|
I mean, it's cool that people in other countries do things other ways and that maybe if we weren't retarded we would have good mass transit, but at the end of the day, we don't and the poor still need to get to work.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Sure, which is why you don't just cut things like mandatory parking minimums by themselves, you have to shift resources into viable alternatives. At the same time, you can't wait for the alternatives to be perfect for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:apants, have you ever owned property? therobit posted:Profit is the main driver of commercial and residential rental property ownership. If not for profit motive why would you invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in housing for strangers? I'll warrant you there is some nonprofit housing out there somewhere but it is scarce enough not to matter for this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Yeah, if you're coming at this from an imaginary scenario where only corporations and landlords are allowed to own property because someone needs to profit from it, then it makes sense why you keep coming to these bizarre, twisted conclusions, and also why you'll dismiss any alternative out of hand. But why would anyone want to build a house if not to exploit someone else's needs for profit? You don't think people would just build homes to live in, would they?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
therobit posted:Profit is the main driver of commercial and residential rental property ownership. If not for profit motive why would you invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in housing for strangers? I'll warrant you there is some nonprofit housing out there somewhere but it is scarce enough not to matter for this discussion. I think the fact that there is somehow a way to provide housing without falling under the umbrella of afford to buy or gently caress you is actually very relevant to this discussion. Or is this another situation where we can't have it tomorrow so why bother envisioning it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:No, and it is my understanding that the vast majority of individuals who own property do not profit from the property that they own. When the conversation is about rental property, then yes the only reason is to profit. What I am identifying is that not everyone can afford to own a home, so there needs to be some supply of rental housing. People dont buy or build and then maintain rental housing unless they can profit off of it. I don't know why that is a hard concept for you to grasp.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Look, instead of climbing all over each other to prove what a bunch of edgelords you guys are, why not instead actually describe what you would prefer to see, and how a transition to that would actually work. Are you folks envisioning something akin to the difference between a credit union and a bank? Something else? For instance, how would this new utopia work with the desire to build densely? Are you imagining non-profit organizations being formed to secure the financing to build large blocks, since that would be out of the reach? Has this happened before on a consistent basis? Are there any obvious roadblocks? If you have something serious to say let's hear it but otherwise this is quickly becoming a game of "if you don't support my poorly defined, extreme idea then you're conservative, right-wing scum".
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
therobit posted:When the conversation is about rental property, then yes the only reason is to profit. What I am identifying is that not everyone can afford to own a home, so there needs to be some supply of rental housing. People dont buy or build and then maintain rental housing unless they can profit off of it. I don't know why that is a hard concept for you to grasp.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:I think the fact that there is somehow a way to provide housing without falling under the umbrella of afford to buy or gently caress you is actually very relevant to this discussion. Or is this another situation where we can't have it tomorrow so why bother envisioning it? I would be all for massive government housing programs but in the meantime lets not try and make it unprofitable to provide rental housing. We are probably 30 years out from substantive government housing neing a real sokution, and that is if you can get any traction in the legislature for the idea now, which is unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
therobit posted:I would be all for massive government housing programs but in the meantime lets not try and make it unprofitable to provide rental housing. We are probably 30 years out from substantive government housing neing a real sokution, and that is if you can get any traction in the legislature for the idea now, which is unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Look, instead of climbing all over each other to prove what a bunch of edgelords you guys are, why not instead actually describe what you would prefer to see, and how a transition to that would actually work. Are you folks envisioning something akin to the difference between a credit union and a bank? Something else? edit: therobit posted:I would be all for massive government housing programs but in the meantime lets not try and make it unprofitable to provide rental housing. We are probably 30 years out from substantive government housing neing a real sokution, and that is if you can get any traction in the legislature for the idea now, which is unlikely. twodot fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
therobit posted:I would be all for massive government housing programs but in the meantime lets not try and make it unprofitable to provide rental housing. We are probably 30 years out from substantive government housing neing a real sokution, and that is if you can get any traction in the legislature for the idea now, which is unlikely. Where were you when the "Build 1000 Homes" coalition was fighting to get the city to spend $160 million on public housing? Do you actually give a poo poo, or so you just sit on the internet and say that we can't actually achieve anything?
