NSR: Choice: Expensive housing/fewer people or cheaper housing/more people

[comish]

This is a question generated by DuctTape's developer rant which is an interesting one. I see both sides and am just curious which people would choose. This is one major issue that was discussed in the good/bad about SoCal thread.

If you had a choice would you choose more people and all the shit it brings with it (smog, traffic, etc) while also having cheaper housing?

or

Fewer people and the good stuff that would entail ala less smog, traffic, etc as you mentioned, AND more expensive housing.


California is an outrageously expensive place to live from a housing perspective and it also has many other problems generated by the massive numbers of people moving here every year. I guess we can't have both, cheap housing and few people so which would you choose?

[Superstar Punani]

Depends if your roommates are extremely hot chicks.

(To answer your question....give me the expensive housing and fewer people)

[Schmear]

I'd take the latter, hands down. More people = more clutter (and fewer people who will actually take responsibility when something goes wrong in the house).

[comish]

Actually I'm not talking about your individual house, but rather the city or county or region as a whole.

[Superstar Punani]

Actually I'm not talking about your individual house, but rather the city or county or region as a whole.

Same answer.

Keep all the peons and low-rent mofos East of the 405. Build a wall surrounding the South Bay to keep them out

[cj001f]

Actually I'm not talking about your individual house, but rather the city or county or region as a whole.

I used to say the latter. After watching what a shitehole Santa Cruz and Monterey have become, now I say the former. Because that's what the latter will become, eventually.