[chralieboy]

That is how representative democracy works. You decide how things work in the area where you live. Imagine if I got to decide how things worked in your neighborhood without living there, that wouldn't be fair.

People who _want_ to live somewhere have no rights to it. They are by definition not yet part of the community. That's like allowing job applicants vote on company policy. I'm sure they would want to, but communities are defined by those in them.

[kelnos]

I get what you're saying, and what you're saying does indeed sound fair to a certain extent.

The problem is that it encourages and allows NIMBY attitudes to proliferate, and creates an environment of stagnation. I certainly think we should balance the wishes of current residents, but there has to be limits.

I do live in SF, and I'm pissed that other residents are allowed to slow down housing development. SF is turning into a less desirable place for me to live because of the housing crunch... and I'm not even talking about my rent costs. I don't want to live in a city where only high-income people (and entrenched incumbents with ridiculous rent control) can afford to live. The NIMBYs are the problem, here.

[MBlume]

A lot of the people who would like to live in San Francisco work in San Francisco and have their income taxed by San Francisco.

It's kind of frustrating.

[pbreit]

I guess you're referring to payroll taxes which is kind of a stretch.

[Kalium]

This works until you can vote to screw your neighbor for your own gain. Then things get messy.