Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by AbrahamParangi 1204 days ago
The answer is quite clearly that it is immoral to allow those who can afford homes from being protectionist about their assets when it comes at the expense of those who lack affordable housing.

The need for housing outweighs the desire to get a return on your investment.
2 comments
RestlessMind 1204 days ago
> quite clearly that it is immoral

> The need for housing

And who is the arbiter of this morality or the urgency of this need? I say it would be elections where everyone in that area gets a chance to vote and decide for themselves.

link
disgruntledphd2 1204 days ago
Unfortunately, home owners vote at a higher rate, so this is unlikely to happen (even though it probably should).
link
RestlessMind 1204 days ago
Why don't renters or homeless vote at a higher rate?
link