Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by delusional 217 days ago
> Out of sympathy they removed an option for the very-poor and haven't come up with a replacement solution.

That doesn't seem like a fair take. You're implying that the sympathetic people who outlawed poor houses are the very same people who won't build anything new. That's not true.
1 comments
pie_flavor 217 days ago
What? It's literally the same regulatory agency in this case, and more broadly it's the same ideological strain of banning doing X without also doing undesirable thing Y and not caring about whether that reduces the rate of X. Unless you are talking about the housing developers themselves, in which case you are falling for the same thing yourself.
link
delusional 217 days ago
"Ideological strains" arent people, nor are "agencies".

Democratic politics will always be about compromise. Compromise means you don't get do all your Y's. It's the purpose of the system. We will never (I hope) live in either the libertarian nor the socialist utopia, not just because neither of those places really exist, but also because democracy doesn't lead to that.

If you every find yourself thinking that "this problem would be solved if only we were closer to my utopia" then you're the ideological one.

link
pie_flavor 217 days ago
I didn't say 'utopia'. I can name exactly the things I want changed, and exactly what the proximate effects will be of doing so, good and bad.

Yes, agencies are people. If you think that it's dishonest to castigate the SFHA for taking one action and not taking another because the one action was a little while ago and therefore there's been some personnel churn since, you are being unserious. Have you ever complained about past and present actions of e.g. Microsoft?

link