[lbarrow]

I think the real "market" solution here would be to remove the ability of both out-of-town owners and locals to block new housing development. The article cites an example of a 200+ unit development in Brush Creek that was effectively vetoed by local NIMBYs; this in an area where only 800 people voted in the main Crested Butte elections.

[nitrogen]

The core tenet of democracy is that local inhabitants make local decisions. Doing otherwise is... I don't know what, but it's anti-democratic. If a small mountain town doesn't want outside investors to blow up the place, they have the right to make that choice.

[lmm]

A second-home-owner who spends a few days a year in town is a "local inhabitant" but someone who commutes there every day because they can't afford the rent in town isn't? That doesn't seem very democratic to me.

[nitrogen]

No, if you don't live somewhere you don't live there.

[reducesuffering]

And a core tenet of government should be handling tragedy of the commons type situations that arise when every locality acts in it own self interest in a globally sub-optimal way for all of them.

[sumedh]

> The core tenet of democracy is that local inhabitants make local decisions.

What if the local inhabitants pass a law saying certain race of people are not allowed to enter that area, would you still say they have the right to make that choice?

[shuckles]

Democracy is not prescriptive about who has a stake, and in fact the trend has been over time to broaden the definition of "voter" or "stakeholder".