|
Phi230 posted:Actually, I do, and my "political dogma" such as rent caps and similar/parallel policies can and have been instituted in single jurisdictions. i clearly articulated my goal but the only reason you started on this entire tangent of gentrification was so you could comically yell at other leftists. which at first i thought would derail the previous "let's yell about how everyone but me is a neoliberal" derail but it turns out not only do you not have some greater plan here but you're also frankly ignorant about the thing i said that's getting you so mad like amigo if you really want to stamp your feet about me being a centrist that's fine but at least try to understand what it is i'm talking about because then you may actually learn something useful
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
if it helps i don't understand what either of you are talking about
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Here are things that raise housing costs: - Rules that restrict construction of multi-unit housing - Rules that raise the transaction costs of moving (preferential tax treatment for holding a property, rent control that incentivizes you to never have a lease change hands, rapidly increasing rents/non-refundable costs - application fees and deposits for rent or escrow/loan fees for buying a house) - Rules that keep tenants in a specific unit - Financial systems and tax incentives that make homeownership a much better financial choice in the long-run compared to renting - Exclusionary zoning rules - Low-density mandates and height restrictions - Rules that require the preservation of neighborhood character. - Rules that limit new construction - Single-use non-residential tracts Here are things that lower housing costs: - Mixed-use development - High-density residential areas centered around an urban core - Smaller cores in suburban areas that are economically independent, but integrated into the larger urban core - Decreasing the supply of single-family units in favor of multi-family units - Centralized open space and commercial areas that are either integrated into residential structures or centralized in a district to allow for density in purely residential areas - Low transaction costs for moving - No preferential tax treatment for owners vs. renters - Urban design that makes walkability a priority to ensure maximum housing density without diminishing individual's mobility - Tighter lot sizes You don't need all of them from every list, but you have to take some combination of getting rid of most of the top options and implementing most of the bottom options.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:For all the North's struggles to keep the country together and maintain the peace, it ended up pointless in the end, as the South threw unity to the winds as soon as they lost effective control of the country. And then the Civil War killed like five percent of the male population, so maybe maintaining the peace was not such a crazy idea, wrong or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Being slightly to the left of Dubyah but still supporting all his wars was enough to be a leftist back then but it's not anymore, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Majumbo posted:So remove it from market forces. Or massively subsidize construction. Or create universal housing credits. ah yes, we should just use the giant pots of money sitting around labeled "free housing and healthcare for all" to just solve all of society's problems rather than letting them continue, how foolish of me, i should have thought of this sooner
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
It's funny to watch people talk about zoning and pernit reform to allow for more density then poo poo on "neo liberals" when zoning reform to allow for higher denisty development is a major part if neo liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
Article is from 2005. More recent research shows it's mostly negative/mixed. Gentrification of the poorest neighborhoods simply doesn't happen, particularly neigborhoods that have high concentrations of PoCs (white-majority neighborhoods get richer, PoC-majority neighborhoods get poorer): http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122414535774 quote:Integrating census data, police records, prior street-level observations, community surveys, proximity to amenities, and city budget data on capital investments, we find that the pace of gentrification in Chicago from 2007 to 2009 was negatively associated with the concentration of blacks and Latinos in neighborhoods that either showed signs of gentrification or were adjacent and still disinvested in 1995. Gentrification leads to poor neighborhood isolation: http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/how-gentrification-american-cities-maintains-racial-inequality-and-segregation Poor neighborhoods that fail to to gentrify get even poorer as the remaining wealth drains out (most of them fail to gentrify): http://dillonm.io/articles/Cortright_Mahmoudi_2014_Neighborhood-Change.pdf Mass-scale gentrification is occurring pretty much everywhere, particularly in knowledge-hub cities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:if it helps i don't understand what either of you are talking about i'm saying that gentrification can easily be mitigated through the local police power to regulate land uses by implementing tax abatement districts and putting the brakes on redevelopment. this is something that you don't even need elected officials to do really you just amend the zoning ordinance the other guy is saying that we need to figure out how to cap rents somehow and get local governments to authorize new direct construction and administration of public housing which is contrary to decades worth of trends in funding and policy oh and the other guy is yelling at me for calling his plan unrealistic, and he thinks i'm a neoliberal
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Article is from 2005. More recent research shows it's mostly negative/mixed. Article also quotes a 25-year Harvard study from 2015. Just that one section about women is from 2005.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:And then the Civil War killed like five percent of the male population, so maybe maintaining the peace was not such a crazy idea, wrong or not. here's the thing: it didn't maintain the peace. there was this civil war thing. bit of a mess, that. how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to get to keep being the adult in the room while the right runs the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:ah yes, we should just use the giant pots of money sitting around labeled "free housing and healthcare for all" to just solve all of society's problems rather than letting them continue, how foolish of me, i should have thought of this sooner lol and you call yourself a leftist no wonder you just went a weird insecure rant about how i called you a neolib
