5 ms·

There's tension between leading a place and a people. If you lead a place, it seems only good that investment goes up, housing prices increase, wealthier people

There's tension between leading a place and a people. If you lead a place, it seems only good that investment goes up, housing prices increase, wealthier people live here, more tax dollars, and so on. If you lead a people, specifically the people who lived in the city when you assumed leadership, then gentrification can clearly be a bad thing - e.g. "Now our people can't afford to live here."

nordsieck 6y ago
> If you lead a people, specifically the people who lived in the city when you assumed leadership, then gentrification can clearly be a bad thing - e.g. "Now our people can't afford to live here." What does it even mean to "lead a people" in the context of a city with immigration and emigration? You quickly run into the Ship of Theseus[1] problem. ___ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I don't have a rigorous definition, but I mean it as the difference between caring about something like median income and something like "my kids had to move away because they can't afford to live here."
rbecker 6y ago
That description of "leading a people" sounds a lot like nativism.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  I've just googled the definition of "nativism" and I think so. I understand it as being concerned with the well-being of the "native" inhabitants, or as I put it, the people there when you assumed power. I think, in practice, there needs to be something of a balance between prioritizing place and people, probably not an equal balance though. I think people are more important. As a citizen, if I elect a leader, live by the laws, and pay taxes, I want the government to look after me and my well being and not try to optimize the local stats for GDP or median income or whatever if that comes at the expense of people who live there. Do you disagree with that?
  - rbecker 6y ago
    > Do you disagree with that? Not at all. But it doesn't matter if I agree or not - I was just making an observation.

nordsieck 6y ago

> If you lead a people, specifically the people who lived in the city when you assumed leadership, then gentrification can clearly be a bad thing - e.g. "Now our people can't afford to live here." What does it even mean to "lead a people" in the context of a city with immigration and emigration? You quickly run into the Ship of Theseus[1] problem. ___ 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

ALittleLight 6y ago
I don't have a rigorous definition, but I mean it as the difference between caring about something like median income and something like "my kids had to move away because they can't afford to live here."

rbecker 6y ago

That description of "leading a people" sounds a lot like nativism.

ALittleLight 6y ago
I've just googled the definition of "nativism" and I think so. I understand it as being concerned with the well-being of the "native" inhabitants, or as I put it, the people there when you assumed power. I think, in practice, there needs to be something of a balance between prioritizing place and people, probably not an equal balance though. I think people are more important. As a citizen, if I elect a leader, live by the laws, and pay taxes, I want the government to look after me and my well being and not try to optimize the local stats for GDP or median income or whatever if that comes at the expense of people who live there. Do you disagree with that?
- rbecker 6y ago
  > Do you disagree with that? Not at all. But it doesn't matter if I agree or not - I was just making an observation.