3 ms·
The main problem with "control who can live here" is that you would generally like children born in the place to be on the shortlist, but this would be unconsti
by closeparen 6y ago
The main problem with "control who can live here" is that you would generally like children born in the place to be on the shortlist, but this would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Cities and states can't privilege natives over migrants.
Rent control and the heritability of Prop 13 are the best California can do to prioritize incumbents. They do work somewhat, but the next generation of natives is still as screwed as prospective migrants re: forming their own households in the place, at least while their parents are still alive.
- lightgreen 6y ago> this would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause There's a lot of places where very few people can afford to live. Like Manhattan for example. > Cities and states can't privilege natives over migrants. If native own property they can continue living there as long as they wish.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- closeparen 6y agoSan Francisco would like housing to remain scarce but be allocated to its favorite people, who are quite distinct from those with the highest ability to pay. This part is best achieved by an immigration policy. But that’s not allowed, so they’re stuck with imperfect substitutes. We can protect our favorite people from displacement, but it’s harder to make homes that change hands flow to them vs. tech workers.
- Dracophoenix 6y agoI'm sorry I don't follow this point. Who exactly are these "favorite people" exactly, and how does California expect these "favorite people" to, overlaps notwithstanding, compete with those with the highest ability to pay all while being able to keep the state budget in tact?
- kodah 6y agoWhat are "favorite people"? I can't find any way to see this phrase in a positive light.
- closeparen 6y agoThe influx of relatively privileged, relatively boring tech workers is seen as destroying the city's unique value as a haven for counterculture, artists, activists, LGBTQ, etc. A common complaint is that "mainstream" people want to move here because those things make the city special, but in doing so they cause a regression to the mean.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jen20 6y ago> If native own property they can continue living there as long as they wish. Provided they can afford to pay the ever-rising property taxes. Your take may apply in some places, but it is certainly not universal.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nitrogen 6y agoCities and states can't privilege natives over migrants. This is causing huge problems in Utah right now. Great if you have a house (or condo/etc) you don't want, bad if you have a house you like because you might get taxed out of it, terrible if you want a house. Every house and condo has dozens of unconditional cash offers on day one.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoEvery state that winds up being the target of affluent people fleeing a major urban area winds up with this problem. It's really a shame that any evenly applied attempt to privilege existing residents (not necessarily property owners) runs into legal issue.
- closeparen 6y agoEvery family on a quarter acre was not a sustainable plan anyway, I'm not sure how much of a "shame" it really is that the economics are crying out for more compact, walkable communities.
- codekansas 6y agoGood, as it should be. The idea that you should get priority to live somewhere just because you were born there runs totally counter to America's founding principles. Building more housing to house more people and create more opportunity is the only morally conscionable way forward
- nightowl_games 6y agoCan you elaborate on "America's founding principles"? I'm not following your link here.
- scotty79 6y agoGoing to places where nobody wants you and setting a shop there? ;-)
- 6y ago