4 ms·
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
by 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 agoThe 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 agoFrom 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 agoThat 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 agoTrue and I 100% agree not everybody can live in santa monica or San Francisco. It should be expensive or inhibiting in some way.