|
DrNutt posted:On the other hand, reasonable regulations on capitalists can bring up the quality of life for renters before we have full Star Trek Utopia, so no it's not a total waste of time to legislate certain rights and standard. Until the glorious revolution comes we are still toiling under capital after all. edit: And people on the Internet being concerned about apodaments but not "the entire concept of for-profit housing" are very suspicious to me. twodot fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Aug 1, 2018 |
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:31 |
|
|
twodot posted:Oh, I'm willing to be incrementalist if that's what's most effective. It's just pursuing incrementalism when your supposed allies don't actually care about root causes can cause problems. Oh yeah to be clear I am not about pushing for the center, but I am certainly willing to accept a compromise position when needed. Not if it's a straight up handout to capital though. The current centrist Dem tax credit idea is seriously laughable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 05:08
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:Repeating the same dumbass reductive sources needed arguments over and over again won't make them right, friend. There's a multitude of housing possibilities between "literally a closet" and "obscene McMansion." The people you think would solve housing by building more housing would be happy for units to sit vacant instead of lowering prices into the affordable range. There is no market solution here, the solution is wresting housing out of the hands of rentier class parasites and nationalizing it. Good thing in this thread have advocated for decomodifying housing by having the city build a massive amount of public housing ala vienna or singapore. Its a shame you are ignoring the actual zoning in Seattle where apodments were being built. In those single family home only segregation zones the only choice was literally Mcmansions or Apodments because all other forms of multifamily housing is illegal. So yes developers want to build apodments in Seattle but they have been made illegal so now all of the SFH teardowns result in Mcmansions instead. The actual decision is between tearing down a 50s house and replacing it with a maximum sized mcmansion, or an apodment building where 40 people can live. I will always side with building more units of housing. KingFisher fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:Good thing in this thread have advocated for decomodifying housing by having the city build a massive amount of public housing ala vienna or singapore. No, you advocated for rent seeking vampires' ability to build lovely closet apartments. Also you have worthless opinions about labor and poor people so I have to assume anything you say about public housing is probably in bad faith. If laws can be changed to outlaw apodments then they can be changed to allow other forms of multi family housing. It's not an either/or situation if you elect actual leftists who can implement leftist policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 09:07
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:Since minimum wage jobs are only for kids or young adults I think implementing the plan in Logans Run to handle people 30 + still working for minimum wage will solve poverty. Like I said above it is a perfectly valid policy proposal to raise the minumum wage to make it a living wage. The side effect of this ofcourse will be a whole class of low skill workers (young/uneducated/etc.) will not be able to produce labor value which will produce a surplus needed to justify thier employment. I actually think the minimum wage should be raised to $21 per hour and then get the same COLA adjustment each year that social security does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 09:15
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:I will always side with building more units of housing. We just lack the leadership. Housing and world hunger are entirely solvable problems the minute we stop jerking off the super rich and/or the murder industry in the hopes they'll give us crumbs. We could still keep them in yachts and Lambos, or continue to be able to fight off all of the world's armies simultaneously and still find enough cash to eradicate these problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
DrNutt posted:No, you advocated for rent seeking vampires' ability to build lovely closet apartments. Also you have worthless opinions about labor and poor people so I have to assume anything you say about public housing is probably in bad faith. If laws can be changed to outlaw apodments then they can be changed to allow other forms of multi family housing. It's not an either/or situation if you elect actual leftists who can implement leftist policy. Since it appears reading is hard for you: Here I advocate the city of Seattle do some Transit Oriented Development in scale with the need for "affordable housing": KingFisher posted:Agreed we should be building 50 story 1000 unit towers of mixed income multi-family housing around each light rail station. But instead we are building a 300 unit lowerise building in Capital Hill. Here I advocate the city build so much public housing that private housing owned by land lords loses all value as an investment (That is what de-commodifying something means). KingFisher posted:I would prefer the city build about 100k units of housing with about half being "affordable housing" the rest being market rate to subsidize the former. Here I advocate for changing zoning so that the city produces an excess of housing units and landlords