that there's any semblance of comfortable hosting with a reasonable commute...
- mlthoughts2018 7y ago
  I agree with you that it’s two contradictory forces, and yet I still believe either outcome is wrong. If a person can be evicted from where they live, that is wrong. Yet also if comfortable, nearby, affordable housing (that you did not need to evict others to build) is not widespread for all, that is also wrong. It’s important to focus on solutions that solve both sides of the problem, and to deny arguments that it’s functionally not possible (which would be an unacceptable outcome). I don’t mind the contradictory positions in terms of market theory and efficient allocation, and believe it’s important to pursue anyway, that this technical contradiction is fine... necessary even.
  - lmm 7y ago
    The impossibility may be "unacceptable" but it's reality. I believe that at a certain point - e.g. when evicting one means 1000 or 10000 more people are able to afford somewhere decent to live near where they work - eviction becomes a lesser evil. If you're unwilling to make that kind of trade, then however much sophistry you put into "focusing on solutions that solve both sides", more likely you'll just end up never getting those 1000 or 10000 people a place to live.
  - chii 7y ago
    > which would be an unacceptable outcome an outcome can be unacceptable, but you have no choice but to accept it. It's like gravity will pull down, whether you accept it or not. When you lose the ability to evict, you also lose the ability to rebuild (since you'd need to evict to rebuild). What is desirable is balance. Where that balance lies is up to the populous, and in san fran, the populous have spoken (by their actions) - they prefer to keep it less dense, and suffer the consequences of high property prices.
snidane 7y ago
I too would love to guarantee to every citizen that they will not be evicted. Unfortunately it cannot be a universal benefit since not everybody lives in their own. Implementing this non-eviction right would vastly benefit one part of the society at the expense of the other. The benefiting half of society would then proceed to collect vast sums of money from the other half through rent payments. I personally think if there is a class divide in society then it is exactly because of this supposedly universal 'moral good'. If Marx lived couple more decades he would see that those capitalists used their hard earned money to buy.. real estate and land. Therefore just becoming new aristocracy displacing the old one. It was not the Marx's capitalist who was the exploiting bad guy. It was the landowner after all. Industrial revolution during Marx era was just a transition of aristocratic titles to the new generation of aristocrats that we now call.. well we call them just 'billionaires'.
leetcrew 7y ago
why is eviction so bad? provided the person has the resources to move and is given enough notice, I fail to see what is so morally wrong about it. it can certainly be inconvenient and/or disappointing, but it's hardly a heinous evil. the expectation to live on a specific piece of land indefinitely has always seemed one of the more bizarre entitlements to me. it's basically the only thing we can't make more of.

jdmichal 7y ago

> I would consider “ability to be evicted” to be a great moral wrong, and that access to comfortable housing that doesn’t cause an unreasonable commute to be a basic human right on par with free medical care & education. These two ideals of yours are contradictory. The right to not be evicted (in order to better develop the land) can directly prevent the availability of housing with the qualities you require. With the help of zoning boards, which are really just an embodiment of their constituent land owners, isn't this more or less the sum of the housing issue in the bay area? You certainly cannot say that there's any semblance of comfortable hosting with a reasonable commute...

mlthoughts2018 7y ago
I agree with you that it’s two contradictory forces, and yet I still believe either outcome is wrong. If a person can be evicted from where they live, that is wrong. Yet also if comfortable, nearby, affordable housing (that you did not need to evict others to build) is not widespread for all, that is also wrong. It’s important to focus on solutions that solve both sides of the problem, and to deny arguments that it’s functionally not possible (which would be an unacceptable outcome). I don’t mind the contradictory positions in terms of market theory and efficient allocation, and believe it’s important to pursue anyway, that this technical contradiction is fine... necessary even.
- lmm 7y ago
  The impossibility may be "unacceptable" but it's reality. I believe that at a certain point - e.g. when evicting one means 1000 or 10000 more people are able to afford somewhere decent to live near where they work - eviction becomes a lesser evil. If you're unwilling to make that kind of trade, then however much sophistry you put into "focusing on solutions that solve both sides", more likely you'll just end up never getting those 1000 or 10000 people a place to live.
- chii 7y ago
  > which would be an unacceptable outcome an outcome can be unacceptable, but you have no choice but to accept it. It's like gravity will pull down, whether you accept it or not. When you lose the ability to evict, you also lose the ability to rebuild (since you'd need to evict to rebuild). What is desirable is balance. Where that balance lies is up to the populous, and in san fran, the populous have spoken (by their actions) - they prefer to keep it less dense, and suffer the consequences of high property prices.

snidane 7y ago

I too would love to guarantee to every citizen that they will not be evicted. Unfortunately it cannot be a universal benefit since not everybody lives in their own. Implementing this non-eviction right would vastly benefit one part of the society at the expense of the other. The benefiting half of society would then proceed to collect vast sums of money from the other half through rent payments. I personally think if there is a class divide in society then it is exactly because of this supposedly universal 'moral good'. If Marx lived couple more decades he would see that those capitalists used their hard earned money to buy.. real estate and land. Therefore just becoming new aristocracy displacing the old one. It was not the Marx's capitalist who was the exploiting bad guy. It was the landowner after all. Industrial revolution during Marx era was just a transition of aristocratic titles to the new generation of aristocrats that we now call.. well we call them just 'billionaires'.

leetcrew 7y ago

why is eviction so bad? provided the person has the resources to move and is given enough notice, I fail to see what is so morally wrong about it. it can certainly be inconvenient and/or disappointing, but it's hardly a heinous evil. the expectation to live on a specific piece of land indefinitely has always seemed one of the more bizarre entitlements to me. it's basically the only thing we can't make more of.