Right to live where you are born? That adversely affects anyone not born in a central district.
Dozens of cities around the world are suffering from rejecting capitalism of property and the consequences will be the long run slow bleeding out to locations more accepting of economic reality.
Even in the most expensive places to live - Bay Area, central Tokyo, Venice, etc - if builders could build to their hearts content and see rapid high-rise housing development (first to meet the wealthy demand, and gradually to meet all other demand that turns a profit) you end up with affordable low income housing and extreme growth for the whole metro area, which means prosperity.
IE, rather than holding back development and costing yourself tremendous fiscal gains, you let those happen and tax the fuck out of them to make life better for all those displaced. Use tax money from more unfettered capitalism to improve the situation of the poor, rather than holding back markets for the sake of the poor, who are then also worse off.
> Yakuza to thank for that
Your pithy one-liner isn't very enlightening. Could you elaborate?
Let’s look at one of those deals in detail.
In 2004, Frank McCourt sold 23 acres of open
parking lots on the South Boston waterfront to
News Corp. for $145 million ... Two years later,
News Corp. sold the same land ... to Morgan
Stanley for $204 million. ... When the
BRA [Boston Redevelopment Authority] approved
the Seaport Square Master Plan, paving the way
for major development of midsize towers in 2010,
the land finally had real value. ... To limit
speculating, the BRA could have made Morgan
Stanley’s Seaport approvals non-transferrable.
But it didn’t.
Instead, over the next five years, Morgan Stanley
parceled out its 23 ... acres ... for a total
of $654 million. ...
After changing so many hands, ... housing, like
at Waterside Place, where a 598-square-foot
one-bedroom can be all yours for $2,685 per month.
When the people who are engaging in housing development are shaping policy to maximize short term profit, this is the result.
I don't have a clear understanding of how to prevent this from happening but my strong suspicion is that better government regulation needs to be in place that holds the public interest at heart.
Disclaimer: I live in the Boston area.
[1] http://www.bostonmagazine.com/property/article/2016/02/21/bo...
> Right to live where you are born? That adversely affects anyone not born in a central district.
Thinking about it, this reminds me of the question of immigration. People usually say that one shouldn't be allowed to immigrate wherever he wants and/or that politicans are beholden to the people of their country, not the whole world. So .. what's the difference between a city and a country here? Why should the city council not put the wishes of those born there first?
Democracy tends towards chaos and deadlock. There are too many cooks, and they all want different things, and they all have roughly the same amount of power. Usually nothing happens, and when something does happen it's a half-assed designed-by-committee nightmare.
When you see government acting swiftly, purposefully, effectively and succeeding at something difficult and expensive, it's because an autocratic force (like a political machine, or organized crime) has bent the democratic process to its will.
For example, only Mayor Daley could have pulled off Millenium Park in Chicago. To get something like that done in Chicago's dysfunctional government, you need to own people at every level and in every department. Only the Daleys have built empires on that scale, and other mayors in other cities don't wield nearly as much power (even if their legal entitlements are the same).
That is a very weak position, do you actually believe things can be true because "People usually say that"? Either immigration between countries is wrong in some way that generalizes to immigration between cities, or you can't use the fact that immigration is by default illegal to support your position.
Not allowing unrestricted immigration between countries is usually a pragmatic consideration, that is related to how countries usually spend their money vs. how they earn their money. Social expenditure, for instance, is usually planned based on the amount of tax the state gets from an average citizen, importing a lot of people who will pay less in taxes means you either have to degrade the quality of service for everyone, or start discriminating between people when spending on them (which betrays the concept of welfare spending as a 'safety net' - it's supposed to serve people who can't earn enough to provide for themselves or their family). Sometimes anti-immigration sentiment is motivated by nationalism or racism, even to the extent that people aren't allowed to live where they were born, and it would be a shame to reproduce those ideas on a city level.
(The soil in Berlin is hard to build tall on. But money can buy engineering to work on this problem.)
It's not a very efficient solution (no one can move to the city for a job since you need somewhere to live within months then - not decades). It also needs very draconian rules to avoid a large black market in contracts.
There are no good solutions to this problem. If you are a socialist you argue that the lesser evil is inefficient queueing and if you are an economic liberal you argue that allocating via market prices is better and gentrification/segregation is the lesser evil.
It's certainly a nice thing to be able to travel and visit other cultures and countries. But the advent of massive international transportation combined with few tourism hotspots has created a tourism industry that can outprice locals, and thus destroy the cultures that created the artefacts they show to tourists.
Right to live where you work seems to be a good one.
temporary visitors.
If we generalise the "live where you work" to "stay where you spend most of your time, then it makes a lot of sense for the visitors to be housed in the centre. Otherwise you force a large amount of commuting on them. For course that doesn't matter much for each individual visitor because they are around only for a short time, but that's not the right metric. It means that Berlin's infrastructure is heavily taxed with all that unnecessary commuting by (every changing) visitors.
The thing is, it completely reverses the meaning of my point, which was based on concern priority, not transportation efficiency. To me, it seems important that people whose home, job and lifestyle/culture is at stake are treated preferably to people for whom the city is just a tmporary leisure.
By making sure that visitors don't effect too much locals, we also promote a kind of tourism which promotes hospitality, and which ensures that the object of visits is not destroyed by tourism consumption.
Indeed, the boundary between tourists and residents is porous. Capital cities attract a transient population from week end visitors to interns or workers who stay a few weeks, to summer visitors who stay a season, to students who stay for a few years, to proper residents who stay a decade or more. All of them are a source of ideas as well as a source of income for Berlin's industry. "Das ist auch gut so." Hence Berlin needs to cater for all. That includes providing substantial, centrally located living space (whether hotels or apartments) for short-term visitors.