3 ms·

The policy they've chosen to advocate directly harms me. Not in a, "oh, no, there's now a construction project nearby" sort of way. In a, "I literally cannot af

The policy they've chosen to advocate directly harms me. Not in a, "oh, no, there's now a construction project nearby" sort of way. In a, "I literally cannot afford to live in this city anymore, so I have to leave" sort of way. I will deride the hell out of the extremely privileged status quo interests who put their precious aesthetic opinions above the basic needs of their children and grandchildren. If you loudly advocate your selfish and in doing so you hurt the hell out of large groups of people, they will dislike you for it.

fnordpiglet 4y ago
I see, the harm done is if the city won’t change to accommodate you you might have to move to another city. The harm done to the other side is they can’t stand to live in the city that changed to accommodate you so you didn’t have to leave, and they have to leave. Their advocacy for the city accommodating them is selfish, but your advocacy for the city accommodating you is egalitarian? I see a lot of people say this is direct harm. I don’t think people understand what that term means. “I’m upset by the outcome of your advocacy” doesn’t mean direct harm. Advocacy isn’t directed towards you, no one has come to you and harmed you. Direct harm would be them coming and removing you from your home and keeping you under housed directly. Their advocacy indirectly leads to higher housing prices, and even then there’s a lot of other confounding factors. “I’m really upset with the situation and those guys are advocating for a partial factor that gives rise” is about as indirect as you get.
- EricDeb 4y ago
  Harm is done to the person owning the single family home absolutely but I would argue that is the lesser of two evils. The best way would be to give them some element of compensation, but still, if one wants a nice, lower density area they should move away from the rapidly growing city. You can't just expect to maintain that forever.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    The same could be said of the person who wants a larger apartment than they could afford given the market for housing - move further away from the city. Neither extreme makes sense, we should probably recognize both camps have valid points and a middle path is likely the right one, and no one will be fully satisfied.
    - EricDeb 4y ago
      From a utilitarian perspective though it's a greater harm to all the people that would live in the high-rise that now have to live miles from the city versus the handful of single family home owners.
      - fnordpiglet 4y ago
        That is true. Hence my comments above about the extreme is razing all the SFH and replacing them with society style apartment blocks to ensure everyone has the minimum required to house the maximum number of people at the lowest cost possible. The other side is they’re incumbent, have established a life, and their entire community wants the life they have lived. Respecting that is important too, otherwise you get what you see in China with the razing of old cities replaced with efficiency unit high rises and forced relocation. There’s something to be said for respecting the lives built of a community vs destroying the community built for utilitarian gain.
        EricDeb 4y ago
        True and I 100% agree not everybody can live in santa monica or San Francisco. It should be expensive or inhibiting in some way.
- jjav 4y ago
  > I see, the harm done is if the city won’t change to accommodate you you might have to move to another city. The harm done to the other side is they can’t stand to live in the city that changed to accommodate you so you didn’t have to leave, and they have to leave. Their advocacy for the city accommodating them is selfish, but your advocacy for the city accommodating you is egalitarian? This is very well expressed, thanks. Fundamentally you have people who live somewhere and like it how it is, and all the people who don't live there and want to radically change it to be something else. Clearly these desires are in conflict. Each side has the right to speak up for what they'd like to see, sure. But where does it come the idea that the people who don't live there should have a greater say in how the place develops than those who actually make their life there? I can only live in one place, all other towns of the world are places I don't live in. By that logic, I should be able to influence all the N-1 places on earth I don't live it, but have no say in how development occurs in the 1 place I do live in. Does that make sense? I don't live in Boston. Should I have greater vote on how Boston needs to change than people who actually live there? (To pick a random city I don't live in.)
hcurtiss 4y ago
But isn't your position premised on an entitlement to live in a particular place? I don't recall ever creating or affirming that entitlement. And it doesn't exactly strike me as reasonable. There are expensive neighborhoods that I cannot afford to live in. I don't see anything wrong with that.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

I see, the harm done is if the city won’t change to accommodate you you might have to move to another city. The harm done to the other side is they can’t stand to live in the city that changed to accommodate you so you didn’t have to leave, and they have to leave. Their advocacy for the city accommodating them is selfish, but your advocacy for the city accommodating you is egalitarian? I see a lot of people say this is direct harm. I don’t think people understand what that term means. “I’m upset by the outcome of your advocacy” doesn’t mean direct harm. Advocacy isn’t directed towards you, no one has come to you and harmed you. Direct harm would be them coming and removing you from your home and keeping you under housed directly. Their advocacy indirectly leads to higher housing prices, and even then there’s a lot of other confounding factors. “I’m really upset with the situation and those guys are advocating for a partial factor that gives rise” is about as indirect as you get.

EricDeb 4y ago
Harm is done to the person owning the single family home absolutely but I would argue that is the lesser of two evils. The best way would be to give them some element of compensation, but still, if one wants a nice, lower density area they should move away from the rapidly growing city. You can't just expect to maintain that forever.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  The same could be said of the person who wants a larger apartment than they could afford given the market for housing - move further away from the city. Neither extreme makes sense, we should probably recognize both camps have valid points and a middle path is likely the right one, and no one will be fully satisfied.
  - EricDeb 4y ago
    From a utilitarian perspective though it's a greater harm to all the people that would live in the high-rise that now have to live miles from the city versus the handful of single family home owners.
    - fnordpiglet 4y ago
      That is true. Hence my comments above about the extreme is razing all the SFH and replacing them with society style apartment blocks to ensure everyone has the minimum required to house the maximum number of people at the lowest cost possible. The other side is they’re incumbent, have established a life, and their entire community wants the life they have lived. Respecting that is important too, otherwise you get what you see in China with the razing of old cities replaced with efficiency unit high rises and forced relocation. There’s something to be said for respecting the lives built of a community vs destroying the community built for utilitarian gain.
      - EricDeb 4y ago
        True and I 100% agree not everybody can live in santa monica or San Francisco. It should be expensive or inhibiting in some way.
jjav 4y ago
> I see, the harm done is if the city won’t change to accommodate you you might have to move to another city. The harm done to the other side is they can’t stand to live in the city that changed to accommodate you so you didn’t have to leave, and they have to leave. Their advocacy for the city accommodating them is selfish, but your advocacy for the city accommodating you is egalitarian? This is very well expressed, thanks. Fundamentally you have people who live somewhere and like it how it is, and all the people who don't live there and want to radically change it to be something else. Clearly these desires are in conflict. Each side has the right to speak up for what they'd like to see, sure. But where does it come the idea that the people who don't live there should have a greater say in how the place develops than those who actually make their life there? I can only live in one place, all other towns of the world are places I don't live in. By that logic, I should be able to influence all the N-1 places on earth I don't live it, but have no say in how development occurs in the 1 place I do live in. Does that make sense? I don't live in Boston. Should I have greater vote on how Boston needs to change than people who actually live there? (To pick a random city I don't live in.)

hcurtiss 4y ago

But isn't your position premised on an entitlement to live in a particular place? I don't recall ever creating or affirming that entitlement. And it doesn't exactly strike me as reasonable. There are expensive neighborhoods that I cannot afford to live in. I don't see anything wrong with that.