Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs
by eggy on Monday October 12, 2015 @12:38AM
(#10372598)
I agree, it is hard to talk of free-market solutions when there are so many government restrictions and regulations already in place. You can't make more houses if there is not enough area on a give plot, unless you build up, which is not easy to do safely, and inexpensively in a seismic zone. I was born and raised in Brooklyn, and lived in Manhattan later. I had no problem seeking a life outside of NYC when I couldn't afford it. My father moved out of the apartment he was in for over 40 years, and found a new place for a bit more, that has given him a new life and social circle. It's not always a bad scenario. You find your way or place.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs
by apendleton on Monday October 12, 2015 @01:25AM
(#10372717)
These are factors, but what's discussed in the article is not regulation due to safety, but regulation due to existing homeowners in the neighborhood not wanting their property values to go down as a result of the increased supply. That's just brazen market manipulation via control of the city government. Cities should have a role in making sure construction is safe. They shouldn't, in my opinion, have one in protecting the financial assets of incumbent homeowners.
Re:Urban activists set out to sue San Francisco’s suburbs
by rubyfan on Monday October 12, 2015 @07:05PM
(#10377402)
Protecting property rights is one of the only legitimate purposes of government. Incumbent property owners should absolutely use their government to both protect and even improve their assets. Life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness.