2 ms·
Stopping development doesn't really 'keep the city as it is', though. There will continue to be greater demand, which will make rents higher, which will create
by chizhik-pyzhik 4y ago
Stopping development doesn't really 'keep the city as it is', though. There will continue to be greater demand, which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty.
- notch656a 4y ago>which will make rents higher, which will create more poverty. At some point though don't rents become high enough it's almost a 'luxury' to live there? What proportion of people paying say $15k/month in rent are in poverty? If the tyranny of the majority decide they want SF to be an ultra-rich enclave I'm trying to imagine how that can even be stopped, regardless. There's no constitutional right to free-market housing. IMO the 51% of best situated home/property owners will always have the incentive to impose their tyranny on others, and if they flush out the 49% due to elevated cost and repeat this iteratively you end up with an ever-concentrated hyper-wealthy enclave. That kind of self-reinforcing loop appears to be what SF is getting locked into.