Does anyone really think that once they own property in a certain area that they are gonna believe in the 'anything goes' mentality? 'Growth' is subjective. "Hey look at all the great businesses in my neighborhood bringing in taxes! I mean sure they are all pot pharmacies and bars that my kid gets to pass on his way to elementary school but you know GROWTH!"
I think the issue is, everyone believes they should be able to become a stakeholder in a resource that is, by definition, naturally constrained. Only so many people get a say in a geographic area, and the stark reality is that once you reach a certain critical mass, you're incentivized to protect your quality of life over allowing for more people to join you.
Strangely, its thought of as acceptable for tech workers (with their new found purchasing power due to disparate wages compared to traditional workers) to displace long-time residents of a community, but those same tech workers are aghast when communities would prefer they not come.
“We don’t need one more job in Boulder,” Mr. Pomerance said. “We don’t need to grow anymore. Go somewhere else where they need you.”
Indeed. It seems I'm a bit late to coin the term "tech privilege".
> "Immigration was just fine for my grandparents, but now it's about time it stopped."
That's a mischaracterization though. The fundamental equation for immigration is to make sure the immigrants don't bring down the average. When your grandparents came here the average was lower than it is now.
Which is why it's a lot easier to get a green card if you have a masters in engineering than if you're a farm hand. It fundamentally has to be that way if you want to have any sort of a social safety net, otherwise the majority of world population would take citizenship and become eligible for social assistance.
> It fundamentally has to be that way if you want to have any sort of a social safety net, otherwise the majority of world population would take citizenship and become eligible for social assistance.
I agree entirely, which is why the (if there is a 'the') Libertarian position on the matter is a combination of open immigration and private charity instead of socialism.
I'm not sure what is incoherent about the anti-growth mentality. You seem to be trying to make a rhetorical point instead of an argument.
There really are costs to current residents to allowing unfettered growth. Increased traffic, for example, materially reduces people's quality of life.
People vote for their own self interests, and calling someone "incoherent" simply because they were born in Boulder and love their home is not a productive argument.
Sorry, I should have been clearer that it's not all anti-growth advocates who are incoherent.
If you were born somewhere and are attached to the way of life you've known since you were born, it's certainly an argument. I don't agree with it, but it's not incoherent.
I'm referring to the people (particularly in SF) who moved there a decade or more ago yet are virulently opposed to "tech workers" doing the same thing.
And yes, I understand voting for self-interests. What's irritating is when people try to frame their self-interests as a moral crusade, as though tech immigration is somehow inherently evil.
> Strangely, its thought of as acceptable for tech workers (with their new found purchasing power due to disparate wages compared to traditional workers) to displace long-time residents of a community, but those same tech workers are aghast when communities would prefer they not come.
If you limit building, that effect just gets worse, though. The rich are always going to be able to outbid the poor/working-class, and if you limit the supply of housing, competition for that housing intensifies. A study from the California Legislative Analyst's Office found exactly this (more development = less displacement): http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3345
> In this follow up to California’s High Housing Costs, we offer additional evidence that facilitating more private housing development in the state’s coastal urban communities would help make housing more affordable for low–income Californians. Existing affordable housing programs assist only a small proportion of low–income Californians. Most low–income Californians receive little or no assistance. Expanding affordable housing programs to help these households likely would be extremely challenging and prohibitively expensive. It may be best to focus these programs on Californians with more specialized housing needs—such as homeless individuals and families or persons with significant physical and mental health challenges.
> Encouraging additional private housing construction can help the many low–income Californians who do not receive assistance. Considerable evidence suggests that construction of market–rate housing reduces housing costs for low–income households and, consequently, helps to mitigate displacement in many cases.
Interesting point, but surely the bar for where "critical mass" occurs depends entirely on social factors. That is, the neighborhood where I live (outside Tokyo) can absorb a lot more stakeholders than neighborhoods in Boulder, just because people are accustomed to different lifestyles (more apartments, fewer lawns, etc).
