|
freeways should go around towns, I thought
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:freeways should go around towns, I thought Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Offer not valid in minority neighborhoods.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Good news, "the market" will be answered with "new assets"! https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/z3bnme/tons-of-new-apartments-are-being-built-that-almost-no-one-can-afford quote:There’s a rampant homelessness crisis in large cities across the country, stoked by a lack of affordable housing units. But fear not — developers are constructing new apartments at a rapid clip this year. But hey "build more" is the solution so all is well. China and Wall Street will be super happy to have new places to park unneeded money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 00:44
|
|
|
It's because the cost difference to build a normal apartment vs. a luxury apartment is practically nothing, but one can be marked up more to $$$maximize profits$$$
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:It's because the cost difference to build a normal apartment vs. a luxury apartment is practically nothing, but one can be marked up more to $$$maximize profits$$$ Yeah, it's basically the counter tops and stainless steel appliances. I saw that the SF supervisors approved a ballot initiative to put vacancy taxes on certain major areas for commercial storefronts. It's a good start, but we need to start doing these on new residential apartments and condos
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:It's because the cost difference to build a normal apartment vs. a luxury apartment is practically nothing, but one can be marked up more to $$$maximize profits$$$ One hundred and fifty percent vacancy tax calculated against current market value. Problem solved. Oh no! Market values are going down! I guess soon people will live in the empty places again. Sad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Why vacancy taxes and not liberalizing adverse possession? Or, ideally, both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Yeah, it's basically the counter tops and stainless steel appliances. exactly "luxury" is a totally meaningless qualifier in real estate - they make it sound like it's all car elevators and indoor waterfall pools because saying that construction incorporating modern insulation and in-unit laundry is unaffordable to regular people is a real bad look
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
Buffer posted:Why vacancy taxes and not liberalizing adverse possession? Or, ideally, both. tiered property taxes based on land use and occupancy, to incentivize resident ownership and disincentivize landlording and especially asset parking no property tax for resident owners, as long as they have at least one resident per bedroom. can be family, roommate tenants, whatever. one warm body sleeping there more than 3/4 of the nights per year and listing it as their residence on dmv paperwork, zero property tax. next tier up is resident owners with excess unrented living space. something non-trivial but not debilitating either; we want to disincentivize empty bedrooms without severely punishing people for not renting to strangers. next tier up is non-resident landlords who own three units or less (including their residence). the units are occupied, the landlords are Ma and Pa Retiree or whatever, who will eventually croak and the property will very likely be sold by their inheritors. these kinds of landlords are generally not causing many problems. non resident landlords who are real actual flesh and blood human beings who own more than four units and manage them themselves: this is where we start to put the hurt on. this isn't you planning for your retirement under capitalism, this is you trying to get out of having a job. this is just you more or less being a parasite. but again, these are owned by a person who must live fairly close, since they can't hire property managers and go full absentee nonresident landlords who are total absentees, using property managers to do everything that even approaches being "work" and just depositing checks of other people's money. gently caress these people. they're contributing nothing. the tax on this kind of behavior needs to be very high. it needs to be very difficult to make any money doing this. and lastly, any landowner who is anything other than a resident, sole proprietor landlord, or housing non-profit (corporate landlords, essentially): the tax on this needs to be so high that it will only work in unusual outlier situations. this should be rare. it should not only be impossible in most situations to make a profit doing this, it should be very difficult to keep the losses from renting these properties to a level that makes it worth parking assets. and so steep that long-term vacant properties are essentially nonexistent. also while we're fantasizing about things that are technically possible but seem practically insurmountable, i want to go on a motorcycle ride with kathleen hanna and dave chappelle
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 03:57
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:this is you trying to get out of having a job. this is just you more or less being a parasite. Your co-opting the right's messaging of trying to root out and squash people denying the market their labor, is counterproductive bordering hostile to those on the left who idealize a work-optional society. Of course you're right that the people you're describing are controlling enough property to create economic and social hazards that shouldn't be profitable, but you can articulate that without embracing mandatory wage servitude. All peoples having the right of living in housing and not having to work to keep it is the dream. Your goals are good but your rhetoric is bad. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Jan 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 11:35
|
|
|
"capitalists are parasites who live off other people's work" is not a right-leaning opinion
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 16:08
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:"capitalists are parasites who live off other people's work" is not a right-leaning opinion lmao "co-opting the right's messaging" this is "Bernie is populist like Trump!" tier
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:"capitalists are parasites who live off other people's work" is not a right-leaning opinion "this is you trying to get out of a job" is because it glorifies working as valuable regardless of the work. And the bedroom property tax creates a lot of werid incentives. Penalties for having spare rooms is dumb and if your solution to the housing problem is to force cohabitation then look forward to literal nazi takeovers when "when cohabitation goes wrong" stories start flooding the media and political backlash goes wild.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
Zachack posted:"this is you trying to get out of a job" is because it glorifies working as valuable regardless of the work. to incentivize it, not force it. when people rent bedrooms rather than let them sit empty they are contributing to a public resource. so why not give them a tax break versus people who have four bedrooms for two people?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:lmao "co-opting the right's messaging"
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 01:02
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:to incentivize it, not force it. when people rent bedrooms rather than let them sit empty they are contributing to a public resource. so why not give them a tax break versus people who have four bedrooms for two people? this makes sense only in some theoretical fairyland where tenants occupying bedrooms in something designed as a single family home have no need for other rooms, or where their use of those other rooms somehow does not impact other residents at all. the community land trust or other stuff about de-commodifying housing makes sense, but not this. this is just either inviting more "in-law apartment where you can't have parties ever and can't use the kitchen" bullshit or forcibly creating soviet-style communal apartments (which everyone hates). taxing the poo poo out of bad aspects of the existing system and hoping that the revenue will be used effectively to address the problems of said system AND not produce problematic unexpected side effects seems quite optimistic. using taxation as an incentive to convert private ownership of housing stock to some other system seems reasonable, but you need a framework for that system in place first, at least at some level. use of the tax power to disincentivize lovely stuff is a legitimate and effective tactic, but only if there's some not lovely stuff to redirect that effort to already. without that good alternative, you'll likely just create new, differently lovely poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:to incentivize it, not force it. when people rent bedrooms rather than let them sit empty they are contributing to a public resource. so why not give them a tax break versus people who have four bedrooms for two people? Because they'd like to use those bedrooms when they have guests/family over, I'd wager
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
Yeah, I was referring to OMG assigning value to work, wasn’t making any statement about Bernie, etc. Someone wealthy enough they own four properties isn’t likely trying to avoid serving tables at Chili’s and is likely white collar, but letting individuals create housing franchises isn’t healthy. Aside from the weird bedroom policy I get where they are coming from. Since people who want to have children usually buy a little bigger than they need right away, and since when children move out you often end up with a spare room, you wouldn’t want it to be too steep anyway. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Because they'd like to use those bedrooms when they have guests/family over, I'd wager so go hog wild, and pay 1% or whatever property tax strikes the appropriate balance e: or rent to friends/family you don't mind living with, or remodel the extra space to make lockouts/inlaws, or put the house on the market for someone else and find a smaller place you won't be taxed on. anything is better for the housing market than the bedroom just sitting empty 350 days a year, so make it so anything is *marginally* better for the landowner ee: and apparently i must repeatedly emphasize marginally because otherwise i get called soviet hitler or whatever Cactus Ghost fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
CMYK BLYAT! posted:using taxation as an incentive to convert private ownership of housing stock to some other system seems reasonable, but you need a framework for that system in place first, at least at some level. use of the tax power to disincentivize lovely stuff is a legitimate and effective tactic, but only if there's some not lovely stuff to redirect that effort to already. without that good alternative, you'll likely just create new, differently lovely poo poo. for sure, this would by no means solve the housing crisis, it's just closing some drains on the housing supply. there'd have to be changes in what incentivizes/enables construction too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Yeah, I was referring to OMG assigning value to work, wasn’t making any statement about Bernie, etc. Someone wealthy enough they own four properties isn’t likely trying to avoid serving tables at Chili’s and is likely white collar, but letting individuals create housing franchises isn’t healthy. notice how i said one person per bedroom. this means anyone sharing a bedroom, like couples trying to get pregnant, would "fully occupy" a two-bedroom place. i may not understand why suburbanites are so incredibly horny for spare bedrooms, but i understand that they are. bedrooms = residents makes the math simple and gives families room to grow maybe a tax credit for full occupancy would sell better e: also i'm aware that i'm driving a derail so i'm happy to shut up if theres california politics afoot