are desperate for renters so they can keep their "investments" from being foreclosed on. KingFisher posted:Imagine a future were the city changed the laws where there was so much excess capacity in housing that the landlord's had to fight tooth and nail to get you to choose to live in thier empty unit. So admit your wrong and crawl back into your hole. Also you said: DrNutt posted:If laws can be changed to outlaw apodments then they can be changed to allow other forms of multi family housing. It's not an either/or situation if you elect actual leftists who can implement leftist policy. Too bad the majority of Seattle only votes in a way to entrench their existing privilege, this is why they they voted for city council members who promised to regulate Apodments out of existence, and they did. Also how about try not telling other people about what kind of housing is right for them. So yeah in theory the laws could be changed to allow for multifamily in single family segregation zones, but here in reality we know that zoning only goes 1 way and that is to restrict multifamily development of any kind. The Seattle city council is about as "Leftist" as you can elect in the USA, this is a city that voted 9 to 1 for Hillary over Trump. We aren't going to elect anything like a mythical "leftist" who could enact any sort of systemic change. The real choice is between incremental improvements in zoning to allow Missing Middle type housing: http://missingmiddlehousing.com/ Which apodment within single family segregationist were zones or do nothing as let Mcmansions like this: https://www.zillow.com/homes/new_homes/Seattle-WA/2089420104_zpid/16037_rid/47.712447,-122.289634,47.663509,-122.381902_rect/13_zm/1_mmm/ Get built on single family lots. That that house has 4 beds and 4 baths, it could just as easily been a 4 pack apartment building or another form of multifamily housing which is currently illegal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 09:35
|
|
|
porkface posted:I've seen enough of the world to know you can do this to the n-th degree without making them lovely studios without facilities. You sound like you have Stockholm syndrome. Sure, I agree see all my quotes about the need for massive public housing investment. However I also understand that in a city where such investment is not going to happen, and which is controlled by single family home owners desperate to maintain their privilege. Here's another example from leftist bastion Berkeley, CA: http://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/07/30/berkeley-zoning-board-says-latest-2701-shattuck-proposal-is-still-excessive These people wont let a small apartment building be built because: “This is an insane invasion of privacy to the folks who live next door. This is not how we do things in Berkeley,” said Commissioner Carrie Olson, who is Councilwoman Kate Harrison’s appointee to the board. Olson said the project would block too much light for the immediate neighbor to the east. “Berkeleyans depend on the afternoon sun. It’s what we live for.” This is in a city with an average rent of $3,100 a month, to these selfish greedy people it is more important to protect their way of life than let 1 more person be able to live in city. The super rich are not the problem, the average single family home owner is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Anyone who claims to advocate for dense housing yet upholds the built-with-fewer-than-a-dozen-kitchens SEDU as a worthwhile example is lying. SEDUs are an active detriment to density because they occupy space of what should be, physically and spirituality, threefold more living spaces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Anyone who claims to advocate for dense housing yet upholds the built-with-fewer-than-a-dozen-kitchens SEDU as a worthwhile example is lying. That's flatly wrong as building x3 more living spaces on those lots is currrently illegal. What you and I both desire would probably require LR3 zoning or better. SEDU are the densest legal form of housing on the land in question. Units/lot area. Now I'd prefer we scrap the zoning and build 400 foot towers across the entire city, but thats not going to happen. So sure we agree there should be more housing there. I'm willing to allow for denser forms of missing middle housing like SEDUs, ADUs/DADUs, Du/Triplexes, Four pack apartment building, rowhouses, housing courts, congregate housing and so on. But if apodments morally offend you then sure oppose more housing and instead a giant single family home will be built instead and more poor people will be displaced from the city. KingFisher fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 16:32
|
|
|
In downtown Redmond it costs on average $1,600 for a studio apartment. Like man I don't know who the hell would pay that much to live in a studio in Redmond but just that alone kinda tells you that maybe rental prices are out of control and we need some sort of affordable housing solution. Like that's a third of a monthly income for a nurse. For a town that's not really that close to Seattle. It's completely nuts. Are Apodments a good solution to this? For studios, sure! For the housing/apartment at large I'm not so sure. At this point of my life I'm on the cusp of starting a family which means I'm gonna need more space than an apodment could give me. If I move north, I'm closer to my work but my girlfriend who works at Microsoft now has her commute go from 15-20 minutes to potentially an hour depending on where we go and that might be generous. Apodments would help with the bad housing crunch we have but that's not going to stop bigger, 1-2 bedroom apartments and townhomes from being crazy expensive because there's no increase in demand for those types of housing. It still leaves a significant amount of the population in the area in a bad situation, the population that is married/living together, families who have kids etc. EDIT: for spelling, bad speller etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
