5 ms·
The problem isn't that 55% is "high" (or not). The problem is that, currently, there is a housing problem that is significantly profitable for 55% of a populati
by xboxnolifes 5y ago
The problem isn't that 55% is "high" (or not). The problem is that, currently, there is a housing problem that is significantly profitable for 55% of a population. This means that 55% of people have conflicting interests with fixing this problem.
- MontyCarloHall 5y agoYes, and those 55% wield extremely disproportionate political power. This is why I’m pessimistic that NIMBYs will always rule.
- jjav 5y ago> Yes, and those 55% wield extremely disproportionate political power. House owners don't have any additional political power than renters. Still one vote per person and politicians don't consult homeowners any more often than anyone else.
- nsonha 5y agoNo one say they do, point is they benefit from not solving housing and has SOME power simply by being a large group. I you believe solving housing is public interest then that's a problem. Of course you can say when 55% of people are against affordable housing then affordable housing is not public interest.
- jjeaff 5y agoThose homeowners get richer and richer every year. Their borrowing power increases and even as renters are getting gouged by rising rents, homeowners don't even have to worry about their property tax going up. This leads to disproportionate political power.
- VelkaMorava 5y agoOne Czech ex-minister of health owns 67 properties. So he probably has a lot of acquintances and relatives among the political elite of my country. To me it seems he has more political power than me, a dude sitting in underwear and ranting on Hackernews.
- jjav 5y agoNo doubt high level (ex)politicians are very privileged and operate above most limitations imposed on regular people. But that's moving the goalposts of the discussion pretty far indeed. The original premise was that the entire "55% [of homeowners] wield extremely disproportionate political power". Sure, a few of those homeowners are also politicians with disproportionate political power. But nearly everyone is just regular people with one vote and no other influence, whether homeowner or renter.
- VelkaMorava 5y agoSomeone: wield extremely disproportionate political power. You: House owners don't have any additional political power than renters. Me: one dude has 67 properties and connections to political elite, so he probably has more political power than renters. Implicitly: chances are the entire political system amassed a huge amount of properties, and are in one bed with prominent businessmen, who have the capital to acquire even more properties than said politicians. You: u R M0v1nG tHe gO4lPoStS. You are a clown xD
- Gibbon1 5y agoI have friends more invested in housing issues than I am. But they generally agree with my assessment that without fixing transportation issues there is only downsides for homeowners and even renters to new development. It definitely seems like developers don't want to to pay a cent for mass transit. The just want to build lux houses and lofts in some neighborhood and then run away with the money. I think Scott Wiener is right. Build mass transit and allow developers build housing close in.
- rektide 5y agoPicking a couple specific issues, to me, seems like a naive hope in counting a majority of over-privileged under-taxed folk whose land-value goes up the more they suppress change or growth. Trying to argue this or that specific issue, get them to come around each time, seems unlikely to provide real progress.