"Everyone who grew up here and works an Xth-percentile job can still afford to live here, plus we have room for more" is a lot better than "GTFO natives, I've got more money than you." America (after the obvious colonial invasion) was also founded on principles of democracy and republicanism, where representation and self-determination belong to locals, not outsiders.
It's really bad for a community and a country when there is massive forced migration due to price pressure.
When new graduates are detached from their support networks, they have to pay more for things and services they could have shared with their family/friends/community. When new couples are detached from their support networks, they and their kids suffer from higher costs and reduced mentorship from extended family.
When there is a constant flux in and out, like I saw while I was living in SF, nobody has any commitment to the area, and nobody has lived there long enough to know what "normal" is.
When people who invest their entire lives into a community are forced out of it, and/or their kids are displaced by lucky rich in-migrants, you amplify people's natural defensiveness and, whatever points you may have had, they will oppose you on everything. Those communities are desirable places to live because of the years of time invested by those who came before, and they deserve not to be forced out by people with no prior stake.
When every avenue for just starting a life, let alone advancing it, is closed off to people, especially because of outsiders trouncing in with no appreciation for the history of a place, you have all the ingredients for revolt and revolution.
----
In places where there is ample land (like my native Utah), but supply targeted at natural growth can't keep up with in-migration and investor speculation, I would favor policies that significantly bias toward natives. Keeping churn low, but not zero, is absolutely essential for the health of communities.
- Favoring live-in owners over landlords, but still allowing for some renting
- Very strongly favoring live-in first-home owners over investors through tax, HOA, and zoning policy
- Breaking up the very large parcels currently owned by and being developed for billionaires -- hating on single-family housing is a scapegoat for this real issue
I agree it is a tragedy when people are forced out of a place, we only disagree on whether to fix it through abundance or through exclusion. Exclusion might work out for beautifully for insiders if it could be pulled off. To have affordability and small-town aesthetics at the same time. But it can't be pulled off. Americans do not get to treat each other as "outsiders" in this way. At least not institutionally. You can't stop someone from selling or renting me a home just because I'm not from here in particular. State borders are open. That's an important part of what America is.
Mass internal migrations, like those that built the West in the first place, are an important part of American history. It is an incredible arrogance towards history to assert that now every town is the right size and everyone is in the right place, no more growth or movement.
It would be convenient if this were a financial problem, but it's a geometry problem. People are moving into boomtowns to actually live and work, they take up space, and if you don't add new space on the dimensions you have (e.g. vertical axis), the only possible result is to squeeze out others.
It's really bad for a community and a country when there is massive forced migration due to price pressure.
When new graduates are detached from their support networks, they have to pay more for things and services they could have shared with their family/friends/community. When new couples are detached from their support networks, they and their kids suffer from higher costs and reduced mentorship from extended family.
When there is a constant flux in and out, like I saw while I was living in SF, nobody has any commitment to the area, and nobody has lived there long enough to know what "normal" is.
When people who invest their entire lives into a community are forced out of it, and/or their kids are displaced by lucky rich in-migrants, you amplify people's natural defensiveness and, whatever points you may have had, they will oppose you on everything. Those communities are desirable places to live because of the years of time invested by those who came before, and they deserve not to be forced out by people with no prior stake.
When every avenue for just starting a life, let alone advancing it, is closed off to people, especially because of outsiders trouncing in with no appreciation for the history of a place, you have all the ingredients for revolt and revolution.
----
In places where there is ample land (like my native Utah), but supply targeted at natural growth can't keep up with in-migration and investor speculation, I would favor policies that significantly bias toward natives. Keeping churn low, but not zero, is absolutely essential for the health of communities.
- Favoring live-in owners over landlords, but still allowing for some renting
- Very strongly favoring live-in first-home owners over investors through tax, HOA, and zoning policy
- Breaking up the very large parcels currently owned by and being developed for billionaires -- hating on single-family housing is a scapegoat for this real issue