Comment by lisa_henderson | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lisa_henderson | Hacker News Reader

This article has an innocence that seems almost willfully blind. They write:

"But assiduous firefighting is also to blame."

They don't spend much time talking about the most obvious force that drives the "assiduous firefighting". The expansion of the suburbs have pushed human habitation out into what used to be the middle of a forest. Also, the increased popularity of what is sometimes referred to as "country living" but which is really a form of low density suburban living, has added to the trend.

The point is, areas that used to be free of humans now have a bunch of $1.2 million dollar homes. And thus you have an affluent demographic that is pushing hard for "assiduous firefighting". And that trend will continue so long as the suburbs continue to expand, which will likely be a long time.

The article has a tone that suggests policy makers are simply making an mistake by engaging in "assiduous firefighting". Overlooking the political forces that drive this make it difficult to understand why it is difficult to stop.

Tangentially related: it's almost a "capitalism vs. nature" problem.

We see it in SF/SV even today. Hundreds (thousands?) of companies are hiring employees and moving them into a resource starved state because it's good for their growing startups.

We need some rule like: if your company hires someone and moves them to California for employment, your company should pay to relocate 2 to 5 families (voluntarily) outside of California.

Every other state in the union would applaud California for such foresight.

I wonder why this was downvoted? I'm stating what should be obvious to everyone. As the human habitation moves deeper into the woods, there is an increase in the political motivation to engage in "assiduous firefighting".

There's a sector of the HN demographic that won't be satisfied until we're all living in a three-dimensional urban matrix of human-sized chicken coops. Many other HN readers aspire to something bigger and better than that, and the tone of your post may have sounded hostile to some of them.

That's not necessarily a good excuse for whacking the downvote arrow, but there are other excuses that are good ones, such as the ridiculously poor UI design of said arrows that make it too easy to hit the wrong one, combined with the Slashdot-era inability to correct an accidental moderation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com