MasticatingElephant

MasticatingElephant t1_ja4jagt wrote

Reply to comment by molotov_cockteaze in 95% of Bay Area Cities Lost Zoning Authority: In 105 jurisdictions of the Bay Area, anyone can build any residential projected at any height or density so long as 20% of the units are for low income. by dolphins3

I dunno. I’ve lived in CA my whole life, but have tried to move away a few times. I think if it wasn’t for the ocean, I could probably live in a lot of places.

1

MasticatingElephant t1_j9i8448 wrote

Reply to The harms of gentrification | The exclusion of poorer people from their own neighbourhoods is not just a social problem but a philosophical one by ADefiniteDescription

In the longer term, I don’t think that humanity’s needs will ultimately be met by capitalism. But in the shorter term, while it’s still with us, isn’t it true that new developments provide funding to older neighborhoods? Higher property values lead to higher taxes, new developments pay development impact fees (paying their own share of public services, which older developments frequently don’t do), they create new businesses, etc.

Should we just leave poor neighborhoods poor until post-scarcity is upon us? What’s the end game here?

> No one should have to depend on another’s arbitrary benevolence for the basic good of home and community

That’s fair, but taken to the extreme, doesn’t this also mean that poorer neighborhoods shouldn’t have to depend on the largesse of the tax money from other parts of the city?

How are they supposed to get “less poor”? How are they supposed to get more investment?

1