4 ms·

Is no one going to blame the unconstitutional seizure of private property that is eviction bans? Some cities previously banned background checks (https://reason

Is no one going to blame the unconstitutional seizure of private property that is eviction bans? Some cities previously banned background checks (https://reason.com/2017/08/18/seattle-bans-landlords-from-running-crim/ https://reason.com/2017/08/18/seattle-bans-landlords-from-ru...) and many are considering banning banning use of credit scores. Seattle also instituted a number of laws these last few years that restrict landlords in a number of ways (https://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/seattle-city-council-approve-tenant-rights-bills-16233100.php https://www.seattlepi.com/local/politics/article/seattle-cit...). I imagine rents are going up in response to such laws and policies, which increase costs, and in response to inflation. Personally I see a mass move to lower cost areas as a good thing. People should move to cheaper places and live within their means instead of barely making it in high demand high expense locations, and then complaining when the costs outrun their means. A more distributed workforce means a more distributed economy and that’s great for everyone. We would have a more resilient society and people wouldn’t have to live packed densely like sardines either. And instead of having a handful of cities monopolize the economy, we will see a revival among otherwise downtrodden areas.

brailsafe 5y ago
Seems like the rents were probably within their means, and they're being forced out because now they're not. More sparsely distributed populations mean more socially isolated populations, more dependance on personal motorized vehicles, less cost savings at scale, more environment destruction, less interesting urban spaces, less access to specialist professions that demand close proximity
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  > Seems like the rents were probably within their means, and they're being forced out because now they're not. But that’s the thing. If they have little tolerance or flexibility to accommodate those costs, then they were living too close to their limits. As for the rest of what you said… I have lived in an urban environment for most of my life, and still do. But more recently I’ve come to feel that urban spaces are overrated - living in cramped apartments, huddled in wet and slushy subways, shadowed by tall buildings, is a certain kind of hell. You claimed that distributed populations are more socially isolated, but that’s not true. Having more space and slightly more physical isolation doesn’t mean you’re more socially isolated. Cities rarely have the sense of community and neighborly friendliness that rural areas have. Plenty of people are lonely in big cities in a fundamental way, and no, access to a collection of bars and restaurants does not make up for it. As for cost savings at scale - clearly that’s not true given we are talking about ballooning costs in cities. The environmental destruction is debatable - more people occupy cities, enabled by the model of living densely, and they still consume all the same plastics and electronics. Urban areas also have a massive amount of concentrated environmental impact, while less dense populations are more in line with their local environment‘s capacity. As an example, Seattle regularly has to dump millions of gallons of untreated sewage into the local waterways, leading to beach closures and marine life effects that are a result of the big concentrated impact (https://www.q13fox.com/news/heavy-rain-sends-11-million-gallons-of-untreated-wastewater-into-puget-sound https://www.q13fox.com/news/heavy-rain-sends-11-million-gall...). As for dependence on motor vehicles - that feels like a positive to me, as cars are fast and convenient and let me get to where I want when I want, instead of being restricted to the timetables and destinations of public transit. I get that there are other perspectives on all of this. But I wanted to share this perspective because it would be a mistake to take the alleged superiority of urban lifestyles as a foregone conclusion.
  - em-bee 5y ago
    you can find some well reasoned counter arguments in this thread over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30138545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30138545
    - throwawaysea 5y ago
      Thanks - I hadn’t seen that thread and will check it out.
Terr_ 5y ago
> People should move to cheaper place Translation: "People should quit their current jobs, which are typically bound to the old location that they've been priced out of." > and live within their means "I am confident that somehow they can find new jobs in the boonies that will pay the same, or at least be no-worse versus other expenses, because... reasons." > A more distributed workforce means a more distributed economy "The free market will always overcome geographical issues, which is why ghost-towns are, like literal ghosts, fictional problems."
- sershe 5y ago
  > "I am confident that somehow they can find new jobs in the boonies that will pay the same, or at least be no-worse versus other expenses, because... reasons." The variability of housing prices is much higher than the variability of wages in most occupations, especially at the low end. So, yes. Ghost towns? Median house in the USA is ~$410k (St Louis Fed) (and was $320k before the recent government-induced inflation), in WA that makes for a ~$2k mortgage payment including taxes and insurance (via Google calculator with 4+% rate; I think its property tax estimate is too large, actually). Slightly more with 10% down. I'm pretty sure median house is located nearby a median job. Median household income in the USA is was $69k in 2019, $67k in 2020 (latest that I can find from a good source). By a common affordability metric, that makes $1.85k/mo perfectly affordable - 2k is almost there. I'm pretty sure nominal income increased in 2 years (given past trends), and of course 2019 median house was very affordable on 2019 median income. Sorry, not everyone can live exactly where they want, mostly because too many people tend to want to live in the same places. That said, I think /another/ way government could get out of the way of progress is by repealing many/most zoning and related laws, so that more housing could be built.
Sebguer 5y ago
Why should people be allowed to make a profit simply on buying property as a speculative investment?

