In the longer term, I don’t think that humanity’s needs will ultimately be met by capitalism. But in the shorter term, while it’s still with us, isn’t it true that new developments provide funding to older neighborhoods? Higher property values lead to higher taxes, new developments pay development impact fees (paying their own share of public services, which older developments frequently don’t do), they create new businesses, etc.

Should we just leave poor neighborhoods poor until post-scarcity is upon us? What’s the end game here?

> No one should have to depend on another’s arbitrary benevolence for the basic good of home and community

That’s fair, but taken to the extreme, doesn’t this also mean that poorer neighborhoods shouldn’t have to depend on the largesse of the tax money from other parts of the city?

How are they supposed to get “less poor”? How are they supposed to get more investment?