|
Phi230 posted:maybe because he says his superior and his policies work, doesn't mean he's superior and his policies will work you're both being insufferably smug fyi i mean i'm a person who knows nothing about housing policy and i cant' make heads or tails out of what you're saying because you're just both condescending towards the other without explaining much of what your actual thesis is
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The point, which appears to have flown right over your head, is that maintaining the peace was impossible. I'm not saying they were correct, just that I kinda see where they were coming from. But I forgot this is USPOL, where acknowledging someone's humanity or that they have a semblance of a valid concern is equivalent to ceding the entire argument to Evil and then castrating yourself. Calibanibal posted:I'm loving pissed about zoning Fighting games are stupid anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
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 I think these are pretty good ideas! You might get arguments on how you define "part time" and what "luxury" is but it could work pretty well. Only being able to rent a home that isn't mortgaged probably won't work though. Might disincentivize new construction too. 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. Also this. The more extreme stuff would almost certainly get overturned. Rental tax credit would be fine though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
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 Can you please come down from your cloud of enlightenment and explain it to us mere mortals?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
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 It could help reduce the commodity of housing, on its face at least. From an anti capitalist standpoint it prevents the creation of wealth hoarders it passes the smell test at least. C might be excessive in light of A and B though
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:you're both being insufferably smug fyi it boils down to him saying he's right because he's right and saying anything that isn't his plan are magical fairy ideas
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:i dont think you understand my post The New Deal didn't emerge after a decade of dynastic Democratic rule, it came in the wake of years of Republican laissez-faire policies. You don't have the perfect environment before you make plans, in fact if anything coming up with plans shapes the environment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:Can you please come down from your cloud of enlightenment and explain it to us mere mortals? yeah sure hold on let me get the post where i say exactly that which you didn't read instead of choosing to complain about how i wasn't leftist enough or whatever bug crawled up your rear end 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 Probably Magic posted:The New Deal didn't emerge after a decade of dynastic Democratic rule, it came in the wake of years of Republican laissez-faire policies. You don't have the perfect environment before you make plans, in fact if anything coming up with plans shapes the environment. you realllllllllly dont want to bring up the new deal in the context of housing policy because it was racist as poo poo like, redlining? the racist policy of segregation in housing lending? yeah that was a new deal policy implemented by the HOLC
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:in order to be deficit neutral 8 billion will come from somewhere wrt trump's budget And the money for free housing will also come from the budget, yes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:It could help reduce the commodity of housing, on its face at least. From an anti capitalist standpoint it prevents the creation of wealth hoarders it passes the smell test at least. C might be excessive in light of A and B though Yeah I think you can either have A+B or C. If you do all 3 you're going to destroy the supply of rental units available and make things worse absent some other policy. Also there would probably need to be a different solution for condos and townhouses.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
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 I think C would only serve to hurt renters rather than landlords as is intended cap rent as a % of income. like 5% or 10%.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
axeil posted:Genuinely curious, what's your argument for #s 1, 2 and 3 making things more expensive/making it more difficult to secure housing? 1) Government subsidies to housing purchases increase the overall value of the housing market. That increases prices. Some people would end up net-winners, but the overall cost of the market would rise. (See subsidized student loans) 2) Rent control helps people stay in their homes in areas with rapid rises in rents, but it increases transaction costs for moving. It ends up raising rents overall (but benefiting a sub-group) by effectively lowering the housing supply because people are effectively charged a massive fee to move. 5) Require more capital to buy a house. That increases the number of total renters and increases the need for owners to get their capital investments back faster. That means more renting demand, lower supply, and more price inflexibility. 6) Same principle as 5. If you only have a single unit, then you can't ever have vacancies or economies of scale. That means that only people with huge amounts of cash to float on vacancies can charge competitive rents. Everyone else is going to bake the risk into their rents because they can't afford to float money on their property for months. 7) This is vague and depends what you want to do. But prolonging the eviction process is always bad for the owner. In an environment of high-renting demand, it is also bad for all renters that are not currently attempting to be evicted. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:you realllllllllly dont want to bring up the new deal in the context of housing policy because it was racist as poo poo You're really missing my point, which is that progressive policies don't need to wait for years of Dem rule before being proposed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:You're really missing my point, which is that progressive policies don't need to wait for years of Dem rule before being proposed. Fair, but it probably helps to have Dem rule at all and even then it can end up very racist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:you realllllllllly dont want to bring up the new deal in the context of housing policy because it was racist as poo poo No one bringing up the New Deal is saying "We want to do it exactly the same, racism and all" and it's really annoying to see this criticism constantly slogged at anyone who dares mentions that we once pushed hard left economically and it loving worked. I assume that people pushing for the same now would like to do it without any racism involved, you could at least extend that same benefit of the doubt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:i mean i'm a person who knows nothing about housing policy and i cant' make heads or tails out of what you're saying because you're just both condescending towards the other without explaining much of what your actual thesis is basically i'm saying you can handle gentrification from a single authority (the zoning board) within a single jurisdiction and he's saying this doesn't go far enough and that there needs to be more layers of government involved cross jurisdictionally (we need the state legislature to pass a law permitting cities to have the new power to regulate rents on the private market, and and and) but he's also getting on to me for saying his much more complicated plan is unworkable, and that this makes me a bitter faux leftist somehow because it's not a uspol argument unless it's a ideological knife fight apparently Probably Magic posted:You're really missing my point, which is that progressive policies don't need to wait for years of Dem rule before being proposed. think about why these progressive policies haven't been implemented yet, or why the last time an attempt to implement them was made they had to specifically exclude minorities
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:yeah sure hold on let me get the post where i say exactly that which you didn't read instead of choosing to complain about how i wasn't leftist enough or whatever bug crawled up your rear end None of that is anything except you declaring things to be so. In fact, I even replied to that post in specific because ypu somehow think giving local police extra authority and directives to move through low income and poc communities is a good thing despite literally centuries of police on poc violence in the us. Like, what do you think keeps the open and obvious racists from making things worse here? And thats not even addressing the things you keep demanding we admit are obvious and acting like what you say is established fact You also still refuse to even link anything that might be remotely able to be called a source, then get mad when people don't immediately fall in line with your random ideas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
I just want to add my two cents as an agent. I'll probably be tarred and feathered for even mentioning that, but I hope people get that I'm not the scummy stereotype that most people have when they imagine realtors to be. Where I live there are a lot of weird predatory lending places that focus almost entirely on african americans. The really weird part is that they are almost entirely owned and operated by black people. What ends up happening is that people think they need to work with people who look like them (Not the most insane thing honestly) and it builds this weird insulated bubble that allows fraud and sub-prime lending to be common. So for example I met a woman with a credit score in the 700s that was trying to buy a home, but her agent was telling her that she needed to go with his loan program (like 12% for the first 3 years then it drops after that) because it was the only thing she could afford. He pushed her so hard and told her not to speak to outside lenders because only he understood her position and had her best interests in mind. She got my number from a friend and asked if this was okay, and I referred her to another lender I know and trust. She didn't need to get pre-qualified or anything, she just needed to know that if she had a good credit score would she have to go with this program she was being sold by her agent. Turns out her agent and the loan officer have been running this operation where they get people to list their home with them, qualify them for sub-prime loans, and then tell them through the process how lucky they were that they could get such a good deal for them. All of this under the guise of needing to "look out for one another". This happens all the time. I don't know what could be done to fix it though. It sounds like the whole "Oh so what about black on black crime??" that conservatives trot out, but it's a growing problem that people are actively capitalizing on, especially now that a lot of people who bought 10 years ago are moving onto their next home. This is insanely common and it's something that's often overlooked because it's easier to lay the blame at the feet of larger banks offering ARMs or whatever. A lot of times it's the originator that sets up the terms and then the banks just buy them up after the fact. It's why loan officers are a dime a dozen and most of them are with outfits you've never heard of. On the topic of house-flipping, a lot of lenders are starting