brailsafe 5y ago

Seems like the rents were probably within their means, and they're being forced out because now they're not. More sparsely distributed populations mean more socially isolated populations, more dependance on personal motorized vehicles, less cost savings at scale, more environment destruction, less interesting urban spaces, less access to specialist professions that demand close proximity

throwawaysea 5y ago
> Seems like the rents were probably within their means, and they're being forced out because now they're not. But that’s the thing. If they have little tolerance or flexibility to accommodate those costs, then they were living too close to their limits. As for the rest of what you said… I have lived in an urban environment for most of my life, and still do. But more recently I’ve come to feel that urban spaces are overrated - living in cramped apartments, huddled in wet and slushy subways, shadowed by tall buildings, is a certain kind of hell. You claimed that distributed populations are more socially isolated, but that’s not true. Having more space and slightly more physical isolation doesn’t mean you’re more socially isolated. Cities rarely have the sense of community and neighborly friendliness that rural areas have. Plenty of people are lonely in big cities in a fundamental way, and no, access to a collection of bars and restaurants does not make up for it. As for cost savings at scale - clearly that’s not true given we are talking about ballooning costs in cities. The environmental destruction is debatable - more people occupy cities, enabled by the model of living densely, and they still consume all the same plastics and electronics. Urban areas also have a massive amount of concentrated environmental impact, while less dense populations are more in line with their local environment‘s capacity. As an example, Seattle regularly has to dump millions of gallons of untreated sewage into the local waterways, leading to beach closures and marine life effects that are a result of the big concentrated impact (https://www.q13fox.com/news/heavy-rain-sends-11-million-gallons-of-untreated-wastewater-into-puget-sound https://www.q13fox.com/news/heavy-rain-sends-11-million-gall...). As for dependence on motor vehicles - that feels like a positive to me, as cars are fast and convenient and let me get to where I want when I want, instead of being restricted to the timetables and destinations of public transit. I get that there are other perspectives on all of this. But I wanted to share this perspective because it would be a mistake to take the alleged superiority of urban lifestyles as a foregone conclusion.
- em-bee 5y ago
  you can find some well reasoned counter arguments in this thread over here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30138545 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30138545
  - throwawaysea 5y ago
    Thanks - I hadn’t seen that thread and will check it out.

Terr_ 5y ago

> People should move to cheaper place Translation: "People should quit their current jobs, which are typically bound to the old location that they've been priced out of." > and live within their means "I am confident that somehow they can find new jobs in the boonies that will pay the same, or at least be no-worse versus other expenses, because... reasons." > A more distributed workforce means a more distributed economy "The free market will always overcome geographical issues, which is why ghost-towns are, like literal ghosts, fictional problems."

sershe 5y ago
> "I am confident that somehow they can find new jobs in the boonies that will pay the same, or at least be no-worse versus other expenses, because... reasons." The variability of housing prices is much higher than the variability of wages in most occupations, especially at the low end. So, yes. Ghost towns? Median house in the USA is ~$410k (St Louis Fed) (and was $320k before the recent government-induced inflation), in WA that makes for a ~$2k mortgage payment including taxes and insurance (via Google calculator with 4+% rate; I think its property tax estimate is too large, actually). Slightly more with 10% down. I'm pretty sure median house is located nearby a median job. Median household income in the USA is was $69k in 2019, $67k in 2020 (latest that I can find from a good source). By a common affordability metric, that makes $1.85k/mo perfectly affordable - 2k is almost there. I'm pretty sure nominal income increased in 2 years (given past trends), and of course 2019 median house was very affordable on 2019 median income. Sorry, not everyone can live exactly where they want, mostly because too many people tend to want to live in the same places. That said, I think /another/ way government could get out of the way of progress is by repealing many/most zoning and related laws, so that more housing could be built.

Sebguer 5y ago

Why should people be allowed to make a profit simply on buying property as a speculative investment?