Maybe its your recurring assumption that fairness has anything to do with this. Just excise the prosperity preaching from your brain and you'll see that none of this is related.
They provide a perceived dollar benefit to the governing institution, the governing institution has the authority to catalyze that, the end.
I mean, it kind of is. It not only refers to 'improvements' but also the displacement of anyone below the middle class as a result of those improvements.
What ever happened to living within your means?
Not inherently, no. But legally speaking there are concepts like "rent control" and "adverse possession" that were created to assert on some level that people do, in fact, have a right to continue living in a space that they've occupied for a reasonable duration.
But then subsidizing one business to do it anyway is the problem.
Got ittttttttt
Economies are ecosystems.
It seems regressive, socially, to force this consideration on the people least able to afford it. After all, people who "choose" low-quality housing tend to do so because their choice is necessarily limited, by their lack of access to wealth and financing, to housing that is more attractive for redevelopment.
This has been happening for hundreds of years. Part of being a responsible adult is managing your finances and being prepared. It is crazy to me that so much attention these days is basically advocating for the babysitting of adults.
It is not as if this will happen overnight, either. If we allow people to stay in subsidized housing we remove the biggest carrot for self-motivation.
What are the effects on a kid’s development if they have to change schools and friend groups because their family is displaced due to rising rent? What if people have to move away from family because they can’t afford to stay? How does it impact businesses if their long term employees are suddenly moving away?
Rapidly removing people from communities causes damage to the social fabric of a community, it’s not just about economic effects.
The only ones benefitting are overpaid tech workers supplanting people that do actual tangible work that makes the city tick.
Funny that a tech worker posting on the HN playground is addressing people who deal with real life struggles (raising a family, making increasing rent) how to be a "responsible adult."
Approaching gentrification as some sort of just-world force of nature, and those thrown up in the turmoil of it as willing-by-way-of-neglect, is backwards.
You mean like they were before the area became gentrified? It's not an intrinsic property of neighborhoods to become gentrified - it's an external process forced upon a populace by governments and corporations and landlords