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Oh hey, housing policy! Some good ideas for making housing more affordable without altering things so severely there are potential unknown negative consequences: 1) Expand government programs that support home buyers 2) Cap rent increases to reflect wage growth to protect non-homeowners 3) Zoning laws (housing in Texas is cheap but no zoning laws induce a lot of problems like a playground next to a lead factory) 4) When developing new properties require that X% of units be set aside for those needing housing assistance (research has shown this yields better results than having dedicated public housing units) Regulating house flipping might help, but I don't know of any way you can do it without it disincentivizing people fixing up homes that are in need of repairs and/or preventing people from selling their primary residence to move. Some ideas that are more radical and while they may prove effective they may have unintended negative consequences: 1) Force all mortgages to be made at no less than 80% Loan-to-Value 2) Ban ownership of multiple residences 3) Toughen/weaken landlord/tenant relation laws 4) Ban second lien mortgages Some ideas that probably would help but are so systemic that a single action won't fix them but if they were fixed would have a positive impact on housing as well as many other things: 1) End casual racism/white supremacy 2) Fix income inequality 3) Improve public transportation infrastructure 4) Improve local services/amenities to the point that there are no longer neighborhoods that are seen as not very good/undesirable What does everyone think? This is just me brainstorming off the top of my head. I can explain why I think some of these ideas are workable/not workable, positive, etc if people want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:And then the Civil War killed like five percent of the male population, so maybe maintaining the peace was not such a crazy idea, wrong or not. Mostly white males though, so maybe that's not so bad these days.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:lol and you call yourself a leftist i dont call myself anything except someone who knows what he's talking about and given your current level of contrary whining i'll expect your next post is going to be something like "knowing what you're talking about is so bourgeoisie"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
axeil posted:Oh hey, housing policy! fuckin good poo poo mate
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i dont call myself anything except someone who knows what he's talking about and given your current level of contrary whining i'll expect your next post is going to be something like "knowing what you're talking about is so bourgeoisie" if you keep projecting like this you'll blow your bulb!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i'm saying that gentrification can easily be mitigated through the local police power to regulate land uses by implementing tax abatement districts and putting the brakes on redevelopment. this is something that you don't even need elected officials to do really you just amend the zoning ordinance So your plan is to use local police forces in the United States to help serve poc and poor communities? And you're calling the rest of us unrealistic?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
axeil posted:
definitely this is not the correct thread to talk about what is workable or not workable *tugs collar* Captain Monkey posted:So your plan is to use local police forces in the United States to help serve poc and poor communities? And you're calling the rest of us unrealistic? haha you dont understand what the police power is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law) stop quoting me please
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
axeil posted:Oh hey, housing policy! All of those first 8 things, except for #4 on the first list, are things that increase housing costs and/or make it more difficult to secure housing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
let me advocate neoliberal policies for 3 pages but get strangely mad when someone calls me a neoliberal
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:ah yes, we should just use the giant pots of money sitting around labeled "free housing and healthcare for all" to just solve all of society's problems rather than letting them continue, how foolish of me, i should have thought of this sooner We'll start by confiscating all profit made from rental properties.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Let's just ignore that my "I know what I'm talking about" policy is very similar to policies practiced in many cities across the united states but has done literally nothing to stop gentrification
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Majumbo posted:We'll start by confiscating all profit made from rental properties. please try to think of a less liberal policy and be more like me, a manly leftist Phi230 posted:Let's just ignore that my "I know what I'm talking about" policy is very similar to policies practiced in many cities across the united states but has done literally nothing to stop gentrification pretty much no locality is trying to mitigate gentrification right now but i wouldn't expect you to be aware of that
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:please try to think of a less liberal policy and be more like me, a manly leftist "No locality is trying to mitigate gentrification" "san francisco anti-gentrification policy based on qualifying for affordable housing lotteries does not exist, apparently"
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Can we just make housing ownership something that can only be done by actual people, not private or public companies? The biggest problem is california before I left was big money corporations paying cash at above asking price preventing actual people from buying houses. Make it so if you own a home you A: have to live in it at least part time B: A person cannot own more than 3 residential properties C: You can only rent a house that is not mortgaged, D: A rental tax deduction similar to the mortgage interest deduction. you should be able to deduct your housing costs from your taxes on non-luxury property. E: Heavy taxes on luxury housing to subsidize public housing development. thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:And then the Civil War killed like five percent of the male population, so maybe maintaining the peace was not such a crazy idea, wrong or not. The point, which appears to have flown right over your head, is that maintaining the peace was impossible. The division was, in the end, impossible to solve with compromises. Those well-meaning Northerners were able to delay the conflict for decades, but in the end all they did was make it worse by giving the South plenty of time to radicalize and dragging the inevitable war into the era of industrialized warfare. When sitting US senators were leading armed militias across state lines to seize control of the Kansas Territory by force, do you think any Kansans were saying "golly gee, it sure is a good thing Northerners compromised with the South and repealed the standing ban on slavery in the territories in order to avoid a civil war over Kansas"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:"No locality is trying to mitigate gentrification" that isn't really a mitigation plan but given the pretty abysmal level of knowledge you've demonstrated so far vs. repeating slogans you read on some facebook antifa group chat again i'm not expecting you to be really aware of the difference Heck Yes! Loam! posted:thoughts? pretty much bait for a court challenge that would be likely to succeed i like the sentiment tho
