|
http://www.king5.com/article/news/politics/bills-aimed-at-expanding-wa-voter-participation-signed-by-inslee/281-529996340 BLUUUUE BLUUUE! quote:
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 07:22 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 14:09 |
|
anthonypants posted:I only wish the ability to spot contradictions were as commonplace as the ability for someone to feign confusion and innocence when confronted with their own contradictions. Truly, it is both a blessing, and a curse.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 07:31 |
|
Rent control is more of a side-step than a solution, more precisely it helps people who already have places but also constricts the housing supply which makes it difficult for people without a current rent-controlled place to find new places. I guess you could argue at this point, it is more important to protect people already in Portland than transplants but we may be "over the hump" as far as transplants go (admittedly debatable). The big issue is that can you actually fix the issue without spending major public money? One thing is that Oregon (and in all honesty Portland) really has a libertarian streak to it a mile wide and the real push is actually for local governments to start investing the money in infrastructure and housing they need to. A big issue is that the infrastructure that exists in Portland is often nowhere near capable compared to the burden placed on it, this includes pretty much everything from school buildings to roads to public transportation. It is as well and good to propose some giant project by the river (usually including some affordable units), but then you have the fundamental issue of local infrastructure not being able to handle the load. A good example is the Burnside bridgehead. That said, a lot of the infrastructure in Portland is already "baked in" and it would take billions to actually improve the infrastructure to the standards of a "real city." For example, the MAX is a good idea on paper, but its capacity is really limit and most of its ROWs are isolated from major population centers and are along freeways or railyards. There isn't really much do about it at this point but it is really a system designed for a small city without significant congestion. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 13:05 on Mar 21, 2018 |
# ? Mar 21, 2018 13:01 |
|
How would capping rent at a percentage of the median monthly income for people in a given area make the rent situation worse for renters, exactly? I'm genuinely not seeing how that could possibly be the case.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 13:14 |
|
Reene posted:How would capping rent at a percentage of the median monthly income for people in a given area make the rent situation worse for renters, exactly? I'm genuinely not seeing how that could possibly be the case. It would be great for people who already have an apartment, but it would be rough for people who ever want to leave their apartment, don't have one or are new to the area because the supply would even more limited. Also, new construction would probably slow down. It may eventually help older/wealthier people who can stay in a cheap apartment indefinitely while younger people who started looking after rent control now really have nowhere to live. Like I said, it is a side step, and there would be winners and losers.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 14:12 |
|
If you implement strict price controls and don't do something to really push through greatly increased supply, you'll get lines, like Stockholm's decade+ wait for rent-controlled apartments (you can get something immediately via a sublet of course, but then you're at the mercy of the market, back at square one). The reason prices rose so much is that demand outstripped supply. The solution is more housing, whether private or public, with the latter being better for affordability but the former much more achievable, politically speaking.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 15:14 |
|
The issue obviously is the private stock that is being built in Portland is usually not affordable or contains a handful of affordable units, and as I said, the is the broader issue of infrastructure. Personally, I think the issue is simply a matter of both forcing developers to add more affordable units and spending more on public infrastructure and construction. It may also help to promote the construction of "semi-affordable" units that don't necessarily count for existing quotas. Unfortunately, I think the Portland City Council is still very pro-developer, libertarian-leaning and honestly a bit incompetent. If a developer wants to build a luxury tower, there quite obviously needs to be more strings attached than there are now.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 15:43 |
|
yeah, the supply side is the place to attack rental price problems. forcing developers to build more affordable housing even if larger condos or luxury apartments are more profitable helps ameliorate it. Although developers will go build their affordable quota in bumfuck nowhere if you let them. Government housing projects have a middling history at best, unfortunately.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 15:52 |
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:Government housing projects have a middling history at best, unfortunately. They do in the US because in all honesty we deliberately sabotaged our public housing under Nixon, the Federal government stepped and left it up to the cities (which were being hit by white flight) and the result was pretty predictable. Up to that point, public housing in the US was relatively successful (and racism was a big reason why they wanted to kill it). Right now, I live in a country where almost everything is still effectively public housing of some form, and it works well enough. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Mar 21, 2018 |
# ? Mar 21, 2018 16:05 |
|
Reene posted:How would capping rent at a percentage of the median monthly income for people in a given area make the rent situation worse for renters, exactly? I'm genuinely not seeing how that could possibly be the case.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 16:23 |
|
Nah, I'd be okay with German-style rent control if we also got German-style land use, but apparently SFH areas are sacred and it would literally kill grandma if there was a 10-unit apartment complex on her street.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 16:32 |
Cicero posted:Nah, I'd be okay with German-style rent control if we also got German-style land use, but apparently SFH areas are sacred and it would literally kill grandma if there was a 10-unit apartment complex on her street. but think of how the shadow from that building will affect my garden!
