5 ms·

> Until there's a better solution than "tough shit" these policies will continue to be popular. Why do we need a better solution than "tough shit"? Not everyo

> Until there's a better solution than "tough shit" these policies will continue to be popular. Why do we need a better solution than "tough shit"? Not everyone is entitled to live where they want. If you want that, try Europe.

pixl97 7y ago
Because we make lots of policies that make housing hard to build in the first place.
CreRecombinase 7y ago
If you don't think you need a better solution then you have to admit you need a better argument; it seems like a lot of voters disagree with you.
- V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
  > it seems like a lot of voters disagree with you. I don't know man, appealing to the authority of the collective wisdom of the voters seems like a pretty shaky foundation on which to base an argument these days.
  - 0xB31B1B 7y ago
    The parent comment was “if you want this policy, tough shit move to Europe”. If the policy is popular here, why doesn’t parent comment move?
    - chronic71819 7y ago
      > The parent comment was “if you want this policy, tough shit move to Europe”. If the policy is popular here, why doesn’t parent comment move? If you want rent control, I'm saying you should go elsewhere. If you are against rent control, my comment did not imply what you should or shouldn't do.
    - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
      > why doesn’t parent comment move? you'd probably get a better answer if you were to ask the person who made that comment.
yourbandsucks 7y ago
But you and I are, right?
- chronic71819 7y ago
  > But you and I are, right? No. I must pay market rate or live elsewhere. Please don't be a hypocritical progressive.
  - dfasdfasd 7y ago
    What entitles anyone to own land in the first place? What entitles the market to exist?
    - chii 7y ago
      > entitles anyone to own land in the first place? by fiat, land can be owned. The first land was obtained through war and conquest (from native american indians). Those who worked and produced wealth used it to purchase the land from the crown (or whatever gov't that did the conquering). If you want to change this, you either must convince everybody (including existing land owners) that your system is better. Or, raise an army, and take it by force (as what was originally done to the native american indians).
      - dfasdfasd 7y ago
        Those were rhetorical questions. Like you said, through our system of democracy, we _allow_ the markets to exist in a particular form. We _allow_ the government to administer force to protect the peoples' ownership of private property. None of this is a given, and pretending everyone has a moral imperative to participate in the market does not follow. If people in a region decide, by democratic means, they want to change the way the market functions, there is nothing implying they should 'get out'. It is fully within their rights.
damnyou 7y ago
Because people invest big chunks of their lives in communities. I realize that many tech workers in SF are normally ignorant of the lives of the people around them though.
rtpg 7y ago
A lot of existing policies favor the existing owners of the real estate (not even the renters) "Not everyone is entitled to live where they want" is like... OK sure. But only land owners used to be able to vote. It makes a lot of sense to help out renters through policies that might harm owners.
tomc1985 7y ago
You say that but the vast majority of housing being built in CA is "luxury" accommodations. Luxury homes, luxury apartments, luxury condos. Nothing else justifies the cost of land, the developers say, and hence nothing else gets built. Meanwhile short-term rentals are cannibalizing existing housing stock. I was born here, and like hell would I tolerate some random fuck telling me I'm not entitled to live here. You're saying the only people entitled to live on desirable land are wealthy assholes coming from afar? "I'm sorry, the only place you're entitled to live at your income level is that shithole next to the meatpacking/chemical/whatever plant. Why are you complaining? You can live with all your other equally-abled friends!" This is how you create ghettos.
- chronic71819 7y ago
  > You're saying the only people entitled to live on desirable land are wealthy assholes coming from afar? Rich or poor, asshole or not asshole: No one is entitled to live anywhere. There is only a market price. That's all.
  - cowpig 7y ago
    But this is self-contradictory. When you say "there is only a market price" you are saying that those with money are entitled.
    - chii 7y ago
      But the money obtained through work has a meaning. "Entitled" means to demand without having first "worked" to obtain the necessary resources for said demand.
  - tomc1985 7y ago
    Means is a form of entitlement. Free market economics creates massive inequality. That's the whole issue at stake here.
    - chii 7y ago
jayd16 7y ago
This cuts both ways. Why should you or anyone else be able to access this housing, for example? But beyond that, local residents set local policy so it's obvious why these policies are in place.
Rapzid 7y ago
"If you don't like it leave." People who say that might as well be telling somebody in Venezuela if they don't like it there try the USA. Most people can't just move to another developed country. They don't have the means and/or don't the meet the visa criteria.
- scarface74 7y ago
  There are 49 other states besides California.
chii 7y ago
> Not everyone is entitled to live where they want whilst that is true, society should band together in such a way as to make it possible to create cheap shelter for everybody (as an option, those who wants to live more luxuriousy should be able to if they have the means). Rent control isn't really achieving it though, and only distorts the market.

pixl97 7y ago

Because we make lots of policies that make housing hard to build in the first place.

