6 ms·

I'm OK with "ideas of socialism," I think. Especially regarding UBI and universal medical care. But, I also think that it's better to be in a growing area than

I'm OK with "ideas of socialism," I think. Especially regarding UBI and universal medical care. But, I also think that it's better to be in a growing area than a static or declining area. I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers. As an adult human being, it is your responsiblility to adapt and decide what is best for yourself and your dependents. No one owes you an unchanging landscape.

giantg2 6y ago
"I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers." I think the main point is being forced out of your life-long home due to increased costs or taxes. Or the destruction of the local cultures/customs through change in local government policies. If you want an extreme example, you can look at the way that cult in Oregon took over a county/town in the 80s or 90s. Nothing legally wrong with it (the population segment with the highest numbers won; not talking the biological attack), but it did make the existing residents subject to their will and angry. The whole situation (on both sides) was mostly out of a lack of acceptance for other people and their life choices. I think we see this same sort of paradigm with people wanting changes that benefit them but might be detrimental to others in their "communities" (we don't really act like neighbors anymore) without meaningful discussion.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  The key is assimilation. If you move into a place with the goal of becoming one of the community and understanding and blending into the local culture and economy, people will be a lot more accepting. If you expect everyone to get out of your way, expect them to fight back.
  - mavelikara 6y ago
    > The key is assimilation. Agreed, but it goes both ways. "We welcome your money, but please keep your opinions to yourself", isn't a great way to assimilate new migrants. Also, see top comment by Mark Watson.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      True, but the ones you hear about are usually not just sharing their opinion, but trying to force that opinion on someone else, and usually rudely (think Karens).
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >The key is assimilation I think assimilation is too unprecise of a word. In the context of these discussions nobody ever complains about foreign immigrants with a small army of kids running around and they're (at least initially) as un-assimilated as one can be. Heck, they might not even speak the language. Meanwhile everyone agrees that Karen the corporate lawyer who shows up and promptly gets to work building a fence, calling in noise complaints and narcing on everyone for ordinance violations and unpermitted work is in the wrong. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly what it is but there's this disdain and unwillingness to respect local norms that makes the latter example of a newcomer toxic and unwanted (and IMO it seems to correlate strongly with wealth of the newcomer).
- zip1234 6y ago
  Every place changes regardless of people trying to preserve them in amber. The 'forced out of your lifelong' home thing is tough but I haven't seen any good solutions to it. California absolutely messed up their state with their property tax changes that turned home ownership into feudalism. Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier. If housing is actually allowed to be built, someone might be able to stay in the area in a new, nicer, place. However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded. Houston might actually be the closest. Prices in Houston are way lower than many other in-demand major cities.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    "However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded." And thus my question/comments about controlling the demand side, as the supply side changes haven't worked well. "Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier." Well, the system of funding the schools through property taxes on people without children is essentially the same - tax is used for "the collective good", where you have some people supporting others.
    - dcow 6y ago
      The supply side changes haven't worked because people are selfish and the system is perverted. “I’ll see your family struggle with gentrification before I lose my bay views and stupidly inflated house value.” The problem is boomers treating property as an investment vehicle the value of which must go up up up. Introduce affordable housing to cool the market off? Not over my dead body if it means people won’t be clawing tooth and nail for properties in my neighborhood anymore. The incentives are so backwards. I’ve got mine fuck yours. I don't see how demand side regulation addresses any of this...
      - giantg2 6y ago
        The higher taxes mentioned would be a demand side tactic. We could also address the root cause and not just the symptoms. The high paying jobs are one of the biggest things bringing people in. The city could create policies that make other locations more attractive for businesses to create those jobs, thus decreasing demand in the areas with the problem. I do understand that many of the incentives are backwards, so higher taxes, policies to move jobs, etc are all difficult to handle. But I also think that building more high density housing isn't really going to fix anything. In my view, many of the people in this sort of situation chose to be - they could take jobs in other cities but the group-think says they need to be in SV and working for FAANG to be successful. Not to mention that many want a single family home with amenities to come with that.

