|
i feel conflicted about issues with local political power because on the one hand, luxury handsets points about how it has harmed urban planning in the USA are very compelling. On the other hand though, I still can't help but idolize the anti-urban renewal protests of the Jane Jacobs era. Giving people a say on the form of the places they live obviously makes sense. On the other hand, people are racist and insanely narrow minded. Obviously its a fine balancing act. I definitely don't feel like I know how to set everything right.
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Wait don't some cities collect income tax? Like NYC?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 19:53
|
|
|
Some states also don't collect income tax but also prohibit local governments from doing it for ideological reasons (Texas).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Wait don't some cities collect income tax? Like NYC? if the state explicitly grants that power, which is atypical. NYC has a lot of political power relative to the rest of the state, though Still Dismal posted:If you own property that is increasing in value that you winning, that’s the system working for you, you aren’t a victim. If you can’t afford the property tax take in renters, thereby increasing housing supply, or sell your house for what is likely a substantial profit. this doesn't work out for everyone, specifically the somewhat largeish group of old/elderly people on fixed incomes who are very attached to their homes. this is a cohort which is larger than you'd think given the dynamics of when/how homes were constructed in the 20th century, and this sort of dispassionate "cash out for a profit" take doesn't always land when we're talking about places that people can have more emotional than financial investment. also when you live in a place for a long time you tend to put down community roots and have good relationships with your neighbors, and this too is severed when you sell your home - i think that this aspect of people wanting to stay put is often overlooked among people who are young and predominantly renters, for whom homes are largely interchangable and judged based on their surrounding amenities rather than the communities around them prop 13 is horrible because as you mention, it interferes with sort of the 'natural' cycle of homeownership. on the other hand, property tax freezes if applied carefully and selectively will greatly benefit a group of vulnerable people, aka old people with more assets than income. it's also a powerful anti-gentrification tool Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
Hambilderberglar posted:Lastly, I personally don’t really care about the degree of ownership or usufruct someone has over their (primary) residence. Having a roof over your head is as close to a fundamental need as there is and it does not sit well with me that someone can be in the circumstances where they cannot afford to pay taxes for what is a basic necessity. The right to having a roof over your head (which I agree with) is not the same as the right to have this particular roof over your head (which I don't agree with). Where does the right for a particular roof over your head begin? Where does it end? I have no idea. Doesn't the fact that the person cannot afford the taxes for their house mean that they have too much house? luxury handset posted:this doesn't work out for everyone, specifically the somewhat largeish group of old/elderly people on fixed incomes who are very attached to their homes. this is a cohort which is larger than you'd think given the dynamics of when/how homes were constructed in the 20th century, and this sort of dispassionate "cash out for a profit" take doesn't always land when we're talking about places that people can have more emotional than financial investment. also when you live in a place for a long time you tend to put down community roots and have good relationships with your neighbors, and this too is severed when you sell your home - i think that this aspect of people wanting to stay put is often overlooked among people who are young and predominantly renters, for whom homes are largely interchangable and judged based on their surrounding amenities rather than the communities around them This is a problem because people have no where else to go, either globally or within their community, when its time to downgrade or cash in. I think there would be a lot less objections to "granny has got to GTFO" if she could move a mile or two away into a 1/2 bedroom apartment from her 4 bedroom house and bank a few hundred thousands bucks as compared to the current status quo where leaving the state is more likely. It also seems to be the case that elder care focused facilities and housing are hives of scum and villainy. MickeyFinn fucked around with this message at 20:45 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 20:40
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:Doesn't the fact that the person cannot afford the taxes for their house mean that they have too much house? not necessarily. property taxes can go up simply because the houses around you got nicer without your house changing in any way. property taxes can go up because a new school was built down the street. property taxes can go up for lots of external reasons that have nothing to do with your property MickeyFinn posted:This is a problem because people have no where else to go, either globally or within their community, when its time to downgrade or cash in. you'd face an argument just claiming that "when it is time to downgrade or cash in" is inevitable. people can get very attached to homes they've lived in for decades Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 20:48 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 20:44