|
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 21:26 |
|
A woman died at the Coffee Creek prison after a flu outbreak, and it turns out they only inoculated about a third of the inmates http://www.wweek.com/news/state/2018/03/21/oregon-failed-to-provide-flu-vaccinations-to-most-of-its-prison-inmates-one-woman-died/ Also the Forest Service found some guy's child porn hideout somewhere in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and this whole story is incredibly hosed up https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...and-child-porn/
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 21:31 |
|
Ardennes posted:It would be great for people who already have an apartment, but it would be rough for people who ever want to leave their apartment, don't have one or are new to the area because the supply would even more limited. Also, new construction would probably slow down. It may eventually help older/wealthier people who can stay in a cheap apartment indefinitely while younger people who started looking after rent control now really have nowhere to live. A percentage cap is a percentage cap. It doesn't matter who is already living there. It would be based on the wages of the entire area which would keep rents low, definitely lower than they are now. You have not actually explained why new people coming in would magically be paying more if there was a cap on rent based on income; this explanation literally does not make sense. Reene fucked around with this message at 22:06 on Mar 21, 2018 |
# ? Mar 21, 2018 21:44 |
|
Reene posted:A percentage cap is a percentage cap. It doesn't matter who is already living there. It would be based on the median wages of the entire area which would keep rents low, definitely lower than they are now. You have not actually explained why new people coming in would magically be paying more if there was a cap on rent based on median income; this explanation literally does not make sense.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 22:06 |
Instead of talking about rent caps and what not why not forcibly take the properties away from the landlords and abolish being a landlord
|
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 22:09 |
|
You're talking about a rent freeze, which is literally not what anyone else is talking about, so that might be part of the disconnect here. Your argument boils down to "People shouldn't be able to live here because we might run out of places for people to live at some point." Which is neither realistic nor actually worse than the current reality of "there are a lot of empty apartments but nobody can afford to live in any of them because building owners are heavily incentivized to keep units empty but priced above a certain amount because ~equity~." I agree with lining up landlords but I feel like short term I'm happy with getting a roof over as many peoples' heads as possible.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 22:11 |
|
twodot posted:The base assumption is that if you depress rental rates below market without increasing supply you will rapidly eat up all your supply. Now people who want to move into that area just physically can't and have to live somewhere else. If rent control causes available supply to crater, that location is going to be somewhere without rent control (or somewhere with rent control and low demand?). That place likely isn't more expensive, but they are getting barred from a market just as much as a person who can't afford a market is barred from it. That's not the end of the world because there's pretty good arguments about why favoring current residents is preferable to favoring wealthy people, but this sort of scheme is still creating winner and loser groups just on a new (arguably better) metric. (Although the arguments about not favoring wealthy people are arguably better suited for public housing policies, but they're still not bad) 2) What is the functional difference between "there are exactly zero available rental units" and "housing is too expensive for people to rent"? Could you explain why the first scenario is worse than the second one?
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 22:15 |
|
Reene posted:You're talking about a rent freeze, which is literally not what anyone else is talking about, so that might be part of the disconnect here. Yeah I'm not really seeing the problem with "everyone that wants to move here does and fills up all available stock"... isn't that what we want? Of course we'd have to build more stock but that's a totally different problem than having a bunch of overpriced units sitting waiting for people rich enough to move in.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 22:17 |
|
Reene posted:You're talking about a rent freeze, which is literally not what anyone else is talking about, so that might be part of the disconnect here. anthonypants posted:1) Could you quote the post to which you're referring? Who's saying that we shouldn't build more housing? quote:2) What is the functional difference between "there are exactly zero available rental units" and "housing is too expensive for people to rent"? Could you explain why the first scenario is worse than the second one?
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 22:40 |
|
If you put in rent ceilings, in total people are spending less on rent, which is good, but in total you'll also end up with fewer people served by housing in the apparently popular area that people want to live in, which is bad. You could also end up with landlords not taking good care of units since there wouldn't be much incentive to do so. Also the market for luxury units specifically would completely crater since you wouldn't be able to charge enough to recoup costs, although I'm guessing nobody here gives a poo poo. Although that might entail tall apartment towers in general ceasing to get built...or maybe everything would be condos instead. I heard that in Spain, tenant protections are so strong that few people are willing to be landlords, so relatively few people end up renting.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 23:12 |
|
twodot posted:No my argument is "rent ceilings (regardless of how it's calculated) still create winner and loser groups, just different winner and loser groups than currently exist". However if your cap rent to x% of median wages plan is intended to address vacancy then directly attacking vacancy seems a lot smarter (with a vacancy tax). If landlords are willing to keep vacant units vacant to jack up the rental price, then restricting rent to % of median wages seems VERY unsmart since you're creating an extra incentive for landlords to exclusively rent to wealthy people. Price controls are definitely not going to persuade people who are deliberately keeping units empty to rent those units at a lower price than the price that they are already refusing to rent at.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 23:28 |
|
anthonypants posted:Can you explain why you believe that any of the rent control examples given in this thread would allow landlords to "keep vacant units vacant to jack up the rental price"? It looks like you've admitted that it's a bad idea, so I don't know why you'd bring it up. Reene posted:Your argument boils down to "People shouldn't be able to live here because we might run out of places for people to live at some point." Which is neither realistic nor actually worse than the current reality of "there are a lot of empty apartments but nobody can afford to live in any of them because building owners are heavily incentivized to keep units empty but priced above a certain amount because ~equity~." Ok, that sounds like a problem, let's talk solutions Solution: Make a law that rental contracts must be at most $Y where Y < X, now landlords will suddenly decide that they do want to bring down prices How in the world is that supposed to work?
