← Back to context

Comment by sealeck

7 months ago

They can move somewhere cheaper? And then the high value land can be used more productively (e.g. higher density occupancy).

10 comments

sealeck

Reply
sokoloff  7 months ago

“Beat it, grandma! We have better ideas on how to use the land and house you raised a family in!” is unlikely to be a winning campaign platform. (Thankfully.)

  • sealeck  7 months ago

    You may be happy running an economy on vibes, but it makes no sense for old people who have a house intended for them and kids close to their work to remain there when their kids have moved out and they've retired. The fact that you can't afford to live somewhere isn't some crime. They can go move somewhere nicer and more suitable for them, freeing up that land for densification (or just proper occupancy).

    • ifyoubuildit  7 months ago

      Why do you think it's up to you to decide what's more suitable for someone else? Where do you get that right?

      The problem you're running into is that it doesn't matter if it makes sense to you what these people want to do with their private property. What you think is "proper occupancy" doesn't matter, because we have private property rights.

      You advocating for policies that infringe on that right is an attempt to exercise power over these people that you have no right to, whether or not you hide behind some collective sense of what's best.