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:not necessarily. property taxes can go up simply because the houses around you got nicer without your house changing in any way. property taxes can go up because a new school was built down the street. property taxes can go up for lots of external reasons that have nothing to do with your property I don't think this matters. By definition, if you do not have the resources to maintain something, you have too much of it. Right? Maybe I should have said "too much desirable house" in the post you quote? luxury handset posted:you'd face an argument just claiming that "when it is time to downgrade or cash in" is inevitable. people can get very attached to homes they've lived in for decades I did not mean to imply there was a set time to move out. What I meant was when the owners could no longer afford the property taxes and have to move. MickeyFinn fucked around with this message at 20:52 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:I don't think this matters. By definition, if you do not have the resources to maintain something, you have too much of it. Right? Maybe I should have said "too much desirable house" in the post you quote? Sounds like you are giving localities a great way to force undesirables to move out in the alternative a great way for developers to force people out. All of this is dependent state to state, locality to locality but its not that simple. This isn't to say I don't disagree with part of what you are saying. On Cape Cod, they figure they would free up about 7500 homes if senior citizens downgraded to condos but the problem of course is there isn't enough housing to go around to make that desirable. Also, humans aren't robots they have attachments to their cities and neighborhoods and sometimes want to stay for reasons that are not purely economic.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 21:00
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Sounds like you are giving localities a great way to force undesirables to move out in the alternative a great way for developers to force people out. All of this is dependent state to state, locality to locality but its not that simple. I agree. Any policy or strategy has to be carried out in good faith. I also agree that humans aren't robots and they want things and those reasons are valid. But we regularly tell people they can't have things that they want and they cannot afford. Why is this different?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:I don't think this matters. By definition, if you do not have the resources to maintain something, you have too much of it. Right? Maybe I should have said "too much desirable house" in the post you quote? i know you are not saying this, but this is an identical argument for pro-gentrification redevelopment keep in mind that "desirability" is itself mutable. to be explicit - white tolerance of non-white neighbors MickeyFinn posted:But we regularly tell people they can't have things that they want and they cannot afford. Why is this different? because you are saying it about people who do not have as much money, and why the people who have more money should have their preferences prioritized e: i don't think you're a monster or a liberal or anything, but i do think you are not really considering the class overtones of the argument you are making Mr. Fall Down Terror fucked around with this message at 21:27 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 21:25
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:I agree. Any policy or strategy has to be carried out in good faith. I also agree that humans aren't robots and they want things and those reasons are valid. But we regularly tell people they can't have things that they want and they cannot afford. Why is this different? What the threshold of maintenance? If it is solely paying taxes, shouldn't time be a factor? Why should you be whims of a fickle market?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:I agree. Any policy or strategy has to be carried out in good faith. I also agree that humans aren't robots and they want things and those reasons are valid. But we regularly tell people they can't have things that they want and they cannot afford. Why is this different? It’s different because you’re basically yanking away a place that was likely a multi-decade physical and emotion investment for someone. I have a small house on a quarter acre and I spend most of my time gardening - the badge I have is in particular for my interest in Japanese maples. If that were to be yanked away in 20 years because of developments outside of my control and folks said “too bad, suck it up”, I would be crushed. When you say “you can’t have things that you can’t afford”, you’re ignoring the fact that it’s only recently that housing costs have gotten insane so quickly. No one plans for their area to get gentrified and the people this would hurt are the ones who have no control over the situation. Also, when you tell someone to “sell and move elsewhere”, where they hell are they going to move that either eats up all of the proceeds of the sale or is in the middle of nowhere away from their family/community ties? Not to mention areas that are likely to have fewer support systems, mass transit or hospital capacity. A real poo poo deal to pay for those services for years only to be denied them when you need them most. I don’t see why you just can’t set the line at “the next time the house changes ownership*”. Make the tax adjustments then. A city can wait a single lifetime. *Make an allowance for widows/widowers in non-community property states.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:. luxury handset posted:anyway this entire derail can be put to bed if some of yall google "homestead exemption"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, that's a rather simple answer.