4 ms·

People hate to hear this but noone has a right to live somewhere indefinitely. Logically, this doesn't even work. Lets say everyone in LA wants to live there w

by derac 4y ago

People hate to hear this but noone has a right to live somewhere indefinitely. Logically, this doesn't even work. Lets say everyone in LA wants to live there with their children and their children's children and so on forever. Extrapolate this a few generations and eventually you will have a solid mass of humans 1000 ft tall. (This is a hyperbolic joke, you get the point)

mjmahone17 4y ago
Yeah I don’t see what’s wrong with your (in my mind) utopic vision. Everyone who wants to live in a mass of humanity 1000 ft tall should be able to afford to live in that mass, and we should be researching ways to make it more and more affordable. The only way it doesn’t work is if the community makes it impossible for more new people to get in, or if there isn’t enough economic opportunity to support all the people living there. But people don’t generally want to move into communities where they can’t find work, and I see no good reason we should enforce minimum lot and zoning laws to prevent people from moving to where opportunity lives.
- derac 4y ago
  I do think they should get rid of prop 13, demolish all single family homes, and replace them with high-density buildings. What many people mean however, is that they want to continue to live there in the same single-family house forever. This is why prop 13 exists in the first place.
  - robocat 4y ago
    > demolish all single family homes Ahhhh, brutalism . . . “The Soviets decided to pass: the plan was too extreme and destructive of existing institutions even for Stalin. Undeterred, Le Corbusier changed the word “Moscow” on the diagram to “Paris”, then presented it to the French government (who also passed). Some aspects of his design eventually ended up as Chandigarh, India.” https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like-a-state/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-lik...
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      Or Paris, or Madrid, or much of the rest of Europe in which 3--5 storey townhouses are common. These might be single- or multip-occupant dwellings (e.g., a single family or household on multiple floors). Typically zoning is denser, though structures might be either attached or detached. In either case, the land-usage intensity rises by multiple factors. The option is not between 1-story quarter-acre development and a forest of Burj Khalifas. There is in fact considerable intermediate ground.
  - jelliclesfarm 4y ago
    High density housing will not work in places with a high standard and quality of living. It will certainly erode individual rights, create environmental decline and infringe upon privacy. In developed countries, high density housing will either make the city unbearably expensive(NYC) or bring down quality of life.(SF) High density is a sign that resources are scarce but demand for them has increased. The sign of a well functioning and professional state is one that has a healthy middle class and enjoys low density sustainable standard of life. Often the case for high density housing is married to sustainability goals. But sustainability goals exist in the first place because resources are scarce and it is becoming difficult to live in a sustainable manner. The rational solution is to place a moratorium upon expansion of the city and the population. Only in Bizarro World would the logic of cramming more people even more densely in the name of sustainable design would make sense. The true scarcity mentality is with governing bodies and elected officials who do not have the vision, integrity or collective access to more than one brain cell. They fail to create networked sustainable communities and manipulate their vote banks. One might choose to be fair and honest to admit that calls for high density housing is often where successful immigrants congregate due to their employment. Often said immigrants are on work visas and often are not eligible to vote in local/national elections. Is it a coincidence that elected officials impose high taxes only in certain cities/counties and extract every dollar they can squeeze from a work force who are cuffed to their visa sponsored high paying jobs? The golden goose is slaughtered and well done. Stick a fork in it and let the taxes drip. There are no high density initiatives in Visalia, CA. Only in Bay Area. Because why build infrastructure and public transport when you can keep taxing those who can’t even vote in the first place. At least in CA, it’s win-win over and over. Every city that has a highly paid immigrant work force is on the chopping block and will start passing high density housing initiatives. Success must be penalized..it seems. Affordable housing is subsidized housing. And who subsidizes it? The developers will tack that cost to the market value homes. Which would..surprise!..create more unaffordable cities. It’s a vicious cycle that should obvious to most who pay mortgages for all of their working lives.
    - ahtihn 4y ago
      > In developed countries, high density housing will either make the city unbearably expensive(NYC) I think you're reversing cause and effect.
antman 4y ago
People hate to hear this but noone has a right to live somewhere indefinitely I am sure you feel it made sense when you wrote it, or the example explained it in any way. I absolutely failed to understand the common knowledge aspect about people's limits to their ownership rights or even understand the sequence of events or mathematical explanation of the example.
- derac 4y ago
  Over time, the number of people that can lay claim to their right to live in LA forever will/could grow exponentially. The space is limited. Particularly so when you have prop 13. These two facts are incompatible. What you will get in reality is an ever-ballooning housing price, pushing everyone else out and single-family home owners locking in their "right" to the space through market-distorting laws like prop 13. I ask you this, why do the people living in LA have more of a right to be there than the native Indians that were there 500 years ago?
  - antman 4y ago
    How is the potential problem of housing future people an argument for a policy that allows kicking out existing owners? They don't seem to me related. This is about the rights of ownership. The problems you mention stem from various "kick out" policies that are essentially forced assets transfer and artificial scarcity policies to inflate prices (difficulty for new housing, one family houses, height of buildings, devaluation of residential areas by bad policing etc) Housing prices are results of specific policies, and people's ownership rights are protected in western societies.

