4 ms·

> That's literally the whole point of markets A home is not a share of stock. The purpose of a home is not to be an equity to trade in the markets. The purpose

by jjav 3y ago

> That's literally the whole point of markets A home is not a share of stock. The purpose of a home is not to be an equity to trade in the markets. The purpose is to live in it, enjoy the neighborhood, raise kids, etc. So trying to think of it as just a trade in a market misses the point why people care about their homes.

ndriscoll 3y ago
Furthermore, a home and a community are a place that you build and take part in, which can take a significant fraction of your life. My mom has spent the last decade working on her garden, amending the soil, and growing a bunch of fruit trees. There's only enough time to do that maybe 5 times in one's life. The thing georgists ignore when they say it's good to kick people out so land can be used more "productively" is that stability is what enables society. There's no point in making your surroundings better or contributing to society if you're going to be forced out in the name of "productivity" once things are nice, and it makes sense to become anti-social if that's the deal.
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  > if you're going to be forced out in the name of "productivity" once things are nice, and it makes sense to become anti-social if that's the deal. i think we already seen people react like this in some areas to gentrification and inequality. The damage to society us considerable
- supertrope 3y ago
  Currently we make it illegal for the current owner-resident to choose to bulldoze their single family house and build a quadplex and live in one unit. If you don't want to redevelop your lot that's perfectly fine, but why restrict your neighbor's property rights? The current system just rewards those lucky enough to see their neighborhood appreciate in value. Once it does newcomers are priced out and we have an equilibrium of urban sprawl, housing inflation outstripping inflation, and ever longer commutes. Imagine if groceries were sold on a 30 year contract. If you chose the right grocery district you'd eventually get a sweeter and sweeter deal as your right appreciated. In the most competitive grocery districts, newcomers would have to bid $1 million to for the right to access groceries in that area. Or rent it at $3000/mo. Faced with a too high cost to buy into a centrally located grocery district, many would have to commute an hour each way to stock their pantry.
  - jjav 3y ago
    > Currently we make it illegal for the current owner-resident to choose to bulldoze their single family house and build a quadplex and live in one unit. Not sure who "we" is there, but as an absolute statement that's not true. I see quite a few lots around here that used to be a house that have been converted into 4/6/8-plexes (depending on lot depth).

by jjav 3y ago

ndriscoll 3y ago

Furthermore, a home and a community are a place that you build and take part in, which can take a significant fraction of your life. My mom has spent the last decade working on her garden, amending the soil, and growing a bunch of fruit trees. There's only enough time to do that maybe 5 times in one's life. The thing georgists ignore when they say it's good to kick people out so land can be used more "productively" is that stability is what enables society. There's no point in making your surroundings better or contributing to society if you're going to be forced out in the name of "productivity" once things are nice, and it makes sense to become anti-social if that's the deal.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> if you're going to be forced out in the name of "productivity" once things are nice, and it makes sense to become anti-social if that's the deal. i think we already seen people react like this in some areas to gentrification and inequality. The damage to society us considerable
supertrope 3y ago
Currently we make it illegal for the current owner-resident to choose to bulldoze their single family house and build a quadplex and live in one unit. If you don't want to redevelop your lot that's perfectly fine, but why restrict your neighbor's property rights? The current system just rewards those lucky enough to see their neighborhood appreciate in value. Once it does newcomers are priced out and we have an equilibrium of urban sprawl, housing inflation outstripping inflation, and ever longer commutes. Imagine if groceries were sold on a 30 year contract. If you chose the right grocery district you'd eventually get a sweeter and sweeter deal as your right appreciated. In the most competitive grocery districts, newcomers would have to bid $1 million to for the right to access groceries in that area. Or rent it at $3000/mo. Faced with a too high cost to buy into a centrally located grocery district, many would have to commute an hour each way to stock their pantry.
- jjav 3y ago
  > Currently we make it illegal for the current owner-resident to choose to bulldoze their single family house and build a quadplex and live in one unit. Not sure who "we" is there, but as an absolute statement that's not true. I see quite a few lots around here that used to be a house that have been converted into 4/6/8-plexes (depending on lot depth).