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.
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.