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
But they should try something. Maybe degentrification could include a city requirement not to displace people when building new housing. The developer puts the previous occupant up and then guarantees them their same rent for, say, a decade going forward

>>ian-g+HF1
The problem with imposing restrictions on real estate developers is that it reduces the amount of housing, which increases the cost. (Look at California, for example.)

I’d rather they force commercial developers to put in two bedrooms worth of housing for each full time employee worth of office space they add.

If the developers are short-sighted and only add high end McMansions and condos, that’s fine.

The housing market will eventually oversaturate, and those properties will end up selling at a loss to people that couldn’t afford them at the original price.

The Microsofts and Amazons of the world will end up paying eye watering premiums for open space floor plans, or luxury real estate developers will take a bath. Either way, not a tear will be shed.