by derac 4y ago

mjmahone17 4y ago

Yeah I don’t see what’s wrong with your (in my mind) utopic vision. Everyone who wants to live in a mass of humanity 1000 ft tall should be able to afford to live in that mass, and we should be researching ways to make it more and more affordable. The only way it doesn’t work is if the community makes it impossible for more new people to get in, or if there isn’t enough economic opportunity to support all the people living there. But people don’t generally want to move into communities where they can’t find work, and I see no good reason we should enforce minimum lot and zoning laws to prevent people from moving to where opportunity lives.

derac 4y ago
I do think they should get rid of prop 13, demolish all single family homes, and replace them with high-density buildings. What many people mean however, is that they want to continue to live there in the same single-family house forever. This is why prop 13 exists in the first place.
- robocat 4y ago
  > demolish all single family homes Ahhhh, brutalism . . . “The Soviets decided to pass: the plan was too extreme and destructive of existing institutions even for Stalin. Undeterred, Le Corbusier changed the word “Moscow” on the diagram to “Paris”, then presented it to the French government (who also passed). Some aspects of his design eventually ended up as Chandigarh, India.” https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-like-a-state/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-lik...
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Or Paris, or Madrid, or much of the rest of Europe in which 3--5 storey townhouses are common. These might be single- or multip-occupant dwellings (e.g., a single family or household on multiple floors). Typically zoning is denser, though structures might be either attached or detached. In either case, the land-usage intensity rises by multiple factors. The option is not between 1-story quarter-acre development and a forest of Burj Khalifas. There is in fact considerable intermediate ground.
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  High density housing will not work in places with a high standard and quality of living. It will certainly erode individual rights, create environmental decline and infringe upon privacy. In developed countries, high density housing will either make the city unbearably expensive(NYC) or bring down quality of life.(SF) High density is a sign that resources are scarce but demand for them has increased. The sign of a well functioning and professional state is one that has a healthy middle class and enjoys low density sustainable standard of life. Often the case for high density housing is married to sustainability goals. But sustainability goals exist in the first place because resources are scarce and it is becoming difficult to live in a sustainable manner. The rational solution is to place a moratorium upon expansion of the city and the population. Only in Bizarro World would the logic of cramming more people even more densely in the name of sustainable design would make sense. The true scarcity mentality is with governing bodies and elected officials who do not have the vision, integrity or collective access to more than one brain cell. They fail to create networked sustainable communities and manipulate their vote banks. One might choose to be fair and honest to admit that calls for high density housing is often where successful immigrants congregate due to their employment. Often said immigrants are on work visas and often are not eligible to vote in local/national elections. Is it a coincidence that elected officials impose high taxes only in certain cities/counties and extract every dollar they can squeeze from a work force who are cuffed to their visa sponsored high paying jobs? The golden goose is slaughtered and well done. Stick a fork in it and let the taxes drip. There are no high density initiatives in Visalia, CA. Only in Bay Area. Because why build infrastructure and public transport when you can keep taxing those who can’t even vote in the first place. At least in CA, it’s win-win over and over. Every city that has a highly paid immigrant work force is on the chopping block and will start passing high density housing initiatives. Success must be penalized..it seems. Affordable housing is subsidized housing. And who subsidizes it? The developers will tack that cost to the market value homes. Which would..surprise!..create more unaffordable cities. It’s a vicious cycle that should obvious to most who pay mortgages for all of their working lives.
  - ahtihn 4y ago
    > In developed countries, high density housing will either make the city unbearably expensive(NYC) I think you're reversing cause and effect.

antman 4y ago

People hate to hear this but noone has a right to live somewhere indefinitely I am sure you feel it made sense when you wrote it, or the example explained it in any way. I absolutely failed to understand the common knowledge aspect about people's limits to their ownership rights or even understand the sequence of events or mathematical explanation of the example.

derac 4y ago
Over time, the number of people that can lay claim to their right to live in LA forever will/could grow exponentially. The space is limited. Particularly so when you have prop 13. These two facts are incompatible. What you will get in reality is an ever-ballooning housing price, pushing everyone else out and single-family home owners locking in their "right" to the space through market-distorting laws like prop 13. I ask you this, why do the people living in LA have more of a right to be there than the native Indians that were there 500 years ago?
- antman 4y ago
  How is the potential problem of housing future people an argument for a policy that allows kicking out existing owners? They don't seem to me related. This is about the rights of ownership. The problems you mention stem from various "kick out" policies that are essentially forced assets transfer and artificial scarcity policies to inflate prices (difficulty for new housing, one family houses, height of buildings, devaluation of residential areas by bad policing etc) Housing prices are results of specific policies, and people's ownership rights are protected in western societies.