|
CPColin posted:Great! Can't wait for the Senate to pass a bill starting a state bank and Assembly Speaker Rendon to table it! “We support establishing ____, just not this bill establishing ____”
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:“We support establishing ____, just not this bill establishing ____” New Democratic campaign slogan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Welcome to California "We support California, just not this California"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:“We support establishing ____, just not this bill establishing ____” I keep forgetting that anyone who isn't onboard with exempting nurses from any responsibility to follow established standards of care or unlimited chiropractic on the state's dime is basically a Republican.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Excellent hot take
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Pinky Artichoke posted:I keep forgetting that anyone who isn't onboard with exempting nurses from any responsibility to follow established standards of care or unlimited chiropractic on the state's dime is basically a Republican. Eat a dick
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Weembles posted:fermun, what sort of timeline do you believe is realistic for the construction of public housing in California? it'll take less time than doing it through market-based trickle-down solutions aimed at easing up regulations for building luxury housing. as a state, we're only looking at solutions that will eliminate some of the hurdles for building housing but without real affordability controls so will, even according to supporters, lower the costs for the rich and doing nothing right now for the vulnerable or even middle-income. the common argument is that much of this housing will, in 30 years or so, have deteriorated to be affordable to middle-incomes, and i say gently caress to that especially with regards to waiting 30 loving years. building the amount of housing california needs takes a massive investment on the order of public infrastructure, we should be treating it as a public infrastructure project. the free market is not providing, we need to push for it as a government program. other areas, such as seattle, which gave in to developer demands, saw massive construction increases in housing development which then totally dried up once the luxury housing rents started dropping as they were given market indicators that need had been met so the capital interests moved to other, more profitable areas, so all they got was slightly more affordable luxury housing which was still unaffordable and didn't reduce rents to people below 150% median area income and still resulted in displacement of the vulnerable. realistically, it will take probably 5 years to shift the ca democratic party, the grassroots is way more radical than you'd think given we have people like feinstein as senator, but the state democratic party refused to endorse feinstein for reelection, added a ca public bank to the party platform, as well as adding a public bank as a policy position. a consistent socialist housing policy pressure group could quite easily shift the state democratic party in favor faster than you'd think, imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
fermun posted:the common argument is that much of this housing will, in 30 years or so, have deteriorated to be affordable to middle-incomes fermun posted:in other areas, such as seattle, which gave in to developer demands, saw massive construction increases in housing development which then totally dried up once the luxury housing rents started dropping as they were given market indicators that need had been met so the capital interests moved to other, more profitable areas, so all they got was slightly more affordable luxury housing which was still unaffordable and didn't reduce rents to people below 150% median area income and still resulted in displacement of the vulnerable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 14:13
|
|
|
Arguing about housing while ignoring the effects of Prop 13 really feels like a waste of time at this point. But hey, at least the CA realtors association got the signatures for their awesome new plan to let boomers transfer their Prop 13 discount rate for life!. Because hey, this state needs MORE Prop 13 protected homes!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
fermun posted:the free market is not providing Saying "the market is not providing" is like if every automaker was limited to making 10,000 cars a year and then being shocked, absolutely shocked, that they exclusively made luxury cars. And then if someone suggested "hey maybe we should let them make more cars total" then responding with "what, so they can just make more luxury cars, you monster??" That said, market-oriented and public housing solutions aren't at odds at all. If anything they're complementary, since they both depend on changing zoning rules. Most of the same NIMBYs that fight new market-rate development would also fight new public housing, because large public housing complexes would also mean more shadows and blocked views and competition for parking, and of course, dreaded new people (poors, even!). Upzone everything, make as much public housing as you can, let the market handle the rest. quote:still resulted in displacement of the vulnerable. But again, they're not competing against each other, so there's no need to say, "let's do this instead", you can and should aim to do both. Cicero fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Apr 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
