Quote Originally Posted by Avoidy View Post
I will, once again, quote myself on why this doesn't hold up. This quote was in the post you literally replied to btw.



"But why should someone who already owns a home be subjected to that instead??"
Because they have a home already, so at the end of the day they still have something in this arrangement.

Does this kind of suck for people who already own a home? Yes. But it's a fair way of tackling a shortage in a way that ensures that people who don't have anything can get something. Meanwhile, those who already have something still have something; they just don't have that "something" in a zone they might want it to be.

I'm done now! I simply disagree with you on this. I've stated my case. You guys aren't even willing to read, so I'm out.
My point still stands - If person A loses the lottery, they can still renter the cycle. It is an objective fact that the same number of plots will be available, albeit with differing probabilities. If you feel it is hopeless then the onus is on the willpower of the individual.

That being said, the logic of:
in a way that ensures that people who don't have anything can get something.
If the same number of plots are available then someone will always get something, again, albeit with differing probabilities. This logic would only stand if the person relocating were able to take both plot A, and plot B, which they cannot.

You can cry about reading all you like, but don't throw stones in glass houses.