to balk at requests to do that because the homes won't appraise to the value the flippers expect them to. You can gut an old lovely home and put nice shiny things in it, but if the comps come up low then you won't get the price you want. A shitload of people hit up the south side of my city and flipped homes, then went to put them on the market and surprise surprise, the appraisals all came in low and nobody could sell at the price they were promised by some dip-poo poo agent. There were tons of homes that had multiple offers only one day on the market and buyer after buyer would get knocked out of the running because no bank would take the loan at the price they were buying. Appraisals would come in 30-40k lower than the sale price of the home and everything kept falling through. Anyway that's my 2 cents. I try really hard to do right by the people I work with which isn't the case with 99% of agents I've come across. There's always something the other guy does that's either unethical, illegal, or just loving dumb and at least I've been fortunate enough to be in a position to steer people away from easily avoidable disaster because this industry is filled with scumbags.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:1) Government subsidies to housing purchases increase the overall value of the housing market. That increases prices. Some people would end up net-winners, but the overall cost of the market would rise. (See subsidized student loans) This is good stuff and I hope this illustrates to everyone why "common sense" ideas don't always work. . Even the most well-intentioned policy can have a huge negative outcome if its crafted without thinking about things like these. Any person arguing that the solution to any problem in the modern world is "Just do X" is probably not thinking about these unintended consequences. I'm skeptical of even stuff I really like like Medicare-for-all because of this. Every policy is going to have net winners and net losers. The hope in making a good policy is that the people who are winning are the ones who need the win and the people who are losing don't really lose all that much. It's why taxing the rich heavily is a good policy idea because they don't lose all that much due to the declining marginal utility of money, while everyone else benefits a lot from the additional funds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
oh also don't tell boner confessor but tax abatements would actually help gentrification by reducing the cost of "flipping" an individual house by letting the gentrifying party pay the property tax of the house they are flipping pre-improvement, or a developer paying the property tax of a cheap property while developing an expensive one. Notice how a tax abatement doesn't actually halt the increase of property taxes on neighboring properties or halt rent increases. property values still rise, and property taxes still rise based on those assessed property taxes on properties that are not built or improved actually now that I think about it, all a tax abatement would do would make it CHEAPER to gentrify an area lmao because they encourage people to move into and improve low-income areas. the only way for a person in a gentrified area to benefit from this policy would be to either improve their own property themselves or build a new one Phi230 fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I'm not saying they were correct, just that I kinda see where they were coming from. But I forgot this is USPOL, where acknowledging someone's humanity or that they have a semblance of a valid concern is equivalent to ceding the entire argument to Evil and then castrating yourself. Avoiding civil war was a nice goal, yeah. But the Civil War ended up happening anyway, despite all their efforts. Given that it was all fruitless in the end, it's worth looking at the seventy years of concessions and sacrifices that were made for the sake of keeping the Union together in the face of the slavery issue, and asking whether it was really worth it. Seven decades of immense injustice, unfairness, and human misery, all for the sake of avoiding a war that eventually happened anyway. That's not exactly a flattering monument to the value of compromising in the face of hyper-partisanship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Captain Monkey posted:None of that is anything except you declaring things to be so. In fact, I even replied to that post in specific because ypu somehow think giving local police extra authority and directives to move through low income and poc communities is a good thing despite literally centuries of police on poc violence in the us. i'm going to assume you're not trolling here but lmao that i straight up linked you a very short article and you didn't even read it why would i bother responding to any post you make when it's clear you have zero intention of learning anything about what you're trying to pester me with (while also arguing that i am smug and i need to take extra time to educate you against your will) On Terra Firma posted:Where I live there are a lot of weird predatory lending places that focus almost entirely on african americans. The really weird part is that they are almost entirely owned and operated by black people. What ends up happening is that people think they need to work with people who look like them (Not the most insane thing honestly) and it builds this weird insulated bubble that allows fraud and sub-prime lending to be common. hm sorry but racism is over now, so large scale technocratic plans couldn't possible have racially based negative side effects