I wish housing could be its own thread. Not for the usual “derail” issues, but because I genuinely don’t know what to think, and it only seems to get discussed sporadically in this thread. It’s one of those issues I want to learn more about but haven’t made time for. Instead I tend to gloss over it when it does come up ITT.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:I wish housing could be its own thread. Not for the usual “derail” issues, but because I genuinely don’t know what to think, and it only seems to get discussed sporadically in this thread. It’s one of those issues I want to learn more about but haven’t made time for. Instead I tend to gloss over it when it does come up ITT. Relatedly, I see proposition 13 brought up regularly as being responsible for a lot of problems. Can someone summarize it and the problems it presents? I know there's Wikipedia, but I'm curious on real thread people's interpretations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 21:06
|
|
|
One of the obvious problems is that the sort of representative situation prop 13 is supposed to solve is "grandma getting kicked out of her home she's lived in for forty years because she can't afford the increased property taxes from the increased property value", which is itself fairly sympathetic, but then prop 13 also covers commercial property and homes used for renting to others and second homes and can even be transferred to heirs, for God's sake. It's insanely overbroad for its ostensible purpose. The reason why this might be an issue, besides the obvious issues of nativism/classism, is that it removes the normal downside of property values increasing, such that there's really only upside for landowners. So then those landowners have every incentive to try and keep the supply of housing suppressed so that they can enrich themselves off of ever-increasing property values; it's basically a free retirement for them, funded off the backs of their kids' and grandkids' generation. And of course, once someone buys in at a high price, then they're really stuck politically because if prices go down they'll be underwater.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
"I bought a home in 73 when the area was meh and the mortgage was a stick of gum. I held on to it and now the area is hypergentrified and ill be selling it for a cool million. I dont understand why these lazy kids cant just buy homes for themselves "
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
cheese posted:Arguing about housing while ignoring the effects of Prop 13 really feels like a waste of time at this point. But hey, at least the CA realtors association got the signatures for their awesome new plan to let boomers transfer their Prop 13 discount rate for life!. Because hey, this state needs MORE Prop 13 protected homes! This loving thing is going to pass, isn't it?  I keep joking about hiring homeless people to help me make guillotines and woodchippers. STOP MAKING ME SERIOUSLY CONSIDER IT, CALIFORNIA.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
ive been on vacation in belgium for a week and one of the first things I noticed is dozens of giant cranes doting the skies in places like Gent or Brussels. its p loving embarrassing we dont have the same even with similar population growth problems. At least we do some things right here in california. it's still p crazy weed isn't legal here, and for being more health/environmentally conscious that everyone still smokes tobacco like a chimney everywhere even on station platforms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
I know it goes against the thread’s received wisdom but I’m fairly skeptical that a repeal of Prop 13 would be a panacea for housing (revenue being a separate question) because the major constraints are rather more local regulations, restrictions, and fees on construction as well as any additional property taxes. Those are largely the consequence of Prop 13 but the impact of repeal would almost certainly be negligible because there is no way any municipality is ever going to give up additional revenue. And, of course, we all know the political climate for new development in the areas most in need of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
King Hong Kong posted:I know it goes against the thread’s received wisdom but I’m fairly skeptical that a repeal of Prop 13 would be a panacea for housing (revenue being a separate question) because the major constraints are rather more local regulations, restrictions, and fees on construction as well as any additional property taxes. Those are largely the consequence of Prop 13 but the impact of repeal would almost certainly be negligible because there is no way any municipality is ever going to give up additional revenue. And, of course, we all know the political climate for new development in the areas most in need of it. My impression is that Prop 13 is bad not because it is straightforwardly and singlehandedly responsible for high housing prices and its repeal would directly lower them, but because of the degree to which it’s warped the the discussion by enlarging the class of people who financially benefit from a hosed-up housing market. Every homeowner in the state is watching the debate as reflected by a funhouse mirror.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
fermun posted:realistically, it will take probably 5 years to shift the ca democratic party Overcoming fifty years of stigma over public housing and the absolute stranglehold bad dems have on state politics is going to take a lot longer than five years. Saying five years is about the same as saying "after the worker's revolution." raminasi posted:The other common argument, which is consistently ignored, is that when rich people have rich people housing to consume, they don’t consume housing that’s affordable for everyone else. It's ignored because rich people buy up (and renovate) affordable housing all the goddamn time. Gentrification is a real thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Weembles posted:It's ignored because rich people buy up (and renovate) affordable housing all the goddamn time. Gentrification is a real thing. Er, yeah. There's a greater incentive to do that when it's literally the only option to move into a neighborhood. I'm genuinely baffled by how you could interpret what I posted as an argument against the existence of gentrification.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