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:that isn't really a mitigation plan but given the pretty abysmal level of knowledge you've demonstrated so far vs. repeating slogans you read on some facebook antifa group chat again i'm not expecting you to be really aware of the difference and you wonder why people don't like you, and why people like you keep losing elections are you aware of how truly insufferable you are or what
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:ah yes, we should just use the giant pots of money sitting around labeled "free housing and healthcare for all" to just solve all of society's problems rather than letting them continue, how foolish of me, i should have thought of this sooner Close to eight billion dollars just got shoveled into national defense, bud, you've picked a bad week to make the argument that we're too strapped to do anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:and you wonder why people don't like you, and why people like you keep losing elections my god it's a circle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Can we just make housing ownership something that can only be done by actual people, not private or public companies? The biggest problem is california before I left was big money corporations paying cash at above asking price preventing actual people from buying houses. Make it so if you own a home you How would you define luxury housing? Would you ever reassess it? This would result in a massive increase in rents and people who have incomes below ~40k or so aren't likely to benefit from an rent deduction. A federal law restricting housing ownership would get hit with a takings clause lawsuit immediately and get struck down.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:All of those first 8 things, except for #4 on the first list, are things that increase housing costs and/or make it more difficult to secure housing. Genuinely curious, what's your argument for #s 1, 2 and 3 making things more expensive/making it more difficult to secure housing? My arguments for each of these: 1: Government programs that give lower income people subsidized loans (think FHA first time home buyer's or the USDA's rural development program) help get folks who normally can't buy property to buy it. Expanding them, whether by including more people or making the subsidization more generous would help get more people a stable home situation. 2. Astronomical rent increases serve to force people out of homes they may have lived in for a long time. A rent control system tied to income growth allows building owners to still recoup additional income to defray increased cost while also allowing families to remain in rental units they occupy without getting priced out. 3. Actually I agree with you there if it's just "make zoning laws more strict" but what if instead we made zoning laws favor mixed-use residential/commercial development as a default? I think points 5-8 aren't that great but I'll lay out my arguments for them: 5. This would lower the default rate on home loans and potentially allow financial institutions to make more loans. This combined with something like 1) could help but I'm pretty skeptical. 6. Prevents single individuals or corporations from buying up multiple units. May not actually have any impact on affordability but could potentially stop slumlords? 7. Toughening these laws could make it harder to evict someone and for landlords to abuse their power over their tenants. On the other hand it could make everything more expensive when landlords have to evict their tenants. Weaker laws would have the opposite problem of making it easy to evict and maybe lowering cost but I am skeptical the actual tenant would see any benefit. 8. Would make it more difficult for people to get over-levered on their homes. Probably not a good policy as second lien mortgages have legitimate usage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Close to eight billion dollars just got shoveled into national defense, bud, you've picked a bad week to make the argument that we're too strapped to do anything. in order to be deficit neutral 8 billion will come from somewhere wrt trump's budget
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:my god it's a circle. maybe because he says he's superior and his policies work, doesn't mean he's superior and his policies will work being a smug elitist oval office doesn't win you any popularity contests, being wrong also doesn't help add a healthy dose of weird projection about leftism and you've got a doozy
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:in order to be deficit neutral 8 billion will come from somewhere wrt trump's budget the number is 80 billion
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:How would you define luxury housing? Would you ever reassess it? This would result in a massive increase in rents and people who have incomes below ~40k or so aren't likely to benefit from an rent deduction. It would have to be region specific. My thought is that limiting the number of units owned by a person, and preventing all companies from owning houses, that it would tank the cost of owning a home and make it much easier to buy when the number of available units for sale goes through the roof. Yes, it would be a massive reduction of "wealth" for existing homeowners, but that bubble needs to be popped before it gets too large and pops on its own a la 2008.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Can we just make housing ownership something that can only be done by actual people, not private or public companies? The biggest problem is california before I left was big money corporations paying cash at above asking price preventing actual people from buying houses. Make it so if you own a home you The first thought is that for this to be in any way even approaching feasible you would have to define it as only applying to stand-alone single unit residences. Probably Magic posted:Close to eight billion dollars just got shoveled into national defense, bud, you've picked a bad week to make the argument that we're too strapped to do anything. Don't be silly. You can't put a price on defense spending!
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
I'm loving pissed about zoning
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Close to eight billion dollars just got shoveled into national defense, bud, you've picked a bad week to make the argument that we're too strapped to do anything. i dont think you understand my post the reason we don't have giant pots of money for fixing society's problems isn't because we're broke the reason we don't have giant pots of money for fixing society's problems is because of a persistent lack of political willpower to even acknowledge the problem let alone address it if you agree with this above statement, then please explain why and how the united states federal government would magically start giving a poo poo about housing affordability. please also consider what this would mean so long as dr. ben carson remains in charge at HUD
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:01
|
|