Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs

Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs by gavazzy on Sunday October 11, 2015 @06:24PM (#10371352)

Next time they're drinking a latte or beer, smack it out of their hands.

After all, having your drink taken from you is morally equiavlent to never having it in the first place, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs by fineman on Sunday October 11, 2015 @06:44PM (#10371430)

And you're going to pay for it? Because there's a big difference in simply not having a latte, and having paid for one only to have to knocked all over your shirt...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs by gavazzy on Sunday October 11, 2015 @06:49PM (#10371451)

This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house.

My point is that if Person A purchases something, and then Person B says that having that thing taken is equivalent to not having it in the first place, then Person B is ignoring the cost that Person A had to incur in the first place.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs by cowsandmilk on Monday October 12, 2015 @04:54AM (#10373293)

> This is exactly what the speaker seems to be missing. Building homes required significant money in the first place; there's no such thing as a free house.

You do realize the speaker is advocating for developers, who have the money (typically through financing, which is fairly straightforward to get if you are a competent developer), to be allowed to build the projects they propose. Not for housing to magically appear out of the ether.

[ Parent | on HN ]