> I understand this is not for everyone and I understand the negative perception of 'outsiders' pushing the price up for locals, but at the end of the day I'm optimizing for my own quality of life.
I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an excuse? I mean, on the whole, some displacement of locals isn't that big a tragedy, but "it was good for me, so fuck you" isn't exactly the best moral reasoning I've ever heard.
For decades people from all over the country, many of these small towns moved to places like NY, Chicago, SF etc. and the respective suburbs in search for better jobs, opportunity etc. It didn't seem like it was a big concern then to anyone that the locals in these cities could be negatively affected by higher rents, home prices etc. Why is it different when the reverse happens?
If its ok for a young person to leave their hometown, move to a city and call it home to make a better life without thinking about the locals, then it must be ok for a person with a small family living in a city to move to a smaller town and call it home to make a better life for his/her family.
>If its ok for a young person to leave their hometown, move to a city and call it home to make a better life without thinking about the locals, then it must be ok for a person with a small family living in a city to move to a smaller town and call it home to make a better life for his/her family.
The reason that theses two scenarios are not equivalent is so obvious I'm wondering whether or not I'm misinterpreting it.
Think of it like this. You can throw a lot of different juices and alcohols into the punch bowl before it becomes apparent that something is different. Pour a half shot of vodka into a glass of wine and the difference is immediate and off putting. There is very little tolerance for change in a glass of wine.
The cultures of small towns really don't have much elasticity nor are they expected to have it. People don't like change and normally no one except other small town people come in.
Cities are generally something that people rotate through in huge numbers. Cities are always changing while still keeping some on the side as a homage to their identity. For the most part though they are always in flux by nature. NYC is not the same as it was 10 years ago. ________ NY, largely the same for the past 200 years is suddenly changing radically in the tech WFA renaissance. There is no doubt in my mind the council will be hi-jacked if it hasn't already - some of those ordinances are "a little out of touch for modern living".
Anyway, before I rant too much, my point is that comparing the elasticity of a city's culture to the rigid and fragile cultures of small towns is ridiculous.
What's a city/small town culture go to do with it? Whether its a city or a small town, if a local lived their entire life (perhaps generations even) in a place and due to high demand was priced out, its the same. Saying its unfair if it happened to me in mountain ski town but its OK if it happened to someone from the Bronx is just hypocritical. Sounds more like I care about this now because its happening to me.
Whether you like it or not, the pandemic happened, technology has advanced, there was high demand in the cities for decades and now its subsided a little and the smaller towns have some higher demand too. Only difference the culture of the city/small town makes is how welcoming/indifferent they are or how much harder they will make it for the new comers.
It’s a reason, and the same reason that everything happens in nature when there is inadequate supply of something compared to demand. Might makes right.
I'm sorry, is that supposed to be an excuse? I mean, on the whole, some displacement of locals isn't that big a tragedy, but "it was good for me, so fuck you" isn't exactly the best moral reasoning I've ever heard.