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:I just want to add my two cents as an agent. I'll probably be tarred and feathered for even mentioning that, but I hope people get that I'm not the scummy stereotype that most people have when they imagine realtors to be. This is also a good post and it's about one of my key frustrations: how do we solve the bad actor problem? I don't really have any answers but I'm coming to believe that a lot of the problems in modern America can be tied back to bad actors abusing the system for their own gain.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:oh also don't tell boner confessor but tax abatements would actually help gentrification by reducing the cost of "flipping" an individual house by letting the gentrifying party pay the property tax of the house they are flipping pre-improvement, or a developer paying the property tax of a cheap property while developing an expensive one. I think the idea was to only give the tax abatement based on how long you've lived there ala prop 13. Also a huge part of the conflict in this thread is some people are proposing things to aim towards achieveability in our current political climate while others are proposing what they consider the best solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No one bringing up the New Deal is saying "We want to do it exactly the same, racism and all" and it's really annoying to see this criticism constantly slogged at anyone who dares mentions that we once pushed hard left economically and it loving worked. I believe that in the context of this thread, but large swaths of the country are pining for Fantasy 1950 and might demand racism as a prerequisite. I mean, wasn't the Obamacare backlash itself kinda racist?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think the idea was to only give the tax abatement based on how long you've lived there ala prop 13. sorry but that guy is super mad at me so his anger at me disagreeing with him is going to override any actual policy he refuses to understand yeah if the abatement is tied to a specific owner or set of owners then a flipper wouldn't benefit at all Trabisnikof posted:Also a huge part of the conflict in this thread is some people are proposing things to aim towards achieveability in our current political climate while others are proposing what they consider the best solution. exactly. all i said my plan was more feasible and i've got dumb people beating at my door now about being a class traitor
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:She got my number from a friend and asked if this was okay, and I referred her to another lender I know and trust. She didn't need to get pre-qualified or anything, she just needed to know that if she had a good credit score would she have to go with this program she was being sold by her agent. Turns out her agent and the loan officer have been running this operation where they get people to list their home with them, qualify them for sub-prime loans, and then tell them through the process how lucky they were that they could get such a good deal for them. All of this under the guise of needing to "look out for one another". This happens all the time. I don't know what could be done to fix it though. It sounds like the whole "Oh so what about black on black crime??" that conservatives trot out, but it's a growing problem that people are actively capitalizing on, especially now that a lot of people who bought 10 years ago are moving onto their next home. I think that you can avoid the racial implications of this by noting how often this happens in other communities, as well. True grifters are unscrupulous, and they LOVE to use the "we're in this together, don't trust anyone else" gambit. Sometimes it's minority-to-minority, a very common one is "Christian" businesses that exist only to dupe ignorant religious folk who think "I can trust this guy, he says he's a Christian." KM can correct me if she wants, because she certainly knows more, but this is what it SEEMED like was happening with attempts for outside influences to remove the city government of Detroit a few years ago. It could just be an outside perspective, but from the outside it looked like a corrupt government getting their house cleaned and leaning on the community with "these white folks don't get what it's like for you and me." If I'm wrong about that my apologies and I'd love to be corrected.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:sorry but that guy is super mad at me so his anger at me disagreeing with him is going to override any actual policy he refuses to understand you keep bringing up leftist terms in like a vindictive way without anyone actually saying anything about it so i think you have deeper issues here do you feel obsessed or scornful to people to the left of you, because you feel threatened or because you feel you're losing some kind of superiority you felt?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:hm sorry but racism is over now, so large scale technocratic plans couldn't possible have racially based negative side effects I'm not saying that...?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I believe that in the context of this thread, but large swaths of the country are pining for Fantasy 1950 and might demand racism as a prerequisite. I mean, wasn't the Obamacare backlash itself kinda racist? Since we're talking housing you must mean Fantasy 1970 since that was was the decade we ended legal racial segregation in housing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I think the idea was to only give the tax abatement based on how long you've lived there ala prop 13. Good point. I've always sided on keeping in mind what the status quo is because while I could make a perfect system in a vacuum it's largely meaningless because history still exists. I can pretend with housing policy that things like redlining, the 2008 crisis, etc. haven't happened but they did and you've gotta keep in mind that there are going to be people hostile or ambivalent to any policy proposal. The key is either a) making their critiques look absurd, b) minimizing their points of contention or c) having a much larger majority than those who are hostile/ambivalent. People generally don't like things changing if it's currently working for them which is why crafting good policy is so difficult. Look at Obamacare. Obamacare barely touched employer-provided health plans and most of the messaging was around how it wouldn't do poo poo to your employer-provided healthcare and people still lost their minds.