Hacker News Reader

Comment by leggomylibro | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, I feel you. But I also feel for people who have worked their whole lives to build towards a comfortable retirement, put their lives' worth of sweat and tears into that, and then had it pulled out from under them.

There's a hyperbole to express on both sides, but I can understand why people who are worth $1-5 million and are past their 50s might feel threatened by this sort of development.

They aren't in a particularly marginalized position, but they are probably frightened about the rapid change and possibly out hundreds of thousands of dollars plus time they don't have.

I agree, build those homes and reduce the power of small groups to put up large barriers, but I also understand where the residents are coming from to some degree.

View on HN

> There's a hyperbole to express on both sides, but I can understand why people who are worth $1-5 million and are past their 50s might feel threatened by this sort of development.

They can sell their house and live a life of luxury virtually anywhere else in the world.

I have a hard time sympathizing with such people. They're not out anything—they're amongst the most privileged people in the country.

Sure, I understand where they're coming from. That doesn't mean they have my sympathy. I understand why billionaires advocate for lowering their own taxes—that doesn't mean I give them an ounce of sympathy.

if you have $5 million, you could pay yourself $50k a year for 100 years.

There are taxes, but people who have 100 times the median household income in the bank might be able to figure something out.

It makes sense that they're fighting for their money. And people deserve basic empathy, no matter what the situation. There could be solutions out there that make the most people happy.

The cynical view is that this is their greed, and they are taking money from people with less means with their demands.

Less cynically... we can try to find solutions to assure them their house value won't plummet, but encouraging a view where more prices at least stabilize won't put _that_ much strain on them, compared to the help it would give to other families with less means.

If you have $5 million reasonably invested, you could pay yourself approximately $200k per year until you die (the average long-term expected return from the stock market is > 4% above inflation) and likely leave some cash to your kids.

It's not pulled out. They can sell to developers. The value of the land below their feet will increase with broad upzoning. It's just they won't have their neighbors grow zucchinis.

I'm sorry, but I really can't shed a tear for the economic worries of people who are worth $1-5 million, when even in first World countries there are hundreds of millions of people who are scraping by with negative worths...

Sure, but these people aren't seeing their wealth erased. If anything, there'll be a discount of say 10-30%, probably realised over a period of 20 years, and there's a good chance the only effect it will have is that prices stop rising faster than income, but will rather stay stable. i.e., making it more affordable, without them losing any money.

If that's the price that has to be paid, I think there's no moral argument to be made on this discussion, what remains is a legal-political challenge.

Finally, I do believe this is all part of investing into the housing market. If you want a risk-free investment, choose government bonds. If you want to play the housing game, this is part of the story. You can't expect to invest a few million into an overpriced industry with a scarcity-controversy, and expect to reap risk-free rewards. Everyone who buys a house in these areas knows that your money pouring in and your legal defences are inadvertently screwing with housing affordability. If you're okay with that and want to make a risky investment, so be it. But then don't treat it like some kind of safe retirement plan you worked your entire life towards, it's not.

Nobody is forcing them to build this housing on their property. They own it, and it's theirs to do with as they like. They DON'T own the neighborhood and when others want to move onto another property they have no ownership interest in and that happens to be on their block, they don't have a property right to prevent that.

Perhaps a solution would be to allow people to sell a percentage of the equity in their homes - let them pull some money out of their investment, while still not having to move.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_mortgage

That's usually marketed to older people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com