if they pack together in unpoliced lots and make houses out of corrugated metal, sure...but not if you build a lot more licit housing
Why would u need to? long as u don't have tax incentives which reward leaving vacant buildings up, landowners can do most of it themselves
-
-
This still goes back to the question tho: are we just supposed to never accommodate booms? Ban growth in cities? C'mon man
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because right now those who can are pulling marathon commutes to participate, or wallowing in stagnation unable to do so
-
Those who can commute lose some of the benefit of participating in the Boston economy bc of what they have to pay in time and money to do so
-
Those who can't lose out entirely, and are generally dependent on transfer payments (read: gov aid) made possible by Boston's surplus
-
instead of being able to work in the city and contribute to that surplus, they are draining it
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.