KingFisher posted:That's flatly wrong as building x3 more living spaces on those lots is currrently illegal. What you and I both desire would probably require LR3 zoning or better. You keep saying building anything but apodments or mcmansions was “illegal” so apodments had to be built. Yet you’re also advocating to increase the amount of missing middle housing, is there any possible way that you’re missing a glaring solution to the dichotomy you said required apodments? Maybe people aren’t mad at apodments, maybe they’re advocating that we change the laws to dictate the type of housing our city has available. I understand it seems reasonable to allow people to “choose” an apodment but housing isn’t much of a choice. Think of it this way, we have building codes not for the person building and living in the home but for future people who will live there. We don’t allow people to build what they want because we understand that humans die/move and other people will be using the space. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
I should point out my post really wasn't meant to be a critique of anything above, so much as it was to vent given that I've gone from "when am I going to be able to afford a house" to "how can I raise a kid in a 600 square foot apartment and not have it be hell" over the past two years or so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/PDXTenantsUnite/status/1024469979612119040 Holgate Manor is going on a rent strike
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
Can anyone explain to me how we're fitting 12,000 sqft 6 bedroom, 5 bathroom, 4 car garage with swimming pool + back yard for the dogs & kids, McMansions on 2,500 sqft lots in downtown Seattle. Admittedly it's been a while since I've been up there and maybe with the viaduct coming down there's a lot more viable real estate now? But I don't recall y'all's city blocks being much larger than the ones in Portland or SF. Or perhaps are we just using words because we like the way they sound for hyperbole and arguing in bad faith? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
SeaborneClink posted:Can anyone explain to me how we're fitting 12,000 sqft 6 bedroom, 5 bathroom, 4 car garage with swimming pool + back yard for the dogs & kids, McMansions on 2,500 sqft lots in downtown Seattle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
I think when people talk about large “McMansion” homes in Seattle they mean the 2500-3000 sq ft 95% lot usage houses. It is pretty annoying that the term has come to mean “house that is bigger than mine and I can’t afford”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
Apodment-defense fanatics think "a house" is "a mcmansion". They have probably never seen a track of actual mcmansions CA-style.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
HEY NONG MAN posted:I think when people talk about large “McMansion” homes in Seattle they mean the 2500-3000 sq ft 95% lot usage houses. It is pretty annoying that the term has come to mean “house that is bigger than mine and I can’t afford”. Or that they're all the exact same square box with a roof top deck but different colored composite siding panels.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
I thought this was topical: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vienna-affordable-housing-paradise_us_5b4e0b12e4b0b15aba88c7b0 quote:Uwe Mauch has called Vienna “home” for more than 30 years. The 52-year-old Austrian journalist and writer lives in a subsidized apartment in the north of the European city, in one of the many low-cost housing complexes built around leafy courtyards by the municipal government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
The public sector does some things better than the private sector. This appears to substantially include housing. I'd like 'robust Public Housing' added to the list of things people continuously agitate for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:I thought this was topical: And here I thought I was lucky that only 37% of my month income was going to rent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/coreypein/status/1024753560943177728
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
28% of my income goes to my house, but that was due to buying at the bottom of the market with one time money we used for a massive down payment. One of my friends is putting as much into his mortgage has he can to get rid of the PMI that is costing and extra 200 a month.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 21:51
|
|
|
So I was thinking this morning, as I last second filled out my WA primary ballot before work, that I really needed to hand goodspaceguy a golden shovel so he can dig his way out of the poo poo. But then I saw this guy and my heart did a little pitter patter. His policy positions, for the tl;dr mindset: 1) ACAB 2) 100% unironic support for douglas macarthur-esque inverse Red Dawn plan to invade China. *homer simpson voice* I don't approve of his insane war policy, but I do approve of his ACAB policy... *pulls lever* in less awesome news, for the house seat (SW WA) I chose McDevitt cause "health care is a right" is a fuckload catchier than Long's "let's stabilize the ACA". e. oh I regret missing this earlier logger posted:What did you think of that one guy who put down in his platform to attack North Korea and invade China, and happens to be running as a Democrat? Pander fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Aug 7, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
