4 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

> 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.

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.