Comments on: Why don’t they move away, Part II

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:49:29 +0000

“…why don’t people who can’t afford to live in a given place move where it’s cheaper,…”

Careful, dear. If you go making sense like that in public, someone is bound to notice!

By: immigrantskid

immigrantskid — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:34:07 +0000

I can only commiserate with you, since I have no solutions. But I do wonder why people insist on living in those over-crowded, crime-ridden, dirty cities, when they could live in the middle of the country (what my sister refers to as fly-over country). But it’s clean and friendly and eager to please. Eager to attract business, too. Oh, and uncrowded, did I mention that? And nobody insists on low-income housing, although some do suggest it.

I want somebody to define “affordable” because that’s a waffle word. Affordable to whom?

By: Danny Lemieux

Danny Lemieux — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:38:50 +0000

I recently attended a brilliant meeting featuring a senior government official in which it was pointed out that the internet, decentralized offices, rural energy generation (e.g., ethanol) and other factors are empowering rural communities in many new ways and shifting the focus of activity away from high-priced, high-taxed cities. The worm may be turning.

We see this in Chicago, where many quaint, attractive Midwestern prairie towns within driving distance of Chicago are gaining new sizzle. Chicago, meanwhile, does all it can to soak the citizenry with new fees and taxes, drive up dependency with new welfare programs, and drive out small businesses that otherwise would be supporting the economy.

San Francisco and Seattle are great places to visit…but to live there? Forget it!

By: Carol

Carol — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:07:30 +0000

We have to listen to the same swill in Seattle, The government insists that builders provide “affordable” housing and never once recognize that they, through land use regulation, are the worst cause of unaffordable housing. Stupid bureaucrats – I never vote for the bastards but I am hopelessly outnumbered by people who do not “believe” in economics.

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 22:30:30 +0000

If you execute all the corrupt bureacrats… then problem solved.

By: Earl

Earl — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 21:33:09 +0000

It’s about “control”, which is what leftists have to have in
order to get what they want. There is no way they can
build the utopia they see in their mind, so long as you
and the rest of us have control over our own lives, our
property, our time and energy, and yes, our money.

This is just one more way of extending the power and
reach of government (remember “monopoly of force”?)
with the ultimate goal of complete control. Thinking
about things in this way helps make sense of a lot of
otherwise bizarre positions on the left — things like the
Second Amendment, birth-control pills for 11-year olds,
and so on.

Ugly stuff. We’re likely to see one of them running in
2008 — if she gets elected, don’t say you weren’t given
a warning!

By: JJ

JJ — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:56:29 +0000

The short answer to your question is no. No one can, because there is no rational reason.

By: Ignorant Redneck

Ignorant Redneck — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:15:58 +0000

I think you ask the wrong question.

I had an incredibly liberal poly sci prof once say that to understand any political event you need to follow the money.

So, millions will be spent from taspayer pockets in SF to subsidize people who can’t live there otherwise. Like, hmmm….the money will end up in the pockets of Landlords and Contractors, generally.

And of course, employers will find some relief from paying higher wages to retain workers.

So, in the name of social reponsibility, you end up with left wingers transfering tax payer wealth into the hands of economic oligarchs, by way of government compulsion.

Of course, everyone convieniently forgets that fascist movements were always cloaked as “socialist” or “socially responsible” movements that transfered wealth into the hands of economic oligarchs in exchange for allowing them political power. And, of course, they always claimed to be “sweeping away” an older order for some reason or other, in the name of the peoples freedom or well being.

Communism is a dead or dying letter, but fascism seems to be doing well, under the guise of social justice.

And, of course, it must have it’s internal enemies. Much like SF and it’s anti-catholic resolution. They’ve learned that it’s now hard to sell war, so they sell sexual liberty to keep everybody distracted.