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:localities can't collect income taxes ??? My city, Philadelphia, does. It also collects income taxes from people who live in the city, whether they work there or not (I work remotely and still pay income taxes). It also collects from those that go into the city to work but live outside of it. This is a far more equitable system than a wealth tax on people's primary residence. This is not some unheard of thing. DC and NYC do it too. luxury handset posted:there are way not enough commercial or second homes to tax to support local government I'm sure it isn't, which is why municipal and county income taxes should be normal. luxury handset posted:in the united states, the primary use of property taxes is to fund education as primary education is entirely handled at the local level. inequitable distribution of residences and property taxes across jurisdictional lines is a strong, perhaps the strongest influence on racial segregation. while this scheme is really awful, it exists because there is no meaningful revenue sharing in the united states (generally, there are always exceptions) between state and sub-state aka local jurisdictions. so tampering with property taxes without some sort of magic scheme to enhance state level control of local decisions will, directly, make education even worse in the united states as poor jurisdictions would lose the ability to fund schools with no adequate compensatory measure in place States should be providing the funding for schools, rather than localities. Local level funding, whether through property taxes or income taxes, for schools just leads to unequal opportunities for people who live in poorer communities. luxury handset posted:the problem with second homes is that they tend to be in nice, remote locations. so all these coastal or lake or mountain towns where people retire to would have a nice fat funding boost with nothing to spend it on really. this is more of that inequitable distribution thing They are already taxed. I would envision income taxes and commercial/industrial property taxes providing the bulk of the funding rather than residential property taxes.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 22:13
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:i know you are not saying this, but this is an identical argument for pro-gentrification redevelopment I think this depends on how deep you go down the rabbit hole. The people who have a house are certainly less poor than the people who can barely afford to rent, they literally have at least a fraction of an asset. I think discussing property taxes is short sighted. The problem in the United States that is driving gentrification and property tax inequities is massive wealth inequality and its knock-on effects, like our ridiculous tax system that is used to preserve that inequality and the paltry support for seniors. Talking about what to do about property taxes seems to me to be treating current homeowners as a special class, while leaving renters out. Why should we privilege homeowners over renters? Mooseontheloose posted:What the threshold of maintenance? If it is solely paying taxes, shouldn't time be a factor? Why should you be whims of a fickle market? In the United States we subject people to the "whims of a fickle market" to get everything they need, including employment, healthcare, education and food. Why should housing be different? My answer is that it shouldn't be different, but that is because we shouldn't be subjecting people to the fickle market for any of those things.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
There's also a social cost to letting 1-2 old people take up an entire family-sized house just because it feels nice, especially when there's not enough of those to go around
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
Restricting people what kind of housing they get is a really slippery slope. If there is a shortage of a particular type of housing the solution is to build more of it to meet the need/demand.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:This is a far more equitable system than a wealth tax on people's primary residence. apologies - i should have said "cities often can't collect income taxes". the number of cities which do are far, far, far outweight by the cities which don't or can't. keep in mind that a lot of 'cities' in america are like, a few thousand people at best. a government that small is not going to be able to collect income taxes on its own Nitrousoxide posted:This is a far more equitable system than a wealth tax on people's primary residence. i'd also like to point out that all of these cities which collect income tax, also collect property tax Nitrousoxide posted:States should be providing the funding for schools, rather than localities. Local level funding, whether through property taxes or income taxes, for schools just leads to unequal opportunities for people who live in poorer communities. in an ideal world perhaps, but we'd also have to ban lovely state governments that underfund schools. one advantage of local reliance on school funding is that if you're getting crap funding from the state government, you can at least raise the money locally. and at this point we're getting away from feasible policy discussion into wish list land so in that case we should ban not just property taxes but tax land consumption directly Nitrousoxide posted:They are already taxed. I would envision income taxes and commercial/industrial property taxes providing the bulk of the funding rather than residential property taxes. you can envision that if you like but that goal is on the other side of a very wide chasm of "how do we sustain local government services in the meantime" because you'd have to tax the absolute poo poo out of income and non-exempt structures to maintain funding levels MickeyFinn posted:I think this depends on how deep you go down the rabbit hole. The people who have a house are certainly less poor than the people who can barely afford to rent, they literally have at least a fraction of an asset. I think discussing property taxes is short sighted. The problem in the United States that is driving gentrification and property tax inequities is massive wealth inequality and its knock-on effects, like our ridiculous tax system that is used to preserve that inequality and the paltry support for seniors. Talking about what to do about property taxes seems to me to be treating current homeowners as a special class, while leaving renters out. Why should we privilege homeowners over renters? you can't really blame gentrification on wealth inequality, unless you're talking about the existence of people who can't afford to live in the neighborhoods they currently live in if those neighborhoods become considered desirable after long periods of being considered undesirable. gentrification is more a problem of local government's inability to adapt to increasing growth that is inherent when the economy preferences urbanization to such a degree anyway if you want to cast this as the greedy