Got into a heated discussion with a coworker over this. My stance is it was probably for the best it was demolished. The entire thing was a massive fire and disease hazard. Massive amounts of crime and unlicensed businesses too. Despite its reputation for a kind of tight knit anarchist type community, most of the stuff I've read seems to suggest triads and the HK police were largely running the place.
I hate forceful eviction as much as the next person here. What else could have been done? There was some compensation given to the residents, but I know some residents complained it wasn't enough.
My coworker's stance is the place should have remained as it was, without any sort of intervention whatsoever, despite being so hazardous.
How do y'all feel?
He doesn't mean anything coherent and has some weird obsession with balance. He would say free housing disrupts the choice because he believes being poor or rich is an aesthetic lifestyle choice and both contain their own pros and cons, so offering free housing to the poor would disrupt their choice in that it would put too many pros on the poor side. It would make one choice far easier to make, meaning some arbitrary balance has been disturbed. He's quite strange.
So he's a moron