Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimmywanger | Hacker News Reader

> forcing the people who were, in fact, long-term residents to move out.

What's wrong with this? If you're a renter, you sort of accept the fact that you can be forced to move at any given time, or that rents may be hiked up.

Rent control has been an unmitigated disaster in SF. You're basically giving a subsidy to people who have lived here for a long time, over new arrivals.

Cities change over time. People arrive all the time. To try to shut people out is naive and short-sighted. I sure don't want to live in a time capsule.

View on HN

What's wrong with this?

Heck, I don't know -- whole families being traumatized? Children having their lives upended, because their parents suddenly have to move across the state (or the country)? That sort of thing? So you can live within walking distance of that fancy new Belgian beer bar, and your favorite S&M club?

It's one thing to acknowledge that displacement of existing (generally lowest income tier) residents is very unfortunate -- and yes, causes real suffering -- but to maintain that the cure (e.g. rent control) may be worse than disease. That's at least a position with a certain logic to it.

But what people reasonably resent about the new tech elite is that (some of them) don't even pretend to rely on sober assessments like the above. They just come right and out say it: "What's wrong with poor people being displaced? What's wrong with a city that school teachers, first responders, restaurant workers can't afford to live in? I'm doing fine -- why should I give a fuck?"

While I am sympathetic to cost of living issues, I think describing moving as "traumatizing" is being quite overdramatic. As a kid, I moved from the Bay Area to another country at age 8 because of my Dad's job, changed schools again for 7th and 8th grade then moved again to a 3rd city for high school. While there was definitely an adjustment period at each new place, I think learning to deal with new environments is a pretty useful life skill to have, and as an adult I would active seek to have my future kids live in a few different places.

Yeah yeah, it's always a lot nicer to do that because I have a choice, I get that. I just think that level of hyperbole doesn't help the discussion at all.

But were your parents evicted? Aside from actual physical violence or harassment, it's hard to think of an experience less traumatic and disruptive for a family.

> whole families being traumatized? Children having their lives upended, because their parents suddenly have to move across the state (or the country)?

What a low bar for traumatization.

> So you can live within walking distance of that fancy new Belgian beer bar, and your favorite S&M club?

Hyperbole much? You've managed to shoehorn both hipster style, alcohol, and sexual proclivities that are a few standard deviations from the norm into the same statement. Well done. /s

> "What's wrong with poor people being displaced? What's wrong with a city that school teachers, first responders, restaurant workers can't afford to live in? I'm doing fine -- why should I give a fuck?"

Poor people are constantly victimized. That's just a thing that happens. For instance, I bet you're typing this post out on a computer that is made with parts manufactured in China/Taiwan and are exporting your pollution. (Yes, I consider a mobile phone a computer)

Why are you so concerned about the relatively mild pain of people in SF rather than the peasants in southern China? Do you live in either place? What skin do you have in this game?

Poor people are constantly victimized. That's just a thing that happens.

No, it's a thing that we've been inculcated into believing to be something that "just happens." Actually it happens for systematic and structural reasons.

For instance, I bet you're typing this post out on a computer that is made with parts manufactured in China/Taiwan and are exporting your pollution.

The difference is that I don't pretend to believe that this kind of exploitation is something that "just happens", or that I'm not responsible for it.

Nor do I go around saying things like "What's wrong with children disassembling the battery cage in my used phone for 25 cents an hour in the Philippines or somewhere? These things happen, you know."

> No, it's a thing that we've been inculcated into believing to be something that "just happens." Actually it happens for systematic and structural reasons.

Wha? Thousand of years of history would prove you wrong. The more laws we pass, the more people with resources can abuse the letter of these laws to seize advantages for themselves, and their friends/family.

Refer to the Melian dialogue: "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

That's just human nature. And I'm not just saying poor as in happens to have no money.

Even if I were tossed out onto the street right now with nothing, I'd do ok. I have friends and family who will look out for me and give me a place to sack out. I'm still decently young and in good health, speak english fluently, and have a good degree.

Now if you have no resources, you are teetering on the brink constantly. No law or policy will be able to change that, due to human nature. No inculcation is necessary, at the root of things we're just animals squabbling over scarce resources.

Refer to the Melian dialogue: "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

Referring to atrocities committed by a dying empire two thousand years ago (recall that the occupation of Melos was eventually repulsed; and Classical Athens itself would ultimately collapse shortly thereafter, as a direct result of its unsustainable military expansion) doesn't seem very helpful in deciding public policy.

I guess you missed the main point of the quote.

If you have power, and your opponents only have the moral high ground, your opponents will lose.

According to the historical sources (on wikipedia), the Athenians executed all the adult males, and took everybody else into slavery.

Much like the situation of the Ukraine. Russia decided it wanted a warm water port, and then took it. Nobody else said anything.

Very few teachers, first responders and restaurant workers can afford Manhattan or Santa Monica. And yet both of those places have them in fairly high numbers. Because convenient, fast and reliable public transportation.

Only in SF we're willing to overlook a compete failure of government services and infrastructure and blame the issues on newcomers paying higher prices for the properties and driving up the property tax revenues.

Renting does not mean accepting that you might have to move at any time. In large parts of Europe, and in American big cities, there are people who rent for decades or even generations. Renting an apartment should not put you at permanent risk of suddenly losing your home.

The goal of rent control laws and rent caps is to avoid situations where families can be summarily uprooted. How well they succeed is another matter.

In many parts of America, it does mean accepting you have to move at any time.

If you don't have a lease and are going month-to-month, that's what you're signed up for. Sign a longer lease if you want, but everything is spelled out up front for you. No surprises. If they want to jack up rent or move back in unit, you have no legal recourse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com