grandmas vs. the working poor you can do that but you will always be on the political down slope of that argument because turns out that eldery people on fixed incomes are highly sympathetic to the kind of people who vote in local elections. i think you're also considering rental markets in terms of the large cities that millenials like to live in, which get a ton of attention when it comes to gentrification, but the assumptions in your mind's eye about rental markets and housing isn't going to connect with folks who deal with gentrification first-hand in suburbs and smaller cities, who are a substantially large population of folks who get a much smaller amount of policy wonk attention keep in mind that for older folks, it is possible to simultaneously own a house and be poor as poo poo. and there are obvious advantages to living in a place that you own where you don't have to pay any rent or mortgage at all, only property taxes / utility bills
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:00
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:apologies - i should have said "cities often can't collect income taxes". the number of cities which do are far, far, far outweight by the cities which don't or can't. keep in mind that a lot of 'cities' in america are like, a few thousand people at best. a government that small is not going to be able to collect income taxes on its own In Missouri, St Louis and KC have earnings taxes. I think they're collected as part of the state income tax process. However, the state recently passed a ballot initiative that forbids earnings taxes for all other municipalities, and forces StL and KC to vote every five years to keep theirs.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:you can't really blame gentrification on wealth inequality, unless you're talking about the existence of people who can't afford to live in the neighborhoods they currently live in if those neighborhoods become considered desirable after long periods of being considered undesirable. gentrification is more a problem of local government's inability to adapt to increasing growth that is inherent when the economy preferences urbanization to such a degree This argument makes no sense. Gentrification is literally outside money coming in to outbid locals for housing and driving up prices as said outside money is coming from people who can pay more for housing. If the disparity between the two groups was smaller the tendency to gentrification would decrease. The logical conclusion of your argument, that income inequality plays no large part in gentrification, would be that it happens to rich neighborhoods as often as poor neighborhoods, which is so untrue we don't even talk about the "gentrification of rich neighborhoods," those four words don't even make sense.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kimmaicutler/status/1225527726939025410?s=20 Imagine if this vulnerable member of the community had been forced to pay property tax on the full value of their property during that time! They may have been displaced! Think of their emotional investment in the area. This is what artificially keeping property tax low leads to. We have run this experiment and it’s created a huge crises and made one of the most economically dynamic areas of the country totally unaffordable for anyone not making six figures. You don’t make the rich people go away, you just make it so they’re the only ones who can afford the lovely houses, because the construction of new ones hasn’t matched demand for more than a decade. Badger of Basra posted:There's also a social cost to letting 1-2 old people take up an entire family-sized house just because it feels nice, especially when there's not enough of those to go around Yeah exactly, I know people aren't robots and develop emotional attachment to their homes, but I don't see any defensible way to priviliege that feeling over other people's need for affordable housing near economic opportunity, or just their basic right to shelter at all. And when those single family homes inhabited by 1-2 old people are in urban areas with finite amounts of land, they're in direct conflict with that. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 02:04 on May 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:This argument makes no sense. Gentrification is literally outside money coming in to outbid locals for housing and driving up prices as said outside money is coming from people who can pay more for housing. If the disparity between the two groups was smaller the tendency to gentrification would decrease. The logical conclusion of your argument, that income inequality plays no large part in gentrification, would be that it happens to rich neighborhoods as often as poor neighborhoods, which is so untrue we don't even talk about the "gentrification of rich neighborhoods," those four words don't even make sense. you don't need to be super wealthy to be a gentrifier. you just have to be an income step above the people who live in the neighborhood you would like to live in. to that extent, you can't really say wealth inequality is a cause of gentrification unless you're talking about how wealth inequality creates pockets of poverty. rich neighborhoods get replaced, we just don't call it gentrification. gentrification is a specific term that means a specific thing and it is not tantamount to "one group getting pushed out by another group". in the united states it is the long term consequence of mid 20th century white flight as well as the inability of local governments to effectively adapt to the needs of growing populations in an economy which strongly incentivizes urbanization as a side discussion for the thread - in the occasional instances where wealthy residential areas get replaced, what replaces them? office towers and luxury retail Still Dismal posted:This is what artificially keeping property tax low leads to. We have run this experiment and it’s created a huge crises and made one of the most economically dynamic areas of the country totally unaffordable for anyone not making six figures. You don’t make the rich people go away, you just make it so they’re the only ones who can afford the lovely houses, because the construction of new ones hasn’t matched demand for more than a decade. california voters being dumb and greedy doesn't invalidate the entire concept of property tax exemptions. it says more about the california state referendum process than tax policy, tbh
