If every city did this, it would lead to increased cost of living, decreased standard of living, increased commutes, increased homelessness, etc. And in fact, that's what every American city with job growth has done, which explains a lot of our societal ills.
Conversation
I suppose you "can't blame" Palo Alto for selfishly guarding their own interests at the expense of the entire country, since every other city is doing the same thing. But you gotta recognize that this is very bad, and it would be better if we stopped cities from doing this.
1
18
The question for real estate investors then is: is anywhere safe? Where can one build a low density, high-priced community which will not constantly be attacked by invaders seeking to destroy what the inhabitants value?
5
1) this is not-so-coded racist language
2) If you’re that worried about people living near you, buy a ton of land for yourself and fence it off rather than trying to control what your neighbors do
1
35
1. sorry you feel the need to make personal attacks rather than addressing points of argument
2. presumably we agree that neighbors can enter in to agreements, HOAs, even create governments. If we've made an agreement and I've relied on that agreement, I expect you to keep it.
2
According to your logic, the government literally can’t change any laws or regulations lmao
1
13
It depends on the powers of the government. In an HOA, it's up to the property owners to vote. In a government, it's usually up to the residents. Problem is when the residents are at odds with the property owners. Usually, it's the residents trying to take something from owners.
3
1
Jesse, my sincere advice to you is to make enough money that you can buy a massive plot of land in the middle of nowhere and build whatever you want there that satisfies your needs. But stop trying to impose your NIMBYism on me and other people who live in SF.
1
32
Why don't you guys go move it the middle of nowhere and build whatever society you want there with a clean slate? Seems like that'd be a lot easier than trying to fight the existing system that all the property owners have already bought in to and relied upon all these years.
1
1
Because, if your goal is to live somewhere with no jobs and few people, you can easily just move yourself out to the middle of nowhere. If my goal is to live somewhere with jobs and lots of people, I'd have to somehow move lots of jobs and people to this location - not easy.
2
1
20
I want to live in a low density community with lots of jobs and lots of people nearby, who will respect the laws of our community and not try to force rezoning and colonization upon us. I am willing to pay a lot to live in such an area. What's the price to be left alone?
Morally speaking? The price would be for each house in the low-density community to pay as much in property taxes as a large apartment building. Because that's the revenue you're denying the local government by keeping your area low-density.
1
18
Sounds about right but there's some value in a diversity of land use. You don't want to treat all the land as if it's useful for the most taxable purpose. A city can't only be housing. There's some point where you give a little to attract biz, rich residents who'll spend & hire.
1
2
Show replies
"LOW DENSITY COMMUNITY WITH LOTS OF JOBS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE NEARBY"
do you not see the inherent contradiction?
2
1
63
math genius
4
I've heard Alabama is great for this. You should try that.
I'm also open to being paid to never tweet at you again if that's an option.
1
6
Problem with that is everybody knows about Alabama now. As soon as all the rich people move there, people are going to come looking for jobs, and then they're going to demand housing on my reservation.
1
2
1
Show replies
Seriously. There are a lot of cities doing well in the middle of the country. They're growing but still small, definitely not dense, low taxes, and there are jobs.
1