London Tower Fire

[JohnDonne]

I don't know anything about the Grenfell tower neighborhood,

I'm not sure there's an elegant, principled argument against gentrification. One might make a romantic argument against it. It comes down to people don't like it when outsiders kick them out of their neighborhoods.

Someone rents in a low value neighborhood because it's the only thing they can afford, and the neighborhood is basically abandoned and ignored by the city. Over the years that person along with their neighbors put their energies into creating a solid community and culture, make things nice. Maybe the neighborhood starts getting a cool authentic vibe to it.

People with capital come along and see the value the residents have created. The outsiders start buying everything for cheap while creating a trendy commercial district right in people's back yards. Suddenly the city starts repaving the broken roads and sidewalks, something they always neglected before. Pretty soon the rents become ridiculously inflated and the residents have to scatter somewhere else and start all over again.

It seems like the businesses got all that value that other people created for basically nothing, they're opportunists, and they ruin everything, and that's why they're always searching for the next little neighborhood to gentrify, because nobody likes the tourist attractions they create, except the tourists of course, but they'll get bored with it anyway.

[Smitty-48]

the idea that the poor have any business living in places where the cost of living is higher than anywhere else in the nation is retarded.

I'm not going to nickel and dime about it, I'm not going to get out my slide ruler and make sure it's exactly comensurate to their income before I build public housing, but it's not going to be on the the most expensive land of all, and guess what, there is a price point, where I as the taxpayer, will sell the land out from under them, and move them further out, and they are free to decline the offer and find their own way, at any time, but if you're coming cap in hand, I call the shots, not you, when you're paying, you decide, when I'm paying, I decide.

[Smitty-48]

I don't know anything about the Grenfell tower neighborhood,

I'm not sure there's an elegant, principled argument against gentrification. One might make a romantic argument against it. It comes down to people don't like it when outsiders kick them out of their neighborhoods.

Someone rents in a low value neighborhood because it's the only thing they can afford, and the neighborhood is basically abandoned and ignored by the city. Over the years that person along with their neighbors put their energies into creating a solid community and culture, make things nice. Maybe the neighborhood starts getting a cool authentic vibe to it.

People with capital come along and see the value the residents have created. The outsiders start buying everything for cheap while creating a trendy commercial district right in people's back yards. Suddenly the city starts repaving the broken roads and sidewalks, something they always neglected before. Pretty soon the rents become ridiculously inflated and the residents have to scatter somewhere else and start all over again.

It seems like the businesses got all that value that other people created for basically nothing, they're opportunists, and they ruin everything, and that's why they're always searching for the next little neighborhood to gentrify, because nobody likes the tourist attractions they create, except the tourists of course, but they'll get bored with it anyway.

Gentrification and Public Housing, two seperate issues, if it's private property, I'm not forcing you to go anywhere, make your own way, but if it's public property, Royal We, as the taxpayers, have the right, and considering the state of the public coffers, the mandate in fact, to sell to the highest bidder, relocation of public housing notwithstanding, because I'm not necessarily opposed to public housing, I certainly prefer it to vagrancy.

[Smitty-48]

See, thing about these public housing projects, is that because they are ideologically driven socialist sacred cows which you can never sell by market forces, that's how they become the run down slums in the first place, there is no creative destruction, they are seperated from the cycle of property rolling over and never replaced with something new.

They should be sold, and yes the poor should be forced to move, in cycle with the market, building new public housing all the time, as you sell off the old, that way, they're always new, instead of being allowed to degenerate into slums.

Whenever they are built new, they're up to code, they have all the bells and whistles, but because they are entrenched and not subject to renewal by market forces, isn't long before they start becoming obsolete and then falling into disrepair, as opposed to private property, which is constantly turning over in the market.

[Smitty-48]

This could otherwise be articulated as the "nobody owns it vs. somebody owns it" paradigm

Nobody actually owned Grenfell Tower, so nobody was invested in it, if you want investment, you have to take ownership of it, at which point, be prepared, and in fact be mandated, to sell to the highest bidder and move on, as per the market.