giantg2 6y ago

"I'll never understand anti-gentrifiers." I think the main point is being forced out of your life-long home due to increased costs or taxes. Or the destruction of the local cultures/customs through change in local government policies. If you want an extreme example, you can look at the way that cult in Oregon took over a county/town in the 80s or 90s. Nothing legally wrong with it (the population segment with the highest numbers won; not talking the biological attack), but it did make the existing residents subject to their will and angry. The whole situation (on both sides) was mostly out of a lack of acceptance for other people and their life choices. I think we see this same sort of paradigm with people wanting changes that benefit them but might be detrimental to others in their "communities" (we don't really act like neighbors anymore) without meaningful discussion.

nitrogen 6y ago
The key is assimilation. If you move into a place with the goal of becoming one of the community and understanding and blending into the local culture and economy, people will be a lot more accepting. If you expect everyone to get out of your way, expect them to fight back.
- mavelikara 6y ago
  > The key is assimilation. Agreed, but it goes both ways. "We welcome your money, but please keep your opinions to yourself", isn't a great way to assimilate new migrants. Also, see top comment by Mark Watson.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    True, but the ones you hear about are usually not just sharing their opinion, but trying to force that opinion on someone else, and usually rudely (think Karens).
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >The key is assimilation I think assimilation is too unprecise of a word. In the context of these discussions nobody ever complains about foreign immigrants with a small army of kids running around and they're (at least initially) as un-assimilated as one can be. Heck, they might not even speak the language. Meanwhile everyone agrees that Karen the corporate lawyer who shows up and promptly gets to work building a fence, calling in noise complaints and narcing on everyone for ordinance violations and unpermitted work is in the wrong. I'm struggling to put my finger on exactly what it is but there's this disdain and unwillingness to respect local norms that makes the latter example of a newcomer toxic and unwanted (and IMO it seems to correlate strongly with wealth of the newcomer).
zip1234 6y ago
Every place changes regardless of people trying to preserve them in amber. The 'forced out of your lifelong' home thing is tough but I haven't seen any good solutions to it. California absolutely messed up their state with their property tax changes that turned home ownership into feudalism. Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier. If housing is actually allowed to be built, someone might be able to stay in the area in a new, nicer, place. However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded. Houston might actually be the closest. Prices in Houston are way lower than many other in-demand major cities.
- giantg2 6y ago
  "However, in essentially 0 places in the US that are hot housing markets do they allow as much housing as is demanded." And thus my question/comments about controlling the demand side, as the supply side changes haven't worked well. "Good intentions to help the old people stay in their homes but it means that the new people moving in support the people that lived there earlier." Well, the system of funding the schools through property taxes on people without children is essentially the same - tax is used for "the collective good", where you have some people supporting others.
  - dcow 6y ago
    The supply side changes haven't worked because people are selfish and the system is perverted. “I’ll see your family struggle with gentrification before I lose my bay views and stupidly inflated house value.” The problem is boomers treating property as an investment vehicle the value of which must go up up up. Introduce affordable housing to cool the market off? Not over my dead body if it means people won’t be clawing tooth and nail for properties in my neighborhood anymore. The incentives are so backwards. I’ve got mine fuck yours. I don't see how demand side regulation addresses any of this...
    - giantg2 6y ago
      The higher taxes mentioned would be a demand side tactic. We could also address the root cause and not just the symptoms. The high paying jobs are one of the biggest things bringing people in. The city could create policies that make other locations more attractive for businesses to create those jobs, thus decreasing demand in the areas with the problem. I do understand that many of the incentives are backwards, so higher taxes, policies to move jobs, etc are all difficult to handle. But I also think that building more high density housing isn't really going to fix anything. In my view, many of the people in this sort of situation chose to be - they could take jobs in other cities but the group-think says they need to be in SV and working for FAANG to be successful. Not to mention that many want a single family home with amenities to come with that.