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:notice how i said one person per bedroom. this means anyone sharing a bedroom, like couples trying to get pregnant, would "fully occupy" a two-bedroom place. I grew up in a three bedroom house, and when we moved out and sold it my Dad put up a wall in one of them and revealed a doorway to the hall that had been hidden by paneling my whole life. One bedroom was originally two smaller ones. Maybe it’s that background, but I just chuckle at the thought of people knocking out walls and merging bedrooms to save on taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I just chuckle at the thought of people knocking out walls and merging bedrooms to save on taxes. Yes all my tax exemption paperwork is in order thanks. Also: So my 3 bed space has a total of 7 tenants but one parking spot. Please help me manage the insane parking situation that has arisen thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:So my 3 bed space has a total of 7 tenants but one parking spot. Please help me manage the insane parking situation that has arisen thanks. rip up the parking space and put some public transit in. hope this helps
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 03:29
|
|
|
I don't understand why the state doesn't just hire Elon Musk to dig us tunnel homes. Infinite tunnels in infinite dimensions. Tunnels we can live in. Tunnels we can raise children in. Tunnels to experience love in. Tunnels for heartbreak, and tunnels for healing. Tunnels for death, and tunnels for mourning. Tunnels for all, and none shall be untunneled. In California, we've finally found our home, and our home is tunnels. Welcome home, Californians. Welcome home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 08:00
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:I don't understand why the state doesn't just hire Elon Musk to dig us tunnel homes. Infinite tunnels in infinite dimensions. Tunnels we can live in. Tunnels we can raise children in. Tunnels to experience love in. Tunnels for heartbreak, and tunnels for healing. Tunnels for death, and tunnels for mourning. Tunnels for all, and none shall be untunneled. In California, we've finally found our home, and our home is tunnels. Welcome home, Californians. Welcome home. please don’t give them ideas
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 11:15
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL I used to flip houses on the side and it would be trivially easy to get around your "unoccupied bedroom" tax, just take the closet door off and seal it up with framed drywall until you're ready to have someone live in it. Rooms without closets aren't considered bedrooms. It would literally be a weekend project and save thousands in taxes, totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Striving for 100% occupancy is totally stupid. I'm sorry if it gets in the way of your communist fantasies. It removes any slack in the system that could be used in case of emergencies. A town/neighborhood burns down? Too bad, you're all on the street since there is nowhere to stay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 17:49
|
|
|
Maybe our taxes should be used to directly build houses instead of being funneled into developers and arms manufacturers
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 18:27
|
|
|
Wild idea, I know
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
Also suburb-style living has been a total disaster, let's get some medium density going and functional spaces for people, instead of Car Land where the people are an afterthought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Spazzle posted:Striving for 100% occupancy is totally stupid. I'm sorry if it gets in the way of your communist fantasies. It removes any slack in the system that could be used in case of emergencies. jesus christ i know i'm not much at sales pitches but did you all just see red and go full berzerk at the possibility of someone paying less in taxes for forgoing a luxury you enjoy people who rent rooms instead of leaving them vacant are adding to the housing supply. the point is to subsidize them doing that. that's it. the commissar is not going to come for you in the night because of your third bedroom with all the throw pillows
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:05
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:jesus christ i know i'm not much at sales pitches but did you all just see red and go full berzerk at the possibility of someone paying less in taxes for forgoing a luxury you enjoy 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:jesus christ i know i'm not much at sales pitches but did you all just see red and go full berzerk at the possibility of someone paying less in taxes for forgoing a luxury you enjoy Or instead we could just build more housing instead of a neoliberal tax credit for big families.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:07
|
|
|
👏subsidize👏more👏homeowners
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:12
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:jesus christ i know i'm not much at sales pitches but did you all just see red and go full berzerk at the possibility of someone paying less in taxes for forgoing a luxury you enjoy There are no market solutions to market problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:14
|
|
|
first they came for the bed scarves
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
giving subsidies to individuals only communicates that individuals are responsible for the problem. it's an ideological move, not a practical one. veritas alone owns 250 apartment buildings in san francisco. spare bedrooms are a pittance.
Doc Hawkins fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jan 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:jesus christ i know i'm not much at sales pitches but did you all just see red and go full berzerk at the possibility of someone paying less in taxes for forgoing a luxury you enjoy renting out individual rooms helps nobody but the landlord (kill them all) and the commissar totally should do that
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:17 |
|
|
It would be cheaper, more effective and leave less dead bodies to arm squatters or some poo poo tax incentives exist to let neoliberal politicians say they're doing something while taking landlord money by the barrel
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2020 19:30
|
|