5 ms·

Another whine story. I do feel sorry for those people that legitimately deserve it. You know, women in the middle east who are beaten or stoned to death for n

Another whine story. I do feel sorry for those people that legitimately deserve it. You know, women in the middle east who are beaten or stoned to death for not wearing berkas, or orphans in Africa dealing with genocidal warlords. But this lady could live perfectly fine on her social security if she would move to somewhere she could afford. Living in San Francisco is something a whole lot of people want to do. That's why it's so damn expensive. I want to do it too, but I don't want to pay that price. That's ok, you shouldn't get everything you want. It's a privilege to live there, not a right.

jedmeyers 13y ago
It looks like the Entitled do not consider it to be a privilege. To them once you rented a place somewhere for x years, you are entitled to live at that place indefinitely.
- Shivetya 13y ago
  we only have to look to politicians to assign the blame, in the East its called rent control, whats its called in SF? It is like any government handout, except here in the case of money they merely take your rights away to your property.
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    Blaming this on politicians is lazy and narrowsighted. Compromise is a two way street: Landowners get zoning rules that prevent them from competing with highrise apartment buildings, turning desirable regions into pressure-cookers that drive rents and property values sky-high. Tenants get rent control that shields them from the from the worst of the landowner-cartel's machinations. Not as well as they were promised at voting time, but they don't typically invest as much in local politics, so that's to be expected. The real losers are the people who would move into a neighborhood if they could. They don't get any representation in the local government. That's either a feature or a bug, depending on which side of the fence you're on :)
fishtoaster 13y ago
It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme. Reminds me of panel 3 in http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1992-03-01/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1992-03-01/
- lettergram 13y ago
  No reason she couldn't have moved 40 minutes out of the city, or perhaps if she does have friends she could move in with them.
- jedmeyers 13y ago
  How about this strip: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-04-18/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-04-18/
- krschultz 13y ago
  My parents bought their house in the 1980s. They paid it off 100%. When they retired they moved. Would it have been preferable to keep the house the whole family grew up in? Probably. But they couldn't afford the overhead of utilities, maintenance, etc. They moved to a smaller house in a state with lower property taxes. They too left their friends, contacts, etc. Built up over living there for 35 years. But it was the responsible decision to do it. Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right? Especially when seniors have the dual safety net of Social Security and Medicaid - they are generally in a better shape than many working class people. The landlord paid her $14k just to move out. That with social security would absolutely cover living expenses in most of the country.
  - rtpg 13y ago
    >Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right? Obviously utilities going up should be considered in rent, but in a property tax-free world, someone staying is not a burden on the owner, except in the "he could be making even more money". The owner ends up making less because they might not be market value, but considering that what he's doing is rent-seeking anyways, there's not that much moral high ground for the guy who wants to increase rent just because of "the market". Obviously these problems are nuanced (and economists seem to all agree that rent control = bad )

jedmeyers 13y ago

It looks like the Entitled do not consider it to be a privilege. To them once you rented a place somewhere for x years, you are entitled to live at that place indefinitely.

Shivetya 13y ago
we only have to look to politicians to assign the blame, in the East its called rent control, whats its called in SF? It is like any government handout, except here in the case of money they merely take your rights away to your property.
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  Blaming this on politicians is lazy and narrowsighted. Compromise is a two way street: Landowners get zoning rules that prevent them from competing with highrise apartment buildings, turning desirable regions into pressure-cookers that drive rents and property values sky-high. Tenants get rent control that shields them from the from the worst of the landowner-cartel's machinations. Not as well as they were promised at voting time, but they don't typically invest as much in local politics, so that's to be expected. The real losers are the people who would move into a neighborhood if they could. They don't get any representation in the local government. That's either a feature or a bug, depending on which side of the fence you're on :)

fishtoaster 13y ago

It sounds like she moved there when it was cheap. Is it reasonable to expect her to leave her friends, contacts, etc that she's built up over decades because the city is changing? Housing isn't widgets: it's not easy to move to a cheaper type if your current type gets expensive. There isn't an easy answer to this sort of problem, but to imply that she should simply "move somewhere else" is simplistic in the extreme. Reminds me of panel 3 in http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1992-03-01/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1992-03-01/

lettergram 13y ago
No reason she couldn't have moved 40 minutes out of the city, or perhaps if she does have friends she could move in with them.
jedmeyers 13y ago
How about this strip: http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-04-18/ http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1989-04-18/
krschultz 13y ago
My parents bought their house in the 1980s. They paid it off 100%. When they retired they moved. Would it have been preferable to keep the house the whole family grew up in? Probably. But they couldn't afford the overhead of utilities, maintenance, etc. They moved to a smaller house in a state with lower property taxes. They too left their friends, contacts, etc. Built up over living there for 35 years. But it was the responsible decision to do it. Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right? Especially when seniors have the dual safety net of Social Security and Medicaid - they are generally in a better shape than many working class people. The landlord paid her $14k just to move out. That with social security would absolutely cover living expenses in most of the country.
- rtpg 13y ago
  >Why should it be everyone else's burden if they make a stupid decision to stay put in a place they can't afford? Is that a right? Obviously utilities going up should be considered in rent, but in a property tax-free world, someone staying is not a burden on the owner, except in the "he could be making even more money". The owner ends up making less because they might not be market value, but considering that what he's doing is rent-seeking anyways, there's not that much moral high ground for the guy who wants to increase rent just because of "the market". Obviously these problems are nuanced (and economists seem to all agree that rent control = bad )