"Intergenerational Injustice"

cawacko said:
Most of the jobs are in the City though. And young people that work in the suburbs don't want to live in the suburbs, they want to live in the City where the action is.
Click to expand...
Well they can pay the premium price then. Isn't that how supply and demand is supposed to work?
 
Superfreak said:
No. You never purchased the right to all the land around you. You don't own the right to decide what is done on that land. Your home is not a part of the deal.

You didn't pay to keep views. You didn't pay to keep the status quo for all of eternity.

You think you are entitled to fuck over future generations... you are not. You pretend this is about a company benefiting, it is not. It is about young people having the same types of opportunities you had. You seem to think its ok that a 400 square foot apartment in San Fran is renting for $2800/month. That is nonsense.

You are the one who is aiding the corporations that own the existing rental properties. You are the one fucking over the individual worker in favor of the corporations. All because you seem to think you bought the right to not have anything change. You didn't. You bought YOUR house and the land its on. You did not buy the right to stop all change in the future.
Click to expand...
As the property owners of a community we have the democratic right to build political coalitions that protest the interests of our community. Don't like it, build your own coalition and prevail. Isn't that how the free market and democracy are supposed to work?
 
cawacko said:
From a national perspective it hurts the overall economy. According to McKinsey the housing crisis costs California $140 billion annually in lost economic output.

From a Bay Area perspective, and as one who owns two homes here, I want the best and brightest to continue to come here to work and live. That's not going to happen if they can't afford to live here. We can look at many City's that were on top decades ago that aren't today. There's a bigger picture involved here than just older home owners trying to maximize short term values.

What's ironic is there people who paid under $100K for their homes that are now worth over $2m arguing against new development. Again, there's a bigger picture at play.
Click to expand...
So you deny people their property rights to provide for the collective? God Damned Socialist!
 
cawacko said:
Can't say I've heard this term before but of course it's the Boomers (largely) screwing the youth. We're all selfish but has there been a more selfish generation than the Boomers?

(1 - I know this board is largely made up of Boomers & 2 -we don't have enough good intergenerational arguments on here)


Alissa Walker (@awalkerinLA)
5/4/18, 11:36 AM

A term being discussed on this housing panel—the idea of "intergenerational injustice." One generation has made housing and development decisions that have essentially screwed the next generation. In many cases, these are their own kids. #cityage
Click to expand...

Okay, even though this is a bunch of whiny garbage, I am curious what our generation "decided" that has screwed the next generation over housing. Anyone???
 
Mott the Hoople said:
As the property owners of a community we have the democratic right to build political coalitions that protest the interests of our community. Don't like it, build your own coalition and prevail. Isn't that how the free market and democracy are supposed to work?
Click to expand...

Thanks for demonstrating the exact problem he highlighted in the OP.
 
cawacko said:
It is about the money as you stated earlier. People worried they will lose their retirement nest egg (even though people aren't losing money).

Not making this a personal attack on you because you aren't alone in saying what you are but it's just like SF said, basically you're saying I was here first and I don't want anyone else moving into my neighborhood. I want my neighborhood to never change.

If you believe in free markets then people should be allowed to build. A lot of our current zoning codes and restriction come from a time long ago when whites wanted to keep blacks out. The rhetoric is different today but the zoning codes and ultimate actions are essentially the same, use the codes to keep people out.

How would ever have growth as a country if we couldn't build new housing because no one wanted where they live to change? That's essentially the argument being made here.
Click to expand...
Oh really. So you would have no problem with me building my rendering plant in your community? Next to your home?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So your solution is to fuck them so you can get yours? You're losing your moral compass Wacko. The people who developed those neighborhoods and invested in them and created their character that made them attractive and valuable should lay down and let developers destroy what they worked for because you want their property? So much for property rights ehh?
Click to expand...

