3 ms·

The people who live in hot real estate areas for years made them the hot real estate areas. Real estate appreciation isn't free money. It's people who risked m

The people who live in hot real estate areas for years made them the hot real estate areas. Real estate appreciation isn't free money. It's people who risked moving into an area and brought their culture with them. This is what creates the value. Just because middle class people benefit from the subsidy of low interest rates that create asset bubbles does not mean that the people who raised families in a neighbourhood or a city are somehow undeserving of the rewards on their equity. The idea that money not taken in taxes is an "expenditure," or an advantage, and this idea of accounting for the hypothetical opportunity cost of not taking some peoples money as a tax privilege is bizzare.

RC_ITR 5y ago
>brought their culture with them. Yikes. Do you really think places like SOMA, SLU, DTLA, etc. got better because rich people brought their 'culture' there? I'd recommend you visit said places and see for yourself, most of the 'culture' is in adjacent (usually historically minority) neighborhoods.
- frockington1 5y ago
  In those places there is a huge value difference between the adjacent neighborhoods and the rich neighborhoods. This is primarily due to a culture of stability and safety
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    What are you trying to say? That DTLA is safer/cheaper than Little Tokyo (you're wrong)? That SOMA is safer than the Mission(you're wrong)? That SLU is safer than Capitol Hill(you're wrong)?
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > in adjacent (usually historically minority) neighborhoods. These are the people that brought their culture. Their housing is probably also well appreciated.
  - RC_ITR 5y ago
    It's amazing how often people on HN think that working class minorities have equal access to owning their own homes, despite huge evidence to the contrary. https://usafacts.org/articles/homeownership-rates-by-race/ https://usafacts.org/articles/homeownership-rates-by-race/
- motohagiography 5y ago
  Specifically, I said that rich(er) people go to those places because the people who were there before them made those places appealing. Poor(er) people who made due and built a community with businesses and neighboors that attracted others. As for why people who say 'yikes' seem to scare so easily, the concern is noted and ignored.

RC_ITR 5y ago

>brought their culture with them. Yikes. Do you really think places like SOMA, SLU, DTLA, etc. got better because rich people brought their 'culture' there? I'd recommend you visit said places and see for yourself, most of the 'culture' is in adjacent (usually historically minority) neighborhoods.

frockington1 5y ago
In those places there is a huge value difference between the adjacent neighborhoods and the rich neighborhoods. This is primarily due to a culture of stability and safety
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  What are you trying to say? That DTLA is safer/cheaper than Little Tokyo (you're wrong)? That SOMA is safer than the Mission(you're wrong)? That SLU is safer than Capitol Hill(you're wrong)?
vineyardmike 5y ago
> in adjacent (usually historically minority) neighborhoods. These are the people that brought their culture. Their housing is probably also well appreciated.
- RC_ITR 5y ago
  It's amazing how often people on HN think that working class minorities have equal access to owning their own homes, despite huge evidence to the contrary. https://usafacts.org/articles/homeownership-rates-by-race/ https://usafacts.org/articles/homeownership-rates-by-race/
motohagiography 5y ago
Specifically, I said that rich(er) people go to those places because the people who were there before them made those places appealing. Poor(er) people who made due and built a community with businesses and neighboors that attracted others. As for why people who say 'yikes' seem to scare so easily, the concern is noted and ignored.