1. In one city, incumbents rule. Their property values rise to a level that keeps everyone else out. They make all the rules. They were there first and they win. It's theirs and outsiders should respect that.
2. The second city is open to anyone, always changing. Incumbents cannot expect gains by virtue of having been first. Everyone there has the same expectation of benefiting from the city as anyone else. Anyone in the country is free (and able) to make a life there, if they choose.
I know which city sounds better to me. I know which one sounds like it benefits the most people, for the longest amount of time.
Again, at the same time, why should I cheer for people who are coming in, forcing out people who have lived there for their entire lives, simply because they have more money? That sounds like straight up bullying to me.
1. In one city, incumbents rule. Their property values rise to a level that keeps everyone else out. They make all the rules. They were there first and they win. It's theirs and outsiders should respect that.
2. The second city is open to anyone, always changing. Incumbents cannot expect gains by virtue of having been first. Everyone there has the same expectation of benefiting from the city as anyone else. Anyone in the country is free (and able) to make a life there, if they choose.
I know which city sounds better to me. I know which one sounds like it benefits the most people, for the longest amount of time.
Of course incumbents prefer #1. Of course.
But, so what?