Re:Facebook’s Answer to Silicon Valley Housing Crunch: Build...
by DannyBee on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @10:59AM
(#12166089)
"And their friends? Their support networks? Their families? The place they know and love?"
This is the common retort.
Here's the thing: This goes for pretty much everyone ever born somewhere, so, uh, everyone.
You simply can't have everyone live somewhere. Imagine if everyone in the world wanted to live on a a small, 10 square mile island. You'd agree this is impossible (blah blah blah, current technology, blah blah blah), right?
How do you decide who gets to live there and who doesn't?
At least, IMHO, the best way is not "blood right" (IE i was born there, or spent most of my life there, i get to live there). It's essentially being "born lucky". It wouldn't work anyway. At the rate people have kids, you still run out of room. It's simply not a viable mechanism of deciding who gets to live where.
What is happening here is no different. If you have too many people who want to live in one place, you have to decide who gets to live there somehow. While i'm not necessarily a fan of "whoever pays the most", i'm even less of a fan of "because i spent 50 years there" or "i grew up there". Great, so you got to enjoy it for 50 years, let someone else have a turn.
Let's also add that the only reason, at all, those people are there in the first place, is because someone moved away. The likelihood that we are talking about people where generations of their family lived and died in the same place is very very low.
In all likelihood, the only reason they have these "support networks", etc, is because someone uprooted the family and moved them somewhere else. After all, the vast majority of us are immigrants.
How soon we seem to forget that.
Do i feel for folks who get displaced? Of course. But i don't believe in magic, and, eventually, you run out of room.
(now, there is a reasonable argument we aren't there yet, and we should do it to provide as nice an environment for people as long as we can, but in the end, someone is going to get screwed here)
This is the common retort.
Here's the thing: This goes for pretty much everyone ever born somewhere, so, uh, everyone.
You simply can't have everyone live somewhere. Imagine if everyone in the world wanted to live on a a small, 10 square mile island. You'd agree this is impossible (blah blah blah, current technology, blah blah blah), right?
How do you decide who gets to live there and who doesn't?
At least, IMHO, the best way is not "blood right" (IE i was born there, or spent most of my life there, i get to live there). It's essentially being "born lucky". It wouldn't work anyway. At the rate people have kids, you still run out of room. It's simply not a viable mechanism of deciding who gets to live where.
What is happening here is no different. If you have too many people who want to live in one place, you have to decide who gets to live there somehow. While i'm not necessarily a fan of "whoever pays the most", i'm even less of a fan of "because i spent 50 years there" or "i grew up there". Great, so you got to enjoy it for 50 years, let someone else have a turn.
Let's also add that the only reason, at all, those people are there in the first place, is because someone moved away. The likelihood that we are talking about people where generations of their family lived and died in the same place is very very low. In all likelihood, the only reason they have these "support networks", etc, is because someone uprooted the family and moved them somewhere else. After all, the vast majority of us are immigrants. How soon we seem to forget that.
Do i feel for folks who get displaced? Of course. But i don't believe in magic, and, eventually, you run out of room.
(now, there is a reasonable argument we aren't there yet, and we should do it to provide as nice an environment for people as long as we can, but in the end, someone is going to get screwed here)