5 ms·
> 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
by 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.