5 ms·

Seattle doesn't want to be beaten by Minneapolis to becoming the next Detroit

jdhn 6y ago
As someone who currently lives near Detroit, the city is faring remarkably well in light of everything that's been going on. I haven't heard anything about rioters, just people who are peacefully protesting.
- Minor49er 6y ago
  I'm referring to Detroit circa 1967
  - jdhn 6y ago
    I think it would take a lot more than this to get Seattle to resemble Detroit in 1967.
evanlivingston 6y ago
What does this mean?
- staplers 6y ago
  This whole thread really illuminates how racist and sheltered this community is.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
tjr225 6y ago
Ironically this would make the area much more affordable. I’m all for it :)
- remarkEon 6y ago
  Uhh when was the last time you were in Detroit?
  - tjr225 6y ago
    I actually live just a couple of hours west of Detroit. In any case, Detroit isn't surrounded by mountains and ocean in the same way that Seattle is- sort of a weird comparison. A cheaper Seattle would still have those things near by.
nikkwong 6y ago
Yes, I'm personally very worried about this as someone who is heavily invested in the real estate market here. The issue of how to deal with the rapid growth in the city is multifaceted and it's difficult to pitch a stance on. At the very least, you could easily make an argument that a rising tide does not lift all boats; i.e. many people are personally not benefiting much from the tech-boom in the area. On the other hand, if your stance is that our collective goal should be to produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people; then we want more people to move to the city have prosperous lives to fulfill the new roles available here. In that scenario it's hard to keep income inequality from expanding. It seems like thusfar the city council has done a good job at striking a balance; MHA (mandatory housing affordability) is a level-headed way to redistribute some of the gains that tech has brought to those who are less fortunate. However, our current city council is much more left-leaning and I'm worried that their stance towards growth is far more "progressive" and anti-business. Should people really be entitled to live in an expensive city that they cannot afford? Cities like Manhattan or SF have sort of taken a stance on that and it favors the prosperous. I'm not sure how I feel about the matter; but I certainly do not want us to dampen our potential future potential by encouraging businesses to set up shop elsewhere. We need more initiatives like MHA and fewer like the business head-tax.
- admax88q 6y ago
  > It seems like thusfar the city council has done a good job at striking a balance; I'm not from the area, but the sheer amount of anger and enthusiasm that has fueled these protests suggests that the city council has not been striking an appropriate balance. Happy middle class people don't tend to riot and try to start new societies.
  - nikkwong 6y ago
    Ah sorry, I meant the previous city council, who had been doing a good job it seemed like at balancing the city's growth with the social problems that were becoming more evident at the time.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  >Should people really be entitled to live in an expensive city that they cannot afford? Cities like Manhattan or SF have sort of taken a stance on that and it favors the prosperous. I find it eerie that you're excluding from the equation the tens of thousands of homeless people in those cities. The right question is "to what lengths should we go to give people the ability to live with a roof over their heads?" The bay area has answered with "very little", where most people are barely offering human empathy to the homeless.

jdhn 6y ago

As someone who currently lives near Detroit, the city is faring remarkably well in light of everything that's been going on. I haven't heard anything about rioters, just people who are peacefully protesting.

Minor49er 6y ago
I'm referring to Detroit circa 1967
- jdhn 6y ago
  I think it would take a lot more than this to get Seattle to resemble Detroit in 1967.

evanlivingston 6y ago

What does this mean?

staplers 6y ago
This whole thread really illuminates how racist and sheltered this community is.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

tjr225 6y ago

Ironically this would make the area much more affordable. I’m all for it :)

remarkEon 6y ago
Uhh when was the last time you were in Detroit?
- tjr225 6y ago
  I actually live just a couple of hours west of Detroit. In any case, Detroit isn't surrounded by mountains and ocean in the same way that Seattle is- sort of a weird comparison. A cheaper Seattle would still have those things near by.

nikkwong 6y ago

Yes, I'm personally very worried about this as someone who is heavily invested in the real estate market here. The issue of how to deal with the rapid growth in the city is multifaceted and it's difficult to pitch a stance on. At the very least, you could easily make an argument that a rising tide does not lift all boats; i.e. many people are personally not benefiting much from the tech-boom in the area. On the other hand, if your stance is that our collective goal should be to produce the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people; then we want more people to move to the city have prosperous lives to fulfill the new roles available here. In that scenario it's hard to keep income inequality from expanding. It seems like thusfar the city council has done a good job at striking a balance; MHA (mandatory housing affordability) is a level-headed way to redistribute some of the gains that tech has brought to those who are less fortunate. However, our current city council is much more left-leaning and I'm worried that their stance towards growth is far more "progressive" and anti-business. Should people really be entitled to live in an expensive city that they cannot afford? Cities like Manhattan or SF have sort of taken a stance on that and it favors the prosperous. I'm not sure how I feel about the matter; but I certainly do not want us to dampen our potential future potential by encouraging businesses to set up shop elsewhere. We need more initiatives like MHA and fewer like the business head-tax.

admax88q 6y ago
> It seems like thusfar the city council has done a good job at striking a balance; I'm not from the area, but the sheer amount of anger and enthusiasm that has fueled these protests suggests that the city council has not been striking an appropriate balance. Happy middle class people don't tend to riot and try to start new societies.
- nikkwong 6y ago
  Ah sorry, I meant the previous city council, who had been doing a good job it seemed like at balancing the city's growth with the social problems that were becoming more evident at the time.
deathgrips 6y ago
>Should people really be entitled to live in an expensive city that they cannot afford? Cities like Manhattan or SF have sort of taken a stance on that and it favors the prosperous. I find it eerie that you're excluding from the equation the tens of thousands of homeless people in those cities. The right question is "to what lengths should we go to give people the ability to live with a roof over their heads?" The bay area has answered with "very little", where most people are barely offering human empathy to the homeless.