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 23:43 |
You all are really trying hard to solve a problem without getting rid of the cause, which is having landlords to begin with
|
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 23:48 |
|
whomupclicklike posted:You all are really trying hard to solve a problem without getting rid of the cause, which is having landlords to begin with Not trying to be snarky, legitimately curious--what's the non-capitalist solution to the problem of distributing living space you envision?
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 23:49 |
|
twodot posted:Reene's the one who brought it up:
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 23:50 |
|
whomupclicklike posted:You all are really trying hard to solve a problem without getting rid of the cause, which is having landlords to begin with Of course, having public housing in addition to privately-owned units is entirely feasible.
|
# ? Mar 21, 2018 23:55 |
|
cheetah7071 posted:Not trying to be snarky, legitimately curious--what's the non-capitalist solution to the problem of distributing living space you envision? anthonypants posted:joint ownership of property would be ideal
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 00:38 |
|
so, condos?
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 00:39 |
cheetah7071 posted:Not trying to be snarky, legitimately curious--what's the non-capitalist solution to the problem of distributing living space you envision? Getting rid of the landlords and putting people in otherwise unoccupied apartments and houses. Build new ones where needed. I'm not about to go into every minute detail in a forums post. Cicero posted:That's because we're discussing solutions that have at least a slim chance of actually happening, rather than jerking it to marxist fantasies. They're only ever going to be fantasies with that attitude!
|
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 01:31 |
|
I was more interested in the question of how is it decided who gets to live where but I totally understand if it'd be a huge effortpost that you don't want to do I'm totally in support of the idea that it shouldn't cost money just to live but there's a ton of implementational problems that I see and don't personally see a solution to.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 01:44 |
cheetah7071 posted:I was more interested in the question of how is it decided who gets to live where but I totally understand if it'd be a huge effortpost that you don't want to do I'm going to be real with you: I don't know how we should decide who gets to live where either. I just think the only way to make sure that there is adequate housing for people is to get rid of landlords who are a barrier to housing to begin with.
|
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 01:49 |
|
cheetah7071 posted:I was more interested in the question of how is it decided who gets to live where but I totally understand if it'd be a huge effortpost that you don't want to do Like, the point is, there are enough resources to feed, clothe, and house everyone on the planet, we can provide for the sick and the needy, and the current system cannot maintain itself. anthonypants fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Mar 22, 2018 |
# ? Mar 22, 2018 01:57 |
|
whomupclicklike posted:I'm going to be real with you: I don't know how we should decide who gets to live where either. I just think the only way to make sure that there is adequate housing for people is to get rid of landlords who are a barrier to housing to begin with. If by landlords you mean people who own houses they aren't living in then yeah. Getting rid of apartment owners (which is where my mind goes when I hear the word landlord) seems counterproductive in the short term at least, even if they wouldn't exist in a post-capitalist society.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 02:03 |
|
Cicero posted:That's because we're discussing solutions that have at least a slim chance of actually happening, rather than jerking it to marxist fantasies. This is all they know how to do. Hard societal questions that require a lot of work can be handwaved with 'socialize it lol'.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 02:44 |
Peachfart posted:This is all they know how to do. Hard societal questions that require a lot of work can be handwaved with 'socialize it lol'. There isn't a hard societal question about homelessness. It's literally that housing is hoarded and needs to be redistributed.
|
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 02:57 |
|
Peachfart posted:This is all they know how to do. Hard societal questions that require a lot of work can be handwaved with 'socialize it lol'.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 02:58 |
|
Peachfart posted:This is all they know how to do. Hard societal questions that require a lot of work can be handwaved with 'socialize it lol'. The questions aren't hard at all, it's implementing the obvious solutions that's difficult
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 22:39 |
|
enter: duh, the thread. ask soft questions; write hard answers. otherwise, what? let the centrists watch and masturbate while the rightists self-destruct and the leftists self-sabotage? exit: humanity
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 22:58 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 14:09 |
|
My market based solution is build increasingly tall and extravagant mixed use multi family apartments until they're cost neutral to build. I don't think we will find the bottom in our lifetimes in the PNW
|
# ? Mar 22, 2018 23:11 |