sardia wrote:Isn't this a rehash of your unabashed support for a yard plus two car garage sized house lifestyle?
I suppose to the same extent that you are rehasing your unabashed support for cramming everyone together willy nilly so that more people can procreate until there just isn't any more room on the planet, and the entire population collapses catastrophically.
And why shouldn't people defend their property values? Flipped around, why should people have to give their housing choices (and their ability to play the drums at 3am without waking anybody up) away, just so that somebody's idea of "efficient living" is satisfied. I don't live to be efficient, I live to be happy, productive, fulfilled, and the same for my family, to whom I have the first obligation.
For that matter, my car sits out in the garage when I'm not using it. Wouldn't it be more efficient if it were taken from me so that people who don't have cars could "borrow" it whenever they wanted? I should cry that I can't leave my stuff in the trunk? What's the key difference here?
And yes, somebody tries to come into my town and mow us down with housing complexes, I'll be on the front lines fighting it. Let them go to Beverly Hills if they want to build high-rises.
sardia wrote:You also think that renters have no voting rights for the town they live in.
That is false. Please stop telling me what I think, and where I have told you what I think, please read more carefully. (What you are doing is akin to an ad hominum attack - you are not even engaging with the point you claim I made; just stating that I made it seems to be sufficient for your purposes, which are.... what exactly?)
sardia wrote:Lastly you have a financial interest in maintaining the status quo of housing shortages (to increase your home value for later selling).
I may have a "financial interest" in doing so, but it is not what I am doing. First
, I'm not interested in later selling. I live
in my home; I'm not investing
with it and its value is not a business I'm in. Second
, I have no interest in maintaining shortages. I have interest in maintaining the options in life that I have worked hard to get, one of them being the ability to live surrounded by quiet, clean air, and my own greenery, and it's because I like that
. If other people can't have what I have because I have it, so be it. If I decide to give away what I have, it will be my decision, and I will choose who to benefit by it. Third
, renting vs owning is a different axis from wealth vs poverty. Yes, it costs money to own stuff. That's what money is for. And Fourth
, building more homes doesn't solve the housing problem. Yeah, that's a great sound byte if you want to make me sound stupid, but the "housing problem" isn't lack of housing, it's lack of housing in the right places
, which ultimately translates to where the economy is going. People want to live where the action is, but there's plenty of (decaying) housing where the action isn't. It's not the housing, it's the action. What will people do once they live there (no matter where the "there" is)? Because if there's a good answer for that, then housing will not be a problem. And if there's not a good answer for that, then housing is the least of the problems.