CreRecombinase 7y ago

If you don't think you need a better solution then you have to admit you need a better argument; it seems like a lot of voters disagree with you.

V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
> it seems like a lot of voters disagree with you. I don't know man, appealing to the authority of the collective wisdom of the voters seems like a pretty shaky foundation on which to base an argument these days.
- 0xB31B1B 7y ago
  The parent comment was “if you want this policy, tough shit move to Europe”. If the policy is popular here, why doesn’t parent comment move?
  - chronic71819 7y ago
    > The parent comment was “if you want this policy, tough shit move to Europe”. If the policy is popular here, why doesn’t parent comment move? If you want rent control, I'm saying you should go elsewhere. If you are against rent control, my comment did not imply what you should or shouldn't do.
  - V-eHGsd_ 7y ago
    > why doesn’t parent comment move? you'd probably get a better answer if you were to ask the person who made that comment.

yourbandsucks 7y ago

But you and I are, right?

chronic71819 7y ago
> But you and I are, right? No. I must pay market rate or live elsewhere. Please don't be a hypocritical progressive.
- dfasdfasd 7y ago
  What entitles anyone to own land in the first place? What entitles the market to exist?
  - chii 7y ago
    > entitles anyone to own land in the first place? by fiat, land can be owned. The first land was obtained through war and conquest (from native american indians). Those who worked and produced wealth used it to purchase the land from the crown (or whatever gov't that did the conquering). If you want to change this, you either must convince everybody (including existing land owners) that your system is better. Or, raise an army, and take it by force (as what was originally done to the native american indians).
    - dfasdfasd 7y ago
      Those were rhetorical questions. Like you said, through our system of democracy, we _allow_ the markets to exist in a particular form. We _allow_ the government to administer force to protect the peoples' ownership of private property. None of this is a given, and pretending everyone has a moral imperative to participate in the market does not follow. If people in a region decide, by democratic means, they want to change the way the market functions, there is nothing implying they should 'get out'. It is fully within their rights.

damnyou 7y ago

Because people invest big chunks of their lives in communities. I realize that many tech workers in SF are normally ignorant of the lives of the people around them though.

rtpg 7y ago

A lot of existing policies favor the existing owners of the real estate (not even the renters) "Not everyone is entitled to live where they want" is like... OK sure. But only land owners used to be able to vote. It makes a lot of sense to help out renters through policies that might harm owners.

tomc1985 7y ago

You say that but the vast majority of housing being built in CA is "luxury" accommodations. Luxury homes, luxury apartments, luxury condos. Nothing else justifies the cost of land, the developers say, and hence nothing else gets built. Meanwhile short-term rentals are cannibalizing existing housing stock. I was born here, and like hell would I tolerate some random fuck telling me I'm not entitled to live here. You're saying the only people entitled to live on desirable land are wealthy assholes coming from afar? "I'm sorry, the only place you're entitled to live at your income level is that shithole next to the meatpacking/chemical/whatever plant. Why are you complaining? You can live with all your other equally-abled friends!" This is how you create ghettos.

chronic71819 7y ago
> You're saying the only people entitled to live on desirable land are wealthy assholes coming from afar? Rich or poor, asshole or not asshole: No one is entitled to live anywhere. There is only a market price. That's all.
- cowpig 7y ago
  But this is self-contradictory. When you say "there is only a market price" you are saying that those with money are entitled.
  - chii 7y ago
    But the money obtained through work has a meaning. "Entitled" means to demand without having first "worked" to obtain the necessary resources for said demand.
- tomc1985 7y ago
  Means is a form of entitlement. Free market economics creates massive inequality. That's the whole issue at stake here.
  - chii 7y ago

jayd16 7y ago

This cuts both ways. Why should you or anyone else be able to access this housing, for example? But beyond that, local residents set local policy so it's obvious why these policies are in place.

Rapzid 7y ago

"If you don't like it leave." People who say that might as well be telling somebody in Venezuela if they don't like it there try the USA. Most people can't just move to another developed country. They don't have the means and/or don't the meet the visa criteria.

scarface74 7y ago
There are 49 other states besides California.

chii 7y ago

> Not everyone is entitled to live where they want whilst that is true, society should band together in such a way as to make it possible to create cheap shelter for everybody (as an option, those who wants to live more luxuriousy should be able to if they have the means). Rent control isn't really achieving it though, and only distorts the market.