I wrote in Nikkita Oliver for all of my state legislature/senate positions, because my choices were useless fuckwits or Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
I recycled my ballot guide already but I was a big fan of the guy who said 5G causes cancer, and the Republican who wanted to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour, and would achieve it by kicking out all the illegals.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
I didn't change my registration in time to vote so I hope someone cool wins
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
im on the net me boys posted:I didn't change my registration in time to vote so I hope someone cool wins
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 22:25
|
|
|
In all seriousness I voted for Tannehill in the primaries, since he seemed like a legit progressive. Cantwell doesn't excite me but whatever. She will win and I'll probably vote for her in November 
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:In all seriousness I voted for Tannehill in the primaries, since he seemed like a legit progressive. Cantwell doesn't excite me but whatever. She will win and I'll probably vote for her in November
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 23:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:The CEO proposing tax breaks for "Job Creators" strikes you as a legit progressive? Cantwell will definitely win, so it doesn't really matter, but it seems like a confused choice. He wanted Medicare for all, something Cantwell doesn't really support. There wasn't a great candidate there that checked a lot of the boxes and I didn't really want to go Cantwell if I had to...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:In all seriousness I voted for Tannehill in the primaries, since he seemed like a legit progressive. Cantwell doesn't excite me but whatever. She will win and I'll probably vote for her in November Son of a bitch. I just voted for cantwell because everyone else seemed crazy and I saw the words "Job Creators" on Tannehill's write-up and assumed he was a poo poo. He also describes himself as an entrepreneur and ceo of companies that sound like loan sharking places.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
seiferguy posted:He wanted Medicare for all, something Cantwell doesn't really support. There wasn't a great candidate there that checked a lot of the boxes and I didn't really want to go Cantwell if I had to...
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 23:44
|
|
|
twodot posted:There were at least 3 other candidates that also wanted free healthcare. I'm not trying to judge you for your vote, if for you that person was the best candidate, fine, let's just not call CEOs proposing tax breaks for "Job Creators" progressives. to his credit there's a 200k "job creator income" cutoff, although it seems squirrely and almost certainly ripe for abuse and loophole skirting, so I just chalked the whole section up as "stupid and misguided" versus "actively evil" like I'd expect of a typical "job creator" paragraph from a conservative. most of the other candidates were either evil or of questionable literacy, which winnowed down the list real fast. Which ones were any better than Cantwell?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Pander posted:to his credit there's a 200k "job creator income" cutoff, although it seems squirrely and almost certainly ripe for abuse and loophole skirting, so I just chalked the whole section up as "stupid and misguided" versus "actively evil" like I'd expect of a typical "job creator" paragraph from a conservative. You may have ignored him because he looks like bubbles from tpb Steve Hoffman for U.S. Senate - Freedom Socialist Party candidate from Washington State https://votesocialism.com
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Pander posted:to his credit there's a 200k "job creator income" cutoff, although it seems squirrely and almost certainly ripe for abuse and loophole skirting, so I just chalked the whole section up as "stupid and misguided" versus "actively evil" like I'd expect of a typical "job creator" paragraph from a conservative. I voted for Hoffman, since he hits all of my "don't murder people abroad" "do help people who need help here" "destroy capitalism" points. Like I said the votes here really don't matter because Cantwell will definitely win, but if you're trying to signal you favor a progressive candidate, voting for Tannehill is a confused choice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 00:01
|
|
|
Schmeichy posted:You may have ignored him because he looks like bubbles from tpb Yeah I voted for this guy because gently caress not voting for people who identify as socialist in primaries anymore. That is, as long as they're not National Socialists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
Schmeichy posted:You may have ignored him because he looks like bubbles from tpb I voted for this guy. I'm really glad at lease someone socialist ran on the ticket. I'm also surprised how many also-rans there are. How do I even begin to engage with local politics when they don't even advertise themselves until the ballot arrives?
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 02:31 |
|
anthonypants posted:You hosed up They sent me the letter notifying me of the deadline after it had past
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 8, 2018 01:27
|
|