This kind of thinking is what leads to insulated wealthy neighbourhoods with good schools, amenities and low pollution. If everyone with access to nice stuff thinks this way, they just push poor people into the only other areas which are left, like down near the local power plant, where the air and water and soil have been ruined.
This sort of shit is how Flint happens and how "bad neighbourhoods" stay bad neighbourhoods for generation upon generation. That is, until some investor sees an opportunity to gentrify and pushes the poor people to a new and shittier part of town if not completely out of town altogether.
I dont think i saw anyone argue that. Do you have a source?
>> (I live in Marin County, in the SFBA, and I employ quite a few service workers from Sonoma/CC/Napa counties)
How long are some of your service workers commutes?
I'm not so much referring to upzoning which, in general, I am in favor of.
I am referring to the much more general notion that I deserve to live anywhere at prices that preserve my relaxed lifestyle and refined tastes. This is false.
I am open minded about housing being a basic human right. However, I am flabbergasted by the ridiculous notion that anyone deserves to live in any particular place.
"If a city wants to preserve land from development but refuses to upzone to make the remaining housing accessible, then this is indistinguishable from an exclusive gated community and I don’t think I would call it progressive."
You're correct. It is an exclusive community and it's not necessarily progressive in that manner. There is a place for exclusive communities and they are not necessarily negative.