Whoah, Whoah, Whoah

First off I own two properties out here so I'm not trying to lower costs so I can get a cheaper place. Because I own property doesn't mean I can/or should be able to tell everyone else F off you can't live here. That's what we used to do to keep blacks out of neighborhoods.

Here are some articles from liberal sites on the economic harm done by not building enough housing.


NIMBYs are costing the US economy billions

https://www.vox.com/2014/7/15/5901041/nimbys-are-costing-the-us-economy-billions



For this one Richard Florida is a big liberal urbanist writer in Toronto I believe is where's headquarter. He's the "leading" writer on U.S. cities.

The Urban Housing Crunch Costs the U.S. Economy About $1.6 Trillion a Year

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015...e-us-economy-about-16-trillion-a-year/393515/
 
Truth Detector said:
That isn't what this is about. Every home in California costs $2 million? Be honest for fucks sake.
Click to expand...

I think what should happen is all the low and middle income workers should simply stop working in the over priced areas they can't afford to live in. See what happens when the silicon valley elitists can't get a cup of coffee because no one will work the coffee shop anymore.
 
cawacko said:
That's ultimately the problem. We have a severe housing crisis which is going to have a long term negative impact on the region. Right now it's the ultimate I've gone mine - fuck you attitude that we're seeing from current homeowners be it in the City or surrounding suburbs.

And building more housing to meet the demand isn't going to tank current housing values. And especially when you live in a city, which is a dynamic ever changing place. To expect to live in a place for three decades and expect no change is not realistic.
Click to expand...

There is a severe housing shortage in San Francisco due to the politicians in that City AND the reality that there isn't available land to keep expanding; it has NOTHING to do with boomers.
 
cawacko said:
This was a tweet and it was a term used at a housing panel in LA. Because we label generations it's easier to use the term Boomers which is what I did. But the actual tweet said one generation screwed another. In this case it's largely the current older generation that is screwing a younger generation.
Click to expand...
They aren't screwing anyone. You're trying to screw them and using us vs them politics to do so. There have always been NIMBY's in communities that oppose development to protect the characther of their community and their property values. To call this "intergenerational" is complete nonsense.
 
Superfreak said:
If the value of their home was similar to when they started making those mortgage payments, then you might have a point. But rigging the zoning to make sure the value of your home increases due to a lack of supply is nonsense. It absolutely is the fault of the previous generations. Younger people today should have the same chance to buy a home and build equity.
Click to expand...

Homeowners cannot "rig" the zoning laws. That is done by the politicians. What is "rigged" in San Francisco?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So fuck them because they invested wisely, got their first and protected their investments from developers who would damage their property values? So on that basis why don't we force Iowa farmers to zone their land residential and industrial cause they go their first and won't let you develop their land?
Click to expand...

You're trying to use developers as a bogey man. Coastal cities have a housing crisis (we're not talking about Iowa). And your response to the crisis is "sorry, we were here first and don't want our City to change from when I moved here 30 years ago so sucks to be you. Sorry you weren't born earlier."
 
cawacko said:
We can throw in another variable as well. The environment. What happens when we don't build more density in cities is we end up building further and further out in the suburbs. And since most jobs are in the city that means more cars on the road traveling longer distances and thus more environmental impact.
Click to expand...

Public transportation isn't the answer???
 
cawacko said:
Trust me, I totally understand when people say "I moved to this area because I like the small town community feel to it and don't want to see that change". I do get that part of it.
Click to expand...
Then why don't you get that they have a democratic right to build political coalitions to protect their community?
 
cawacko said:
You're talking two different things here.

The housing crisis in coastal cities is in large part created by governments and NIMBY's who restrict the amount of development causing prices to skyrocket. That's the whole basis of "intergenerational injustice" but that term aside is has a negative effect on the overall U.S. economy.
Click to expand...
So their supposed to sacrifice their investment so others, like you, may profit? So much for the free market and property rights. I hear these same sort of nonsense arguments about those who try to infringe upon intellectual property rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top