2 ms·

At least people in the Bay Area or San Francisco live with the consequences of their own ideology. You cannot say the same about the Martha's Vineyard residents

At least people in the Bay Area or San Francisco live with the consequences of their own ideology. You cannot say the same about the Martha's Vineyard residents, they deported all the migrants within 72 hours. Even the people with the "in this house we believe no human is illegal" did everything in their power to get them out of there.

vkou 3y ago
People in the cities also to have to live with the consequences of the ideologies of the suburbs, who don't build affordable housing, don't allow shelters, don't want to provide the resources people need, and would rather just bus them into the city (And then loudly complain about how the city is a failed cesspit). Somehow, it falls on the ~800,000 people of a city to solve all the social and economic problems of the ~4,000,000 metro area surrounding them.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  I don't know about that. The sub-urbs don't produce the same kind of urban decay. The same pattern of drug use, dealers, and petty crime for small paydays resulting in the next high. You don't have the sub-urbs legalizing shop lifting up to 900$ so that you incentivize a permanent criminal class. The sub urbs to a lesser degree and rural to a greater degree just don't have enough population density to support the same level of drug dealers and subsequent drug users. Not to say rural areas don't have drug consumption, it's just prescription drugs from a pill mill and liquor from a liquor store, not cocaine or crystal meth from a street dealer. There's not enough storefronts to steal from, and outside of cities you don't have legalized shoplifting up to a certain $ amount. And yes, it is expensive to buy rural or sub-urban property, but it is still less expensive than Urban property, and rents are cheaper in the sub-urbs, while many rural jobs offer room and board to workers. Meaning if they get a job they will not be homeless and be able to save money.

vkou 3y ago

People in the cities also to have to live with the consequences of the ideologies of the suburbs, who don't build affordable housing, don't allow shelters, don't want to provide the resources people need, and would rather just bus them into the city (And then loudly complain about how the city is a failed cesspit). Somehow, it falls on the ~800,000 people of a city to solve all the social and economic problems of the ~4,000,000 metro area surrounding them.

pauldenton 3y ago
I don't know about that. The sub-urbs don't produce the same kind of urban decay. The same pattern of drug use, dealers, and petty crime for small paydays resulting in the next high. You don't have the sub-urbs legalizing shop lifting up to 900$ so that you incentivize a permanent criminal class. The sub urbs to a lesser degree and rural to a greater degree just don't have enough population density to support the same level of drug dealers and subsequent drug users. Not to say rural areas don't have drug consumption, it's just prescription drugs from a pill mill and liquor from a liquor store, not cocaine or crystal meth from a street dealer. There's not enough storefronts to steal from, and outside of cities you don't have legalized shoplifting up to a certain $ amount. And yes, it is expensive to buy rural or sub-urban property, but it is still less expensive than Urban property, and rents are cheaper in the sub-urbs, while many rural jobs offer room and board to workers. Meaning if they get a job they will not be homeless and be able to save money.