> Clearly not, otherwise people would move there. Comments elsewhere claim people are moving there since housing is cheaper there. > As it turns out, network

> Clearly not, otherwise people would move there. Comments elsewhere claim people are moving there since housing is cheaper there. > As it turns out, network effects exist, causing jobs to be near each other and for some reason people like to be close to their jobs rather than commuting 90 minutes from Stockton. That can be solved by building offices in Stockton. Businesses expanding out of areas that are too expensive is a good thing. Forcing people out of their homes so that businesses have access to a bigger pool of workers without needing to open more offices just seems like corporate welfare, forcing yet another externality onto both employees and the nearby community. >Why would you be against developing areas that are not as nice right now? > These aren't mutually exclusive and you know that. The choice to live on one place versus another is mutually exclusive. The argument seems to be that older people should be taxed out of homes near successful businesses so that current workers can live nearer to workplaces. (And they in turn should be taxed more so that they too move out as soon as they can). That seems to be very much about businesses not needing to expand to areas in need of development.