there is essentially no amount of rent reduction that could improve my life to the point of compensating for (to take an obvious example) my favorite restaurants, cafes, stores, bagel shops, etc. all going out of business (which is one possible way in which “the character of a neighborhood” can change)
I can believe this statement is true for you-in-particular, but I do not believe it is true for most renters in these high cost-of-living areas. These people usually struggle to make ends meet to the point where rent and housing costs represent a critical part of their monthly budgets; alleviating those is generally more important to them than maintaining the overall vibe of the area.
I also find it difficult to imagine that your “favorite restaurants, cafes, stores, bagel shops, etc. all going out of business” is a likely outcome of building new houses, particularly because new residents coming in increases the demand for those services. I am sure it can happen (and perhaps it has, in your own life), but in the majority of situations these businesses would flourish, expand their services, hire new workers, etc. And to the extent they don’t, that’s largely because of increased competition from more economically efficient and desirable shops and businesses; I view this as good rather than bad.
Your term “aesthetic sensibilities” is essentially a trivialization of the factors that constitute, to a large extent, the texture of a person’s day-to-day life.
You call it a trivialization; I call it a correct factual description. I think I’m correct here; note that I mentioned many people care more about aesthetics and vibes than they do about strictly economic matters. It’s of nontrivial importance, but it’s still aesthetic in nature.
I don’t see why I should give up most of the things that I enjoy about what my day-to-day life is like, in order that… other people… might benefit?
It’s generally referred to as altruism, I think. But in any case, I’m neither fully altruistic myself, nor do I generally prescribe it to others. Given your beliefs and preferences as you’ve expressed them here, I don’t think you should want to give any of that up.
But given my beliefs and preferences as I’ve expressed them here, I think we’re in the realm of conflict and not mistake, and I strongly approve of governmental efforts to remove restrictions on zoning and enact YIMBY policies. This is not an instance of a heavy governmental touch coming in to regulate the economy and restrict individual choice; it’s an instance of deregulation, where the free market right-to-build and right-to-contract are currently impeded by those who themselves restrict the freedom of others, seek out economic rents, and already benefit from the goods and services available. Changing the locus of control from local to state-level, in the US, is one example of an appropriate such structural change.
Unsurprisingly, I also approve of progressive taxation,[1] even though I also don’t see why rich people should necessarily want to give up their money so that other people might benefit.
I can believe this statement is true for you-in-particular, but I do not believe it is true for most renters in these high cost-of-living areas. These people usually struggle to make ends meet to the point where rent and housing costs represent a critical part of their monthly budgets; alleviating those is generally more important to them than maintaining the overall vibe of the area.
I also find it difficult to imagine that your “favorite restaurants, cafes, stores, bagel shops, etc. all going out of business” is a likely outcome of building new houses, particularly because new residents coming in increases the demand for those services. I am sure it can happen (and perhaps it has, in your own life), but in the majority of situations these businesses would flourish, expand their services, hire new workers, etc. And to the extent they don’t, that’s largely because of increased competition from more economically efficient and desirable shops and businesses; I view this as good rather than bad.
You call it a trivialization; I call it a correct factual description. I think I’m correct here; note that I mentioned many people care more about aesthetics and vibes than they do about strictly economic matters. It’s of nontrivial importance, but it’s still aesthetic in nature.
It’s generally referred to as altruism, I think. But in any case, I’m neither fully altruistic myself, nor do I generally prescribe it to others. Given your beliefs and preferences as you’ve expressed them here, I don’t think you should want to give any of that up.
But given my beliefs and preferences as I’ve expressed them here, I think we’re in the realm of conflict and not mistake, and I strongly approve of governmental efforts to remove restrictions on zoning and enact YIMBY policies. This is not an instance of a heavy governmental touch coming in to regulate the economy and restrict individual choice; it’s an instance of deregulation, where the free market right-to-build and right-to-contract are currently impeded by those who themselves restrict the freedom of others, seek out economic rents, and already benefit from the goods and services available. Changing the locus of control from local to state-level, in the US, is one example of an appropriate such structural change.
Unsurprisingly, I also approve of progressive taxation,[1] even though I also don’t see why rich people should necessarily want to give up their money so that other people might benefit.
At least as long as the Overton window doesn’t allow for more economically literate taxation systems like LVT and a VAT + income-based rebates
Would you consider being worried about an increase in crime an “aesthetic preference”?
I think I generally wouldn’t.