zlacker

>>obilgi+(OP)
I wonder if it's bigger than Sealand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

When I look at the list of demands I'm pretty quick to dismiss it. Then I remember how I dismissed the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle too, and how many of the fears those protesters had were realized over the next two decades. I might be too hopeful, but I really think the city leadership should talk to them and hear them out, instead of just trying to push them over.

>>yingw7+S2
The list of demands is extremely tame for a fricking anarchist commune. Look at the list of "economic demands." The biggest ask is de-gentrification and rent control.

>>rayine+Ab
Those asks seem pretty incompatible with property law and the legislative process. You can't just unilaterally demand something like rent control and de-gentrification measures. The city government shouldn't even have (and probably doesn't have) the power to meet such demands.

>>maland+My1
Degentrification could trivially be achieved by eminent domain, condemning existing residential property for public housing for which eligibility would be governed on rules which are incompatible with gentrification. It might be expensive, even prohibitively so, to do on a broad scale, but in terms of legal authority it's well within the scope of powers that local governments usually have.

Note that rent control, even if the city doesn't have the power to establish it for private rentals, can effectively be achieved by the same means.

>>dragon+qD1
There is legal precedent to use imminent domain to transfer wealth from one individual to another. Usually it’s stealing from the poor, and giving to real estate developers.

There’d be a certain amount of deferred justice in doing that, but I’d rather the practice simply be banned.