4 ms·
Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, you can make it sound as if the homeowner is tone deaf to suffering and doesn't want to take on mild inconvience of property valu
by bdhdjnsi 3y ago
Respectfully, I disagree. Yes, you can make it sound as if the homeowner is tone deaf to suffering and doesn't want to take on mild inconvience of property value decreasing. But let me give you a scenario, elderly people who spend decades paying off a house, the value of the house being a big part of their retirement (as is the case with most people, where a home is a big part of their net worth). Say, if the property value falls by half, so does their retirement runway and a real risk of making them candidates to be homeless too as they get older.
I am not saying that a home owner purchased a right to not be affected by current policies. I am saying it never was a policy to make the street or sidewalk a residence and we shouldn't make it a policy now.
- alistairSH 3y agoHomes should not be an investment vessel. We have policies that make them reasonable investments, which leads to price increases, scarcity, NIMBYism, etc. it never was a policy to make the street or sidewalk a residence That's literally the end-result of NIMBYism run rampant. If you don't want lower income housing (or homeless shelters, or drug treatment centers, or mental health case facilities) anywhere near your home, then you have to accept that there will be a population of people that need any of those things who now must go without, which then leads to homelessness, crime, etc. The extreme outcome is walling off neighborhoods and hiring armed guards as they do in many parts of South Africa.
- giraffe_lady 3y agoYou disagree with my moral judgement about your stated view? You don't get a vote in that lol.