4 ms·

Cities 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 w

Cities 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 ago
Every 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 ago
  Every 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 ago
  Good, 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 ago
    Can you elaborate on "America's founding principles"? I'm not following your link here.
    - scotty79 6y ago
      Going to places where nobody wants you and setting a shop there? ;-)
    - closeparen 6y ago
      A cohort with birthright priority access to the most desirable, productive places is a kind of nobility. Hereditary privileges around land are an Old World European thing. In the American ideal the identity of your parents does not determine where you can live or what kind of life you can have. Obviously we don’t always live up to that ideal. But this would be a big step in the wrong direction.
      - nitrogen 6y ago
        "Everyone who grew up here and works an Xth-percentile job can still afford to live here, plus we have room for more" is a lot better than "GTFO natives, I've got more money than you." America (after the obvious colonial invasion) was also founded on principles of democracy and republicanism, where representation and self-determination belong to locals, not outsiders. It's really bad for a community and a country when there is massive forced migration due to price pressure. When new graduates are detached from their support networks, they have to pay more for things and services they could have shared with their family/friends/community. When new couples are detached from their support networks, they and their kids suffer from higher costs and reduced mentorship from extended family. When there is a constant flux in and out, like I saw while I was living in SF, nobody has any commitment to the area, and nobody has lived there long enough to know what "normal" is. When people who invest their entire lives into a community are forced out of it, and/or their kids are displaced by lucky rich in-migrants, you amplify people's natural defensiveness and, whatever points you may have had, they will oppose you on everything. Those communities are desirable places to live because of the years of time invested by those who came before, and they deserve not to be forced out by people with no prior stake. When every avenue for just starting a life, let alone advancing it, is closed off to people, especially because of outsiders trouncing in with no appreciation for the history of a place, you have all the ingredients for revolt and revolution. ---- In places where there is ample land (like my native Utah), but supply targeted at natural growth can't keep up with in-migration and investor speculation, I would favor policies that significantly bias toward natives. Keeping churn low, but not zero, is absolutely essential for the health of communities. - Favoring live-in owners over landlords, but still allowing for some renting - Very strongly favoring live-in first-home owners over investors through tax, HOA, and zoning policy - Breaking up the very large parcels currently owned by and being developed for billionaires -- hating on single-family housing is a scapegoat for this real issue

throwaway0a5e 6y ago

Every 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 ago
Every 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 ago
Good, 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 ago
  Can you elaborate on "America's founding principles"? I'm not following your link here.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    Going to places where nobody wants you and setting a shop there? ;-)
  - closeparen 6y ago
    A cohort with birthright priority access to the most desirable, productive places is a kind of nobility. Hereditary privileges around land are an Old World European thing. In the American ideal the identity of your parents does not determine where you can live or what kind of life you can have. Obviously we don’t always live up to that ideal. But this would be a big step in the wrong direction.
    - nitrogen 6y ago
      "Everyone who grew up here and works an Xth-percentile job can still afford to live here, plus we have room for more" is a lot better than "GTFO natives, I've got more money than you." America (after the obvious colonial invasion) was also founded on principles of democracy and republicanism, where representation and self-determination belong to locals, not outsiders. It's really bad for a community and a country when there is massive forced migration due to price pressure. When new graduates are detached from their support networks, they have to pay more for things and services they could have shared with their family/friends/community. When new couples are detached from their support networks, they and their kids suffer from higher costs and reduced mentorship from extended family. When there is a constant flux in and out, like I saw while I was living in SF, nobody has any commitment to the area, and nobody has lived there long enough to know what "normal" is. When people who invest their entire lives into a community are forced out of it, and/or their kids are displaced by lucky rich in-migrants, you amplify people's natural defensiveness and, whatever points you may have had, they will oppose you on everything. Those communities are desirable places to live because of the years of time invested by those who came before, and they deserve not to be forced out by people with no prior stake. When every avenue for just starting a life, let alone advancing it, is closed off to people, especially because of outsiders trouncing in with no appreciation for the history of a place, you have all the ingredients for revolt and revolution. ---- In places where there is ample land (like my native Utah), but supply targeted at natural growth can't keep up with in-migration and investor speculation, I would favor policies that significantly bias toward natives. Keeping churn low, but not zero, is absolutely essential for the health of communities. - Favoring live-in owners over landlords, but still allowing for some renting - Very strongly favoring live-in first-home owners over investors through tax, HOA, and zoning policy - Breaking up the very large parcels currently owned by and being developed for billionaires -- hating on single-family housing is a scapegoat for this real issue