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:I believe that in the context of this thread, but large swaths of the country are pining for Fantasy 1950 and might demand racism as a prerequisite. I mean, wasn't the Obamacare backlash itself kinda racist? Yea, but (hopefully) no one here is arguing that, so let's pretend that we're talking to somewhat civilized people here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:"Clay Davis-ing" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
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 So, if I decide to rent my parent's house after it is left to me, but decide that to protect my family from being sued for something my tenant does on the property, I put the property in an LLC, you will tell me that is illegal? Also, how are you going to rent a home if you have to rent it if you have to live there at some point? And the only homes that are going to be built are by people how can afford to front all site development costs (just putting in sewer capacity for single family home where I live is $30,000-$50,000, no matter the size of the home), all material and labor costs, plus float the interest fees during construction and marketing? How much new housing do you think is going to be built?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, but (hopefully) no one here is arguing that, so let's pretend that we're talking to somewhat civilized people here. It's cool and good to pretend that the nation didn't just elect a white nationalist so we can ignore racism in the status quo. ~~~~bernie would have won~~~~
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Redlining still happens in tyool 2017 btw yet people in this very thread are concern trolling that people want the New Deal: Racism And All The Trappings
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, but (hopefully) no one here is arguing that, so let's pretend that we're talking to somewhat civilized people here. the new deal housing policies ended up being pretty racist because -the policymakers understood the urban economy much less than they thought they did -compromises had to be made internally in response to pressure from racist and race anxious constituents both of these are still valid concerns today imo On Terra Firma posted:I'm not saying that...? i know im being sarcastic
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
axeil posted:Good point. I've always sided on keeping in mind what the status quo is because while I could make a perfect system in a vacuum it's largely meaningless because history still exists. I can pretend with housing policy that things like redlining, the 2008 crisis, etc. haven't happened but they did and you've gotta keep in mind that there are going to be people hostile or ambivalent to any policy proposal. The key is either a) making their critiques look absurd, b) minimizing their points of contention or c) having a much larger majority than those who are hostile/ambivalent. This is verging on derail territory, but there are number of Social System Design theories that actually argue you should first construct your perfect reality and then figure out what parts of that perfect reality can survive the transition to something real. These methods are messy and emotional but generally create social systems that are more in line with the values and goals of the individual and group. Unfortunately most of these methods are explicitly designed for social systems where you can get all the stakeholders in a room, something we can't do with Housing policy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
axeil posted:This is also a good post and it's about one of my key frustrations: how do we solve the bad actor problem? I don't really have any answers but I'm coming to believe that a lot of the problems in modern America can be tied back to bad actors abusing the system for their own gain. Honestly the punishment for loving people over like this should be swift and severe. It always strikes me as odd that we have this "Tough on crime" approach but when it comes to fraud or what I described there's no repercussions. The dude screwing over this woman should have his license revoked, then his broker's license revoked, then their LO's licensed revoked, and any deal they've ever done should be put under scrutiny to see if they hosed over anyone else. This will never ever ever happen though just like it's really difficult to nail agents for fair housing violations. There's too much insulation in certain industries for liability. It's sort of like how a lot of large companies take lawsuits and legal challenges into account because if on the off chance they get caught loving around they will still make a profit even with the legal bills. If they don't get caught that's just more money they won't have to pay out. Breaking the law is just a calculated risk that could lead to minimal losses rather than something you should not do that could potentially ruin you forever and until that's remedied people are going to try to circumvent best practices to make a quick buck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:Redlining still happens in tyool 2017 btw yet people in this very thread are concern trolling that people want the New Deal: Racism And All The Trappings Or maybe instead of concern trolling they're actually concerned we could make redlining worse unintentionally?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 21:26
|
|