3 ms·
No, he doesn't. Although I suspect here on HN there will be a segment - hopefully a small one - of people who agree with him. Gentrification is not always bad,
by objclxt 13y ago
No, he doesn't. Although I suspect here on HN there will be a segment - hopefully a small one - of people who agree with him. Gentrification is not always bad, but this guy's arguments are.
Breaking down some of them:
> You can't afford it? You can leave. I'm sorry, get a better job
That isn't how it works in the real world. People can't 'just leave'. If you seriously think moving to a more affordable city is an option for everyone you are sadly mistaken. I don't think I really need to go into why "just move" is very naive argument.
> "I'm sorry, get a better job."
Again, this isn't how life works. If it was so easy to 'get a better job' we'd all be out doing it.
> "This is a city for the right people who can afford it."
Who are "the right people"? Who gets to dictate who can and cannot live in a city? Many people being priced out of San Francisco have lived there for generations, far longer than people moving to work in tech. Why are the latter "the right people" but not the former?
I am not saying I totally agree with the protestors, either. Gentrification in general brings many positives and negatives. It's a tricky balance. There are good arguments to be made on either side - "if you don't like it, just move" is not one of them. "You're not the right people" is even worse.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- jamiequint 13y agoThe "right people" are the ones who can afford it, its not anyone's god given right to live in a particular place of their choosing.
- crbnw00ts 13y ago> Who are "the right people"? Who gets to dictate who can and cannot live in a city? Not that I agree with the guy in the video in any way, but I 100% •guarantee* the protestors (and the writers at the Guardian for that matter) have their own ideas about who the "right people" people are to live in SF, and that these ideas are not exactly absent from their motivations when protesting or discussing these issues.
- DanBlake 13y agoHe phrased himself very poorly, admittedly. That being said, I disagree with the notion that simply because you live somewhere, you get a automatic right to live there forever. Can I get that deal in Aspen or Malibu? Of course not. San Francisco has without dispute the best tenant protections in the country. San Francisco (now) has without dispute the most expensive real estate in the country. You can go ahead and say correlation isn't causation here, Just like you can also believe in the easter bunny
- Crito 13y ago> "Can I get that deal in Aspen or Malibu? Of course not." From what I can grok from this, their idea is that this deal should only be extended to people who were born in the area. Well-off parents raise you in SF? Congratulations, you now get to live there forever and it is the responsibility of other people to ensure that you can always afford it. Get raised in Smalltown, Kansas? Well I hope you like Kansas, because you will forever be relegated to second class "transplant" status. ...or something.
- aianus 13y agoWhy can't they move? They're not entitled to live in San Francisco just because their parents live there or whatever. That's life.