Cicero posted:There is no free market. The market is largely banned from providing. Only in tiny slits of cities is the market allowed to respond to demand. Durrrr free market deregulate development, let them build homes out of matchsticks and bubblegum for poors if you want them to have a place to live that bad. Let the laissez-faire invisible hand of the market solve everything! This is the dumbest possible take you could make in this entire discussion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Er, yeah. There's a greater incentive to do that when it's literally the only option to move into a neighborhood. I'm genuinely baffled by how you could interpret what I posted as an argument against the existence of gentrification. Sorry, I had too much of a head of steam going over fermun's 5 year plan and it spilled over onto your post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Durrrr free market deregulate development, let them build homes out of matchsticks and bubblegum for poors if you want them to have a place to live that bad. Let the laissez-faire invisible hand of the market solve everything! Yeah, but points for consistency.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 03:16
|
|
|
raminasi posted:My impression is that Prop 13 is bad not because it is straightforwardly and singlehandedly responsible for high housing prices and its repeal would directly lower them, but because of the degree to which it’s warped the the discussion by enlarging the class of people who financially benefit from a hosed-up housing market. Every homeowner in the state is watching the debate as reflected by a funhouse mirror. Yeah. The ultimate reason there's not enough housing is that the people with power don't want new housing built. You can adopt policies that can force through new construction despite local objections, like the provisions of SB 827 that automatically loosen height restrictions near transit, but people will just find new ways to to stymie development like blocking public transit expansion into their neighborhood. To fix the ultimate source of the problem you have to make people, or at least the people with decision making power, want new housing. That means fixing the perverse incentives that have resulted from policies like Prop 13, and on a federal level, the mortgage rate interest deduction. California isn't really unique in having bad policy relating to new development, its just that geographical constraints on sprawl and rapid economic growth have exacerbated the problem. edit: there's a c-spam general housing thread "the rent is too drat high-party bus" but it died the minute nerds started talking about serious urban development stuff. If people would prefer to move discussion out of the thread it could be revived. Squalid fucked around with this message at 03:48 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
I kinda like how spicy this thread got reminds of my time at neighborhood council meetings
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
unbutthurtable posted:Relatedly, I see proposition 13 brought up regularly as being responsible for a lot of problems. Can someone summarize it and the problems it presents? I know there's Wikipedia, but I'm curious on real thread people's interpretations. Here's my particularly grumpy, cynical take on it. I seriously think that the combo of Prop 13-78 and Prop 60-86 are two of the worst state laws I've ever seen, economically, so feel free to take my tone with a grain of salt. Let's say you bought a house in 1980 for $100K. Your property taxes would be capped at 1%, so $1,000 a year. This is a Prop 13 thing. Your house's taxable value cannot increase by more than 2% per year, regardless of the "market" value increase. This is also a Prop 13 thing. It was intended to destroy California's government in the long run (thanks, Grover Norquist) and kinda did for a good long time. So, here you are in 2018. Compounding 2% increases have put you at a taxable assessment value of $212,230 on your house. Your taxes on it cannot be more than $2,123 per year, give or take. Meanwhile, due to NIMBY madness, etc etc, housing has not been built at a rate that even remotely matches the demand, and high-paying jobs are pouring into the area. Your house can easily sell for $800K without even trying. You'll have ten bids the first week. You might still not sell, though... Why not? Well, here's where Prop 13 gets particularly weird: You, as a homeowner, have a disincentive to sell for less than a winning lottery ticket. Your property taxes are $2,123 per year--about what you'll pay for taxes on a garden shed in a civilized state. You will NOT pay that little when you move, and you'll have a more expensive house purchase cost if you do because everything around you went up in price. Unless you qualify for the 55+ value transfer exemption under Prop 60 of 1986 (a more restricted version of that bullshit proposition upthread -- requires purchase of new property be within a year and in the same county currently), selling your house and buying a new one is going to dramatically increase your year-to-year tax cost because you'll be baking in the purchase cost of your new place as a taxable assessment. Why sell for anything less than the balance of the Federal Reserve when you can just stay put and keep on not paying your fair share? The area is growing like mad around you, the prices are skyrocketing, but you are completely insulated from any potential negative effects as long as you just don't move. (This of course is excluding things like "have to move because job is gone," etc etc, but I'm in the Bay Area right now so nothing's really very far away from anything else on the peninsula.) Next: This is where that story should end, and I could buy the whole "don't kick out Grandma" thing if that's all it was. However, Prop 13 applies to Grandma, Grandma's second home down the street, Grandma's jointly-purchased rental properties she runs with her sisters, the Walmart a mile away where Grandma shops, Grandma's favorite vineyard up in Napa... so on, so forth. They also don't re-assess until they change hands, and depending on how you structured the property ownership at initial purchase, you can sometimes dodge a reassessment even then. It's pretty easy to dodge reassessment for corporate properties. Also, Grandma's son will inherit the taxable assessment when she kicks the bucket and leaves it to him in her will. Her son may very well vote against fixing it because hey, why pay more taxes in 5 years when she dies? Paying what a property is actually worth is for first-generation buyers and scummy out-of-staters, not the landed gentry who got here 10-20 years ago. Then, they'll blame the whole price thing on techies moving in for jobs and forcing the poor homeowners--just forcing them--to demand a literal retirement fund's worth of money for a sub-par property. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Durrrr free market deregulate development, let them build homes out of matchsticks and bubblegum for poors if you want them to have a place to live that bad. Let the laissez-faire invisible hand of the market solve everything!  "Allowing apartments in my beloved SFH zones? Why, the only way that's even possible is with matchstick tenements, surely!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
Upzoning still isn't a free market you donkey
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 09:12
|
|
|
It's a good thing I never actually suggested or implied that we should have a completely free market then, huh? I'm not sure how you read a post that talks about reducing restrictions on supply, and then came to the conclusion of, "gee obviously he means he wants to get rid of all regulations entirely!" Is this where the stupid "YIMBYs are all anarcho-capitalists" meme comes from? The assumption that if someone wants to loosen regulations somewhere, their true goal must be to get rid of all regulations everywhere? Kobayashi posted:I wish housing could be its own thread. Not for the usual “derail” issues, but because I genuinely don’t know what to think, and it only seems to get discussed sporadically in this thread. It’s one of those issues I want to learn more about but haven’t made time for. Instead I tend to gloss over it when it does come up ITT. Cicero fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Apr 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 10:23
|
|
|
I'm not accusing you of actually being an ancap or yuppie libertarian, but the way you phrased that post definitely made it sound like you considered "The market is largely banned from providing. Only in tiny slits of cities is the market allowed to respond to demand." to be a Bad Thing and potentially the cause of the housing crisis and only through freeing the Free Market from its shackles may we be saved by its magnificence Key words probably "banned," "providing," "allowed"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 10:33
|
|
|
lol, so you correctly discerned that I wanted reduced restrictions on total housing supply -- many of which have racist/classist origins, by the way -- and then immediately jumped to "obviously that means also getting rid of safety-relevant regulations, too". Jesus Christ. And did you just completely miss the part where I said we should also build lots of public housing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 10:36
|
|
|
Lol sorry I pissed you off by making fun of the worshipfully praising tone with which you, unintentionally or not, describe the ~free market~. Doesn't stop it from being real funny though
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
Cicero posted:lol, so you correctly discerned that I wanted reduced restrictions on total housing supply -- many of which have racist/classist origins, by the way -- and then immediately jumped to "obviously that means also getting rid of safety-relevant regulations, too". Jesus Christ. Duh deregulation is neoliberal and therefore bad. No don’t try to explain the nuance with your economics witchcraft that’s how they give you brain worms.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Lol sorry I pissed you off by making fun of the worshipfully praising tone with which you, unintentionally or not, describe the ~free market~. Doesn't stop it from being real funny though I didn't get anything ancap at all in what Cicero was saying, but I could see why you'd think that if you just took a look at the word selection.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:I didn't get anything ancap at all in what Cicero was saying, but I could see why you'd think that if you just took a look at the word selection. That was the point Cup Runneth Over posted:I'm not accusing you of actually being an ancap
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 20:47
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:That was the point You were intentionally misinterpreting what was posted? Or you thought you’d just get some sort of lazy dunk in? I’m not following.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
What would a California housing policy discussion be without stupid derails and pointless loving arguments? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Sundae posted:What would a California housing policy discussion be without stupid derails and pointless loving arguments?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:10
|
|
|
Mass cannibalism is probably the only sensible policy for California.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:56 |
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Mass cannibalism is probably the only sensible policy for California.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2018 22:24
|
|
