> If the ADU is sub-standard, then the lower class can choose to not live there.

Buddy, not for nothing but that sentence could be a textbook definition of a synonym for “Let them eat cake”

Are the lower class supposed to use their vast sums of savings to choose more expensive housing? If a 20 year old Toyota Corolla with 200k miles is substandard for them can they simply choose to buy new?

I earnestly believe that an ADU (or anything, such as a car) on market provides an option. That is what I was trying to say.

My original question was this: how does adding an ADU to the market hurt the lower class?

I don’t think providing an adu of <120 sq ft will hurt the lower class in the same that I don’t think sweatshops in developing countries are hurting the lower class. I get how they aren’t great but the fact that people will use/work at them without coercion shows that they are better than nothing. I agree that you are correct there.

What am I pointing out is how you phrased your statement like the lower class has other options than the cheapest option available, whether or not it’s sub standard.

If you are unaware the mythological story around Marie Antoinette is that when she was told the peasantry could no longer afford bread responded with “let them eat cake” because she did not understand that going above the basics was not a viable option.

The phrasing of your statement combined with the reality of the world came off like you were suggesting the lower class can simply spend more money if they didn’t like the low tier housing, regardless of your actual intent

This is part of an ongoing attempt to create quality affordable housing - just as other products have done over time.

If the product weren’t there, the option wouldn’t be there - and your reasoning functionally favors driving down lower classes by denying them steps up.

No, there is not some grand capitalist conspiracy to subjugate multitudes into poverty to seize their paltry holdings. Capitalism raises the poor by giving them options that benefit both parties; the burgeoning ADU market seeks to give better homes to poor, which is a hard goal with limited (but existing!) incentives.

I feel like no one responding to me in this thread is capable of understanding how the tone of your wording changes how it is received by others.

I understand how capitalism works and that this provides an option that wasn’t available before.

Telling people who have next to nothing that they can simply choose another house if they think this one is sub standard, while factually accurate, makes you sound like a complete asshole who doesn’t understand that they don’t have the resources to pick other options

That’s the entire point I’m making. Any response about capitalism or ADUs is ignoring my point and talking past me

Yes, X may be their only option. X sucks, and it’s not what anyone with options would choose. Well, except for Y, which is even worse.

You’re arguing that X shouldn’t exist, leaving only Y. This, in your words, “makes you sound like a complete asshole who doesn’t understand that” this is a step up.