Hacker News Reader

Comment by NDizzle | Hacker News Reader

There are plenty of places for them. Just not in the Bay Area. Leaving the bay was the best decision I’ve ever made. Second place was moving to the Bay Area from Arkansas in 2000. Get your experience and get the hell out. When I first arrived I could only afford an apartment in Pittsburg. Never Oakland and SF wasn’t even considered. Too many people boo-hooing about not being able to afford things... do something about it yourself instead of relying on the worthless city, county, and state governments to do so on your behalf.

View on HN

I agree with you, up to a point. Like you, I'm perplexed by the people who claim that the Bay Area homelessness crisis exists because "there's not enough housing." Yes there is, and it's somewhere else. Often it seems we Bay Area people think this area is some magical place, and not being able to live here is somehow a violation of human rights.

But, homelessness is also a trap. Once one becomes homelessness, life changes very quickly, and it's hard to get out of it - it's almost impossible to wash off the literal and figurative stink of it and find a way out, even when one of those ways might be moving to a cheaper state.

It's not a violation of human rights, but it's definitely a symptom of failed policies. A community that copes with growth by forcing its poorest residents out is failing in its basic responsibilities. Society is supposed to provide a floor under its members instead of reverting to survival-of-the-fittest.

Not everyone wants to live in a big city. Should those type of people not be allowed to exist? They built up a city and did it so well that so many people want to live there. There has to be a way to ration the limited supply else their town becomes a big city. The best way (in many ways) is to ration housing to whoever is willing to spend the most.

Why is that the best way, or even a good way?

How is allowing current owners to assert control (via regulation) over land they don't own, to serve their own private interests, better than allowing that land to be developed for higher-density use, in the interest of a larger number people?

Society isn't obligated to protect people's investments at the expense of its least fortunate members.

I will respond to your both claims separately.

1) Why is using supply / demand the best way to set a price for a house?

2) Why should Americans be able to live and protect a town and prevent it form becoming a big city?

As for 1, because that is human nature. Any other method that goes against human nature doesn't work in large scale. In places that set a price, typically products are given to people with connection (see Soviet butcher getting their kid into a good school by giving the best cut of the meat to the teacher).

With regard to 2, this point comes down to what rights you think someone should have. I believe that a community should be able to form and develop themselves without too much government interference. Let's say that a community builds themselves under a tight bond, like the Amish. Imagine if the government wanted to create a huge homeless shelter in their community and house many previously homeless people there. That would completely disrupt their peaceful way of life. It seams logical to say that in that case it is bad what the government did. Similarly, some people building a town don't want the crime / dirtiness / corruption of big city. If a politician were to campaign that they will turn every town into a big city, I doubt that they would win.

With regard to topic 1, you're saying supply and demand should set the price in a natural way. But regulating the use of land owned by others interferes with the natural operation of supply and demand. Established homeowners create regulations to prevent developers from increasing supply to meet the demand, on land the developers have fairly purchased or can purchase on the open market.

With regard to topic 2, no community has the legal right to exclude anyone from moving there. If it makes economic sense for newcomers to arrive, they will arrive. If supply and demand were allowed to operate, homes would be built for them as they arrived. Instead the wealthiest members of the community interfere with supply, for their own benefit, and the least fortunate members of the community are evicted.

(I'm disregarding the homeless shelter in the Amish community because it's a contrived example. It's too far removed from any actual set of conflicting interests to have much bearing.)

Exactly. Large swathes of the upper midwest are depopulating. Cheap housing until those living on the coasts or desert southwest are forced to move due to climate change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com