This is why the socialist left is repsonsible, because ideologically, they refuse to allow the public to take actual ownership of public property, at which point, it's not our fucking problem, by default, cry all you want, virtue signal all you want, protest all you want, but that ain't gonna save anybody from the fire.

[JohnDonne]

I don't know anything about the Grenfell tower neighborhood,

I'm not sure there's an elegant, principled argument against gentrification. One might make a romantic argument against it. It comes down to people don't like it when outsiders kick them out of their neighborhoods.

Someone rents in a low value neighborhood because it's the only thing they can afford, and the neighborhood is basically abandoned and ignored by the city. Over the years that person along with their neighbors put their energies into creating a solid community and culture, make things nice. Maybe the neighborhood starts getting a cool authentic vibe to it.

People with capital come along and see the value the residents have created. The outsiders start buying everything for cheap while creating a trendy commercial district right in people's back yards. Suddenly the city starts repaving the broken roads and sidewalks, something they always neglected before. Pretty soon the rents become ridiculously inflated and the residents have to scatter somewhere else and start all over again.

It seems like the businesses got all that value that other people created for basically nothing, they're opportunists, and they ruin everything, and that's why they're always searching for the next little neighborhood to gentrify, because nobody likes the tourist attractions they create, except the tourists of course, but they'll get bored with it anyway.

Gentrification and Public Housing, two seperate issues, if it's private property, I'm not forcing you to go anywhere, make your own way, but if it's public property, Royal We, as the taxpayers, have the right, and considering the state of the public coffers, the mandate in fact, to sell to the highest bidder, relocation of public housing notwithstanding, because I'm not necessarily opposed to public housing, I certainly prefer it to vagrancy.

Okay, that's true, but a building like that should have had a working sprinkler system since it was decided not to relocate. And apparently this council leader Paget-Brown guy is trying to say "The tenants didn't want the sprinklers, so we didn't put them in." Lol, what, they take construction advice from the tenants? What does that even mean? "There was not "a collective view in favour of the sprinklers."

[Smitty-48]

Okay, that's true, but a building like that should have had a working sprinkler system since it was decided not to relocate. And apparently this council leader Paget-Brown guy is trying to say "The tenants didn't want the sprinklers, so we didn't put them in." Lol, what, they take construction advice from the tenants? What does that even mean? "There was not "a collective view in favour of the sprinklers."

So the socialist centrally planned government in the UK failed the tenants, that's sad, on the other hand, they got what they voted for, if they were naive about the nature of government central planning and associated fiscal and bureaucratic dysfunction, well that's sad too, but I can't save people from themselves, nor do I even want to.

The government is centrally planned, the market is not, if you keep trying to jam that square government peg into this round market hole, people will die for it, mostly poor people, don't have to tell me what I already know.

In the end, everybody gotta die sometime, big green machine rolls on without you, and in a hundred years, all new people, maybe by then they'll have learned the lesson, no way to know.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Who, may I ask, deserves the honor of your sympathy?

I'm quite sympathetic to you actually, Hanarchy. Hell, I like you, you can come over to my house and fuck my sister.

The sorriest of God's snowflakes to walk upon the earth appreciates the pity bangs thrown out by the Smitty clan.

[Smitty-48]

Who, may I ask, deserves the honor of your sympathy?

I'm quite sympathetic to you actually, Hanarchy. Hell, I like you, you can come over to my house and fuck my sister.

The sorriest of God's snowflakes to walk upon the earth appreciates the pity bangs thrown out by the Smitty clan.

Well, really she's my sister-in-law, but by all means, knock yourself out, she's single, she likes to party, she's a little bit older tho, this ain't my kid sister if you know what I mean.

[Smitty-48]

Oh, wait, Hanarchy, I just thought of a problem; she's rich.

I know how you Lefties cant abide them rich folk, I wouldn't want you to have to sully yourself from the moral heights of virtue, rolling around in my sister-in-law's Mercedes AMG.