I would wager that it's because there are folks who applaud the private sector for stepping in on a big problem. I would argue it's a general positive when we don't have to rely on government to solve all of our problems.

But now we're relying on Microsoft to solve our problems. How is that any better?

Because nobody is being forced to fund it, as is the case with the state. And the state would staff the administration of the new construction with pensioned state bureaucrats, whose pensions are already bankrupting California. Unfunded state liabilities from pensions are somewhere between 333 billion and 1 trillion, depending on who you ask.

And then once constructed, there would be forces wholly removed from the natural demands of the population, as represented immediately by the encompassing markets, determining how the housing is to evolve over time.

People should be much more reserved than they are in terms of handing things over to the state, there is much to be lost.

> whose pensions are already bankrupting California

That is not true. California has a budget surplus right now...

Something might actually get done

> might

Exactly. Why put our eggs in MSFT's basket?

Because the expectation on HN is that you won’t make content-free posts.

It’s not a poll. One is expected to answer “bad, because...”, as you did.

I tend to agree, but also take the opinion that if the comment above had expanded on this, the reaction wouldn't be as negative