Hacker News Reader

Comment by burlesona | Hacker News Reader

It’s exclusionary and merely the local version of nationalism. If you don’t want anyone to move to an area raise taxes and stop allowing new business etc. - ie, actually discourage new growth.

But no place does that. They actively encourage new growth, just not new housing, which has the effect of systematically displacing lower income people, and eventually the middle class too. Long term it ends up hurting the original people it was supposed to benefit - ie. all the Californians crying about how their kids can’t stay in state when it’s the discriminatory policies they supported that created that situation.

View on HN

I have to be honest, the linking of 'nationalism' to this discussion looks like hyperbole to me. Those who want to prevent housing growth or higher-density are not thinking "I don't want people of type X living here". They are most often thinking about what they personally want for themselves - the quality of life they want, the neighborhood character they desire, the breathing room/space they desire, the amount of traffic they want to deal with, and so on.

> If you don’t want anyone to move to an area raise taxes and stop allowing new business etc. - ie, actually discourage new growth.

Personal responsibility is still a thing. If someone can't afford to live in some area, or they don't like what they're getting out of it in terms of wages or expenses, they shouldn't move there.

> They actively encourage new growth, just not new housing

If people continue to move there, they are signaling they are OK with low wages or high expenses or any other drawbacks associated with that choice. If they are not OK with those things, they shouldn't move there.

No, they are signaling that, in a world that does not have limitless options and alternatives, this one option is at least marginally better than other available options. It doesn't mean the option is good, or even sustainable, just that it's not the worst one.

I, for one, would like to raise the bar a bit and give more people actually good options.

Anyone who suggests that a "best option" that involves commuting 3 hours every day is actually a good option is not someone I want in charge of public policy.

I have to be honest, the linking of 'nationalism' to this discussion looks like hyperbole to me.

I have seen a lot of people in my area assert that my political will should be subordinate to theirs because I came from somewhere else. Last place I lived, the notion that a particular demographic I fall into should be kept out of the general housing market when possible due to pricing others out was not just a fringe idea but part of several (ultimately successful) city council candidates' platforms. Perhaps people in your area are less nutty about outsiders.

If someone can't afford to live in some area…

Yes, those who can't afford the rent can live elsewhere, so rent control is not needed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com