9 ms·

Perhaps they are homeowners, who want the housing crisis to stay terrible because it keeps their property values high.

beatpanda 11y ago
Indeed! "The neighborhood is mostly single family homes, and the people there are very resistant to the idea of “renters” (the code word they use for poor people) living in the neighborhood." http://sfbarf.tumblr.com/post/116593748570/balboa-reservoir-is-a-17-acre-city-owned-site-that http://sfbarf.tumblr.com/post/116593748570/balboa-reservoir-...
- teacup50 11y ago
  The people that live in a place shouldn't have a say in its future?
  - Kalium 11y ago
    There is something of a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country? Would you be OK with this principle if a white neighborhood wanted to enforce a "no black or brown people" rule? How about a "straight people only" rule? How about "no poor people"? This isn't a purely abstract question, but an actual question that has arisen repeatedly in the history of the US. Sunset Towns have been real things.
    - teacup50 11y ago
      It's an absolutely silly question; there's a clear difference between zoning rules based on land use, and zoning rules based on discrimination against a protected class.
      - Kalium 11y ago
        OK. Let's try again, without the silliness. This is a serious question that requires a serious answer. There is a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country? Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want?
        teacup50 11y ago
        > Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want? Residents answer to their neighborhood, neighborhoods answer to their district, districts answer to the city, state, and so on. How to respect individuals, communities, and a plan for the future across all of those lines of responsibility isn't answerable with a simple "yes" or "no"; however, the onus should be on the individuals requesting the change to 1) justify its necessity and value, 2) quantify its cost to existing residents, and 3) recommend mechanisms for remediation or renumeration for externalities imposed upon the local residents by whatever project is imposed upon them to the benefit of the broader populace.
        Kalium 11y ago
        In other words, you don't believe a neighborhood has an absolute dictatorial right to control all changes within its borders. Thank you for your in-principle agreement!

Indeed! "The neighborhood is mostly single family homes, and the people there are very resistant to the idea of “renters” (the code word they use for poor people) living in the neighborhood." http://sfbarf.tumblr.com/post/116593748570/balboa-reservoir-is-a-17-acre-city-owned-site-that http://sfbarf.tumblr.com/post/116593748570/balboa-reservoir-...

teacup50 11y ago
The people that live in a place shouldn't have a say in its future?
- Kalium 11y ago
  There is something of a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country? Would you be OK with this principle if a white neighborhood wanted to enforce a "no black or brown people" rule? How about a "straight people only" rule? How about "no poor people"? This isn't a purely abstract question, but an actual question that has arisen repeatedly in the history of the US. Sunset Towns have been real things.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    It's an absolutely silly question; there's a clear difference between zoning rules based on land use, and zoning rules based on discrimination against a protected class.
    - Kalium 11y ago
      OK. Let's try again, without the silliness. This is a serious question that requires a serious answer. There is a difference between a neighborhood having a say in its future and a neighborhood having a dictatorial stranglehold on all changes within its bounds. Does the rest of the city have no say? The county? The state? The country? Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want?
      - teacup50 11y ago
        > Do you think it's OK for a city to tell a neighborhood that they need to accept a certain set of non-discriminatory zoning rules based on land use, even if it's not what the people there want? Residents answer to their neighborhood, neighborhoods answer to their district, districts answer to the city, state, and so on. How to respect individuals, communities, and a plan for the future across all of those lines of responsibility isn't answerable with a simple "yes" or "no"; however, the onus should be on the individuals requesting the change to 1) justify its necessity and value, 2) quantify its cost to existing residents, and 3) recommend mechanisms for remediation or renumeration for externalities imposed upon the local residents by whatever project is imposed upon them to the benefit of the broader populace.
        Kalium 11y ago
        In other words, you don't believe a neighborhood has an absolute dictatorial right to control all changes within its borders. Thank you for your in-principle agreement!