2 ms·

>Over time those voters elect politicians that enact policies that make the new place a lot like the old place they left So the problem is citizens legally vot

>Over time those voters elect politicians that enact policies that make the new place a lot like the old place they left So the problem is citizens legally voting for people/policies they want to see in their local jurisdiction? That sounds exactly like how democracy is supposed to work. There's no law saying things have to stay exactly how they were, and there's no law saying seniority makes your vote count more than anyone else's.

qw3rty01 6y ago
> And while you're at it, ask yourself why you want to make a place you're moving to more like a place that you left because you didn't want to live there anymore. The point is not voting for politicians that make the place as undesirable as the place you left.
- freehunter 6y ago
  That point is the flimsiest straw man I've seen in a long time. Just because someone left NYC doesn't mean they hate 100% of everything about NYC, and anyone who moves to a rural area hoping to turn it into NYC... well obviously no one would do that because that's just ridiculous because it can't actually happen. Absolute FUD. 100% straw man.
tharne 6y ago
There is no law against moving, but there is something unethical or at least obnoxious about leaving a place because it has a poor quality of life and high cost of living and then turning around and advocating for policies that make the place you moved to as bad as the place you left. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea. It just means no one can legally stop you.
- freehunter 6y ago
  I strongly doubt that. If I moved to Eldora, Iowa and voted for the most progressive, liberal, all-blue policies, up and down the ticket... it's still not going to turn Eldora into San Fransisco. There's not going to suddenly be a drug problem where there wasn't before. There's not going to be massive traffic problems blocking my commute. There's not going to be people commuting hours to work because they couldn't afford a million-dollar house in town. Even if you doubled the voting population with people specifically chosen so you could enact the most SF-like policies, you still only have... 5,000 people in the entire town. There's just not enough people to encounter those kinds of problems. Cities with poor quality of life and high cost of living are that way because their laws and policies aren't effectively managing the high population. If you move to a low population area, the problems you encounter are wildly different (and yes small towns still have big problems to solve). And if you move to a city that has a large enough population that SF's poor city planning actually matters, you're going to have to move a lot of people to overwhelm the status quo. And if a small number of new people dramatically changes the feel of a city, well that sounds like you had 51% of the people who wanted it one way overriding the 49% who absolutely hate the city they live in. This fear feels like a socially conservative "I don't want them folk coming here and changing things". If new people move in and things start changing, they were always going to change and a lot of people have been waiting for that change for a long time. Embrace it.

qw3rty01 6y ago

> And while you're at it, ask yourself why you want to make a place you're moving to more like a place that you left because you didn't want to live there anymore. The point is not voting for politicians that make the place as undesirable as the place you left.

freehunter 6y ago
That point is the flimsiest straw man I've seen in a long time. Just because someone left NYC doesn't mean they hate 100% of everything about NYC, and anyone who moves to a rural area hoping to turn it into NYC... well obviously no one would do that because that's just ridiculous because it can't actually happen. Absolute FUD. 100% straw man.

tharne 6y ago

There is no law against moving, but there is something unethical or at least obnoxious about leaving a place because it has a poor quality of life and high cost of living and then turning around and advocating for policies that make the place you moved to as bad as the place you left. Just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea. It just means no one can legally stop you.

freehunter 6y ago
I strongly doubt that. If I moved to Eldora, Iowa and voted for the most progressive, liberal, all-blue policies, up and down the ticket... it's still not going to turn Eldora into San Fransisco. There's not going to suddenly be a drug problem where there wasn't before. There's not going to be massive traffic problems blocking my commute. There's not going to be people commuting hours to work because they couldn't afford a million-dollar house in town. Even if you doubled the voting population with people specifically chosen so you could enact the most SF-like policies, you still only have... 5,000 people in the entire town. There's just not enough people to encounter those kinds of problems. Cities with poor quality of life and high cost of living are that way because their laws and policies aren't effectively managing the high population. If you move to a low population area, the problems you encounter are wildly different (and yes small towns still have big problems to solve). And if you move to a city that has a large enough population that SF's poor city planning actually matters, you're going to have to move a lot of people to overwhelm the status quo. And if a small number of new people dramatically changes the feel of a city, well that sounds like you had 51% of the people who wanted it one way overriding the 49% who absolutely hate the city they live in. This fear feels like a socially conservative "I don't want them folk coming here and changing things". If new people move in and things start changing, they were always going to change and a lot of people have been waiting for that change for a long time. Embrace it.