4 ms·

You're trivializing one person's values as a "feel" and elevating others' entitlement as "baseline viability". There are all kinds of cities and viable jobs all

You're trivializing one person's values as a "feel" and elevating others' entitlement as "baseline viability". There are all kinds of cities and viable jobs all over the country. People don't HAVE to live and work in the most desirable places on the planet, and they don't have any right to expect that. And yet, they repeatedly complain about SF, Seattle, or whatever not accommodating them the way they want. Guess what - you're not owed anything. People have the freedom to move to a smaller city or a "second tier" city. They have opportunity to thrive in those locations as well, and can help turn those cities into equally desirable places. Likewise, people don't have to live and work in the same neighborhood. They can commute, or they can decide the commute is not worth it, and get a different job elsewhere. People also don't have a right to attend whichever school they want. If they can't make it work, there are other options in life. Sure people may not have the exact job they want, or environment they want, or lifestyle they want, or whatever. But life is not perfect and you don't get to have everything you want. You have to trade off between these different things. > That's selfish as fuck and worthy of scorn. Everyone is selfish. You're just arbitrary placing one person's desires above others. People living in a city owe nothing to newcomers who want to come there and change they very things that made the location desirable in the first place.

Kalium 6y ago
> Guess what - you're not owed anything. Right on! Nobody here is owed anything. New residents are not owed the right to reshape things arbitrarily. Neither are incumbent residents owed an enduring hammerlock on the future of a place.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  But incumbent residents are owed the right to self determination and local governance. And that includes taking actions to preserve their quality of life. That doesn't make them crazy, selfish, or "racist" (as the linked article claims).
  - Kalium 6y ago
    You're absolutely right! Participating in local governance does not inherently making a person crazy, selfish, or racist. I do think it's perhaps possible that in some cases people participating in local governance might advance and adopt policies that have outcomes that benefit them financially or have disparate impacts on people of different races. Though I confess I found few references to or even accusations of racism in the article. Perhaps you can help me?
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      The accusation of racism is in the opening line: > We’re all familiar by now with Right-NIMBYs — conservatives who block transit and housing development in order to keep poor people and minorities out of their quiet white-flight suburban neighborhoods. People who are against increased density are almost never holding that position to keep minorities out of their neighborhoods. To me that comes off as a convenient demonization, using charged rhetoric to attack the author's adversaries.
  - kapuasuite 6y ago
    In the United States municipalities are not sovereign - they basically exist at the whim of their respective states. So no, nobody is “owed” local governance.
CuriouslyC 6y ago
One person placing their elation over another's lack of ennui and frustration is greedy and frankly a little evil.
OminousWeapons 6y ago
This is 100% correct. Not everyone is entitled to live in a good neighborhood (or any neighborhood) in a high opportunity city. Even if we knocked down every single low occupancy structure and stood up high density apartments everywhere, growth would continue until those units were maxed out too and we would be back to square one but now with everyone unhappy. While I agree that existing home owners have too much power in cities and we need more flexible zoning to encourage higher density as a temporary solution, the ultimate solution to the problem is to build up other cities to shift demand away from SF, Boston, NYC, Austin, Seattle et al. Not only does this provide more opportunity in general, but it spreads power and wealth over more of the country.

Kalium 6y ago

> Guess what - you're not owed anything. Right on! Nobody here is owed anything. New residents are not owed the right to reshape things arbitrarily. Neither are incumbent residents owed an enduring hammerlock on the future of a place.

throwawaysea 6y ago
But incumbent residents are owed the right to self determination and local governance. And that includes taking actions to preserve their quality of life. That doesn't make them crazy, selfish, or "racist" (as the linked article claims).
- Kalium 6y ago
  You're absolutely right! Participating in local governance does not inherently making a person crazy, selfish, or racist. I do think it's perhaps possible that in some cases people participating in local governance might advance and adopt policies that have outcomes that benefit them financially or have disparate impacts on people of different races. Though I confess I found few references to or even accusations of racism in the article. Perhaps you can help me?
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    The accusation of racism is in the opening line: > We’re all familiar by now with Right-NIMBYs — conservatives who block transit and housing development in order to keep poor people and minorities out of their quiet white-flight suburban neighborhoods. People who are against increased density are almost never holding that position to keep minorities out of their neighborhoods. To me that comes off as a convenient demonization, using charged rhetoric to attack the author's adversaries.
- kapuasuite 6y ago
  In the United States municipalities are not sovereign - they basically exist at the whim of their respective states. So no, nobody is “owed” local governance.

CuriouslyC 6y ago

One person placing their elation over another's lack of ennui and frustration is greedy and frankly a little evil.

OminousWeapons 6y ago

This is 100% correct. Not everyone is entitled to live in a good neighborhood (or any neighborhood) in a high opportunity city. Even if we knocked down every single low occupancy structure and stood up high density apartments everywhere, growth would continue until those units were maxed out too and we would be back to square one but now with everyone unhappy. While I agree that existing home owners have too much power in cities and we need more flexible zoning to encourage higher density as a temporary solution, the ultimate solution to the problem is to build up other cities to shift demand away from SF, Boston, NYC, Austin, Seattle et al. Not only does this provide more opportunity in general, but it spreads power and wealth over more of the country.