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Look, instead of climbing all over each other to prove what a bunch of edgelords you guys are, why not instead actually describe what you would prefer to see, and how a transition to that would actually work. Are you folks envisioning something akin to the difference between a credit union and a bank? Something else? Jesus christ dude nobody said any of that poo poo. Calm the gently caress down. This is only turning into that game because you're dragging it there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
My Great Grandady an illegal immigrant from New Zealand lived in a flophouse they need to bring back flophouses in pioneer square.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
DevNull posted:Where were you when the "Build 1000 Homes" coalition was fighting to get the city to spend $160 million on public housing? Do you actually give a poo poo, or so you just sit on the internet and say that we can't actually achieve anything? Like we don't know.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Your premise is false, you admitted that it's false, but you don't believe it's important because you said so. Please explain an alternative model and how we would get there. Additionally please explain how additional taxes on rental housing helps make it more affordable for renters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:Jesus christ dude nobody said any of that poo poo. Calm the gently caress down. This is only turning into that game because you're dragging it there. If someone is going to make a post like this: DevNull posted:Rentals should absolutely be included. gently caress anyone making a profit on housing. a few details need to be filled in. It doesn't make me angry or unreasonable to ask for this, so I'm a little confused why you responded in the way you did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in government housing, I think we shouldn't make private rentals more expensive. If you want to tax empty homes I think thay is a reasonable idea but would like to know if it has been done elsewhere and how that worked out. I could only find Vancouver, which just went into effect. I don't think you should add additional taxes to occupied rental properties just to make them less profitable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:If someone is going to make a post like this: Whatever dude. This was a perfectly fine conversation between some peeps that think housing is a human right and some that think maybe it'd be cool to make some money off a necessity. You drop your fat turd of whoa whoa whoa edgelords lemme just shove my nuts into this conversation but also lemme poison the well first by making it clear you think you're being attacked before even showing up. therobit posted:I'm not saying we shouldn't invest in government housing, I think we shouldn't make private rentals more expensive. If you want to tax empty homes I think thay is a reasonable idea but would like to know if it has been done elsewhere and how that worked out. I could only find Vancouver, which just went into effect. I don't think you should add additional taxes to occupied rental properties just to make them less profitable. Its fine trying to avoid making things more expensive for people providing a necessary service but landlords loving scream about having to print out an extra page so people can more easily register to vote and maybe not discriminating against people so my tolerance for their whining about being less profitable is pretty low by default. Teabag Dome Scandal fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:If someone is going to make a post like this: My man have you ever heard of Karl Marx.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:Whatever dude. This was a perfectly fine conversation between some peeps that think housing is a human right and some that think maybe it'd be cool to make some money off a necessity. You drop your fat turd of whoa whoa whoa edgelords lemme just shove my nuts into this conversation but also lemme poison the well first by making it clear you think you're being attacked before even showing up. You're doing it again, bolded above. I said "without details", posting something like "gently caress anyone that makes a profit on housing" is nothing more than being an edgelord. It's not a poisoning of the well to say, "flesh this out because it sounds like something a drunk college student would say". twodot filled in a bunch of details and now it seems a lot more reasonable. Then you got mad for some weird reason, do you have a crush on me or something? ATP_Power posted:My man have you ever heard of Karl Marx. Have I ever!
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You're doing it again, bolded above. I said "without details", posting something like "gently caress anyone that makes a profit on housing" is nothing more than being an edgelord. It's not a poisoning of the well to say, "flesh this out because it sounds like something a drunk college student would say". twodot filled in a bunch of details and now it seems a lot more reasonable. lol grow up you child
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Vacancy tax so steep that it's literally cheaper to let someone move in rent free than maintain an empty unit. This includes people who own multiple houses. Proceeds go towards low income rent subsidies. Seizure of bank-owned housing that's unoccupied for longer than [to be determined number of months]. Housing is meant to be lived in, period, not held empty. Seized houses are either auctioned with strict limits on who can bid (families of the appropriate size to occupy said house who either do not own a house, or are trying to leave a shittier house) or bulldozed to put up denser housing. Caps on deposit requirements to move in. The average person for whom this is a problem probably doesn't have 5 grand in the bank just to be monopolized in security deposits, nor should they have to. Fixing poo poo a tenant breaks is just a cost of doing business. R E N T C O N T R O L
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
therobit posted:Please explain an alternative model and how we would get there. Additionally please explain how additional taxes on rental housing helps make it more affordable for renters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
It's abhorrent to have so many empty homes when there are so many homeless people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:I think the fact that there is somehow a way to provide housing without falling under the umbrella of afford to buy or gently caress you is actually very relevant to this discussion. Or is this another situation where we can't have it tomorrow so why bother envisioning it? Banks already pay for property, I don't see any reason they shouldn't be involved during construction (I feel like they must be involved already). It would be pretty simple to have a development "co-op" go to a bank and say "we have X number of pre-approved customers and we want to build X building for this much". Seems like it would work out for everyone, you could just have people register/get pre-approved for a home and build according to demand. You wouldn't even have to build it to order, just create a fund that people pay their "mortgage" into that actually pays for new development and people can just shop for any home like normal. Javid posted:Vacancy tax so steep that it's literally cheaper to let someone move in rent free than maintain an empty unit. This includes people who own multiple houses. Proceeds go towards low income rent subsidies. I wonder how much of a problem unoccupied units actually are. I get that sometimes units go un-rented because it might be better to wait a while for someone willing to pay the advertised price... but at some point they have to rent it out otherwise it's a poor investment. I'm