3 ms·

You didn’t say “someone wants to live next to you”. You said “build a house”. Presumably, this includes a “house” that can hold 1000 people at low rent. If i

You didn’t say “someone wants to live next to you”. You said “build a house”. Presumably, this includes a “house” that can hold 1000 people at low rent. If it doesn’t (since that would undeniably destroy your property value), then you’re willing to impose regulations on the pretty deregulated picture you’ve painted. If it does, then you’re not going to find that many people who own property agree with you.

ProfessorLayton 2y ago
>Presumably, this includes a “house” that can hold 1000 people at low rent. Presumptuous indeed. There wouldn't be a housing shortage if vast parts of the U.S. weren't restricted to single family homes. The choice isn't a single family home or a housing complex that can hold a 1,000 people, but more efficient usage of space and infrastructure, one that isn't totally centered around everyone having a vehicle. That can also mean low rise multi-family homes seen in cities worldwide, and yes, also big complexes where viable. >If it does, then you’re not going to find that many people who own property agree with you. Well if things don't change, lots of people won't be able to own property, and the rules will change anyway. We're seeing this in California.
- binary132 2y ago
  so “yes”?