not so sure that this would have much impact on rent or number of available units. I'd like to see some data on that. Javid posted:Seizure of bank-owned housing that's unoccupied for longer than [to be determined number of months]. Housing is meant to be lived in, period, not held empty. Seized houses are either auctioned with strict limits on who can bid (families of the appropriate size to occupy said house who either do not own a house, or are trying to leave a shittier house) or bulldozed to put up denser housing. I get this idea too but there are plenty of reasons why you can't rent out a house that have nothing to do with sitting on it until it appreciates. Sometimes you're waiting on funding to do a remodel or teardown. Sometimes you're waiting until other purchases come through to start development across multiple lots. Sometimes you have work or family issues that take you away from your home for extended amounts of time. I don't think if you're paying for your house and keeping up with the taxes that the government should be allowed to take your home for any reason. It seems like it could be used in nefarious ways. Also how do you prove a house is unoccupied anyway? Javid posted:Caps on deposit requirements to move in. The average person for whom this is a problem probably doesn't have 5 grand in the bank just to be monopolized in security deposits, nor should they have to. Fixing poo poo a tenant breaks is just a cost of doing business. That would be nice, or maybe just require landlords to have insurance to cover whatever the deposit supposedly is being used for and get rid of this whole deposit bullshit altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Shifty Nipples posted:It's abhorrent to have so many empty homes when there are so many homeless people. Whatever discussion we have, both sides must always come back to this.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:Oregon HB 2269 was a bill to raise money to fund air environmental regulators, so that what happened to Portland last year could be dealt with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I get this idea too but there are plenty of reasons why you can't rent out a house that have nothing to do with sitting on it until it appreciates. Sometimes you're waiting on funding to do a remodel or teardown. Sometimes you're waiting until other purchases come through to start development across multiple lots. Sometimes you have work or family issues that take you away from your home for extended amounts of time. I don't think if you're paying for your house and keeping up with the taxes that the government should be allowed to take your home for any reason. It seems like it could be used in nefarious ways. Also how do you prove a house is unoccupied anyway? You missed the "bank-owned" part of that idea. I'm talking seizing foreclosed vacant houses, not homes owned by humans. (they just pay the vacancy tax if it's they own >1 house) Housing exists to house humans. Any housing not being used for that purpose is part of the problem and needs to be addressed. If rich people want to own six houses then they can pay 5x the vacancy tax into subsidized rent for low income renters and development of nonprofit housing, so that vacant housing is still being productive. Banks have no excuses. 90 days to sell it for whatever you can get or it's confiscated and turned into a nonprofit rental. gently caress them. Javid fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:HB 2017, a transportation bill, passed the Senate today, and will likely be turned into law. It's a big bill and it's worth eight billion dollars so I would expect to see some more in-depth analysis soon, but until then here's a writeup about it. My main question is why electric vehicles are being charged more than gas-powered vehicles if (one of) the goals is to reduce greenhouse emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Reene posted:My main question is why electric vehicles are being charged more than gas-powered vehicles if (one of) the goals is to reduce greenhouse emissions. twodot fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
I got into over the 4th because my libertarian aunt is incensed she is going to have about $1.50 per pay check taken out in taxes to help fund WA's new paid family/medical leave act. "But I'll never need it and everyone who doesn't save up for emergencies or pregnancy knows what they're getting into". I seriously do not get it and it's definitely depressing having to explain how the law is actually good when it should be loving obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Tulalip Tulips posted:I got into over the 4th because my libertarian aunt is incensed she is going to have about $1.50 per pay check taken out in taxes to help fund WA's new paid family/medical leave act. "But I'll never need it and everyone who doesn't save up for emergencies or pregnancy knows what they're getting into". I seriously do not get it and it's definitely depressing having to explain how the law is actually good when it should be loving obvious. People are greedy and stupid. This is why everything is broken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Tulalip Tulips posted:I got into over the 4th because my libertarian aunt is incensed she is going to have about $1.50 per pay check taken out in taxes to help fund WA's new paid family/medical leave act. "But I'll never need it and everyone who doesn't save up for emergencies or pregnancy knows what they're getting into". I seriously do not get it and it's definitely depressing having to explain how the law is actually good when it should be loving obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
We should have what the Scandinavian countries have, paid months (like six) of time for child birth split between both parents requiring the fathers to take a minimum amount (like a month) of it. And a campaign normalizing both parents using all of it. gently caress equality, first year of parenting is hard as poo poo. The time would also benefit society massively. It should be similar for severe medical leave or things like end of life leave to take care of dying parents.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Javid posted:Vacancy tax so steep that it's literally cheaper to let someone move in rent free than maintain an empty unit. This includes people who own multiple houses. Proceeds go towards low income rent subsidies. All this awesome. I want to print it on a poster and wheatpaste it while wearing a barret.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
anthonypants posted:No, and it is my understanding that the
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:We should have what the Scandinavian countries have, paid months (like six) of time for child birth split between both parents requiring the fathers to take a minimum amount (like a month) of it. And a campaign normalizing both parents using all of it. edit: Alternatively, why do high income earners deserve more money on their child care leave than low income earners? twodot fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Jul 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:We should have what the Scandinavian countries have, paid months (like six) of time for child birth split between both parents requiring the fathers to take a minimum amount (like a month) of it. And a campaign normalizing both parents using all of it. I honestly and truly feel bad for babies that don't get 3-4 months of dedicated bonding time with one or both parents. It's such a huge time for a human being.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:42 |
|
|
Teabag Dome Scandal posted:You drop your fat turd of whoa whoa whoa edgelords lemme just shove my nuts into this conversation but also lemme poison the well first The Solkanar512 method!
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2017 04:46
|
|