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
luxury handset posted:you don't need to be super wealthy to be a gentrifier. you just have to be an income step above the people who live in the neighborhood you would like to live in. to that extent, you can't really say wealth inequality is a cause of gentrification unless you're talking about how wealth inequality creates pockets of poverty. In fact a lot of gentrification wasn't greedy developers but people who put "sweat equity" into the properties they bought. Where your wrong unfortunately is that wealth equity essentially made gentrification a thing because the American gentrifiction problem comes after white flight and disinvestment into black and brown communities. Property values plummet in the 60s, white people who had easy access to capital then invest in cheap property making it desirable, making it more expensive. So, not wealth inequity as we traditionally understand it but wealth inequity in other ways.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:In fact a lot of gentrification wasn't greedy developers but people who put "sweat equity" into the properties they bought. luxury handset posted:you can't really say wealth inequality is a cause of gentrification unless you're talking about how wealth inequality creates pockets of poverty.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 06:17
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:
Why are folks so worried about an old couple in a house when they’re not going to be there for very much longer anyway? Why ignore the fact that they’re going to need additional services like mass transit, senior programs, specialized healthcare and then expect them to just up and move someone cheaper that is cheaper because those services likely won’t exist? Not to mention that these are services that they’ve likely paid for the entire time for others. I just don’t get this attitude that people are just expected to abandon their families, friends and communities on a regular basis to move to the new “middle of nowhere” and start all over again because someone richer moved in. There’s a cost to having a longer commute or worse just having to find a new job. There’s a cost to getting settled in a new place. There are massive costs if you happen to be a minority and the cheap state’s laws suddenly deny you access to healthcare, worker protections based on who you marry, or the right to vote. I still remember some goon telling me how pompous I was for wanting to stay in the PNW (where I was born and grew up and still live) and claimed that “North Carolina was just as good, it’s the same but cheaper”. Two weeks later HB 2 passed. And look at how the different states are handling Covid-19. Would you feel safer in Washington State or Texas?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why are folks so worried about an old couple in a house when they’re not going to be there for very much longer anyway? Why ignore the fact that they’re going to need additional services like mass transit, senior programs, specialized healthcare and then expect them to just up and move someone cheaper that is cheaper because those services likely won’t exist? Not to mention that these are services that they’ve likely paid for the entire time for others. There is a certain efficiency argument to be made (1 person for 1000+ sqft in a single family home, could allow a family to move in instead) but I think the more humane argument is that there is a certain population of seniors that can't take care of their homes anymore and living in a situation that is potentially dangerous. That would require us as a country however, to build more housing in areas that don't traditionally carry housing or carry denser housing.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 14:35
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Why are folks so worried about an old couple in a house when they’re not going to be there for very much longer anyway? Why ignore the fact that they’re going to need additional services like mass transit, senior programs, specialized healthcare and then expect them to just up and move someone cheaper that is cheaper because those services likely won’t exist? Not to mention that these are services that they’ve likely paid for the entire time for others. You're making a lot of assumption about what people are and are not ignore here. Solkanar512 posted:I just don’t get this attitude that people are just expected to abandon their families, friends and communities on a regular basis to move to the new “middle of nowhere” and start all over again because someone richer moved in. There’s a cost to having a longer commute or worse just having to find a new job. There’s a cost to getting settled in a new place. There are massive costs if you happen to be a minority and the cheap state’s laws suddenly deny you access to healthcare, worker protections based on who you marry, or the right to vote. This paragraph applies equally to young people who are being forced to leave because they can't afford to stay. Why do you expect them to abandon their families, friends and communities? Why shouldn't they have access to local parents to help them raise kids? People expect the olds to leave because they created the problem of not having anywhere local to go, so they can deal with the consequences. Societies evolve and populations grow. "I was here first" is not a good argument to rebuild cities from the ground up, somewhere new every generation. Note: I am not implying or forgetting that poor people are usually kicked out first. The way forward was always building up so everyone gets to stay. Boot and Rally fucked around with this message at 15:09 on May 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 15:05
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I just don’t get this attitude that people are just expected to abandon their families, friends and communities on a regular basis to move to the new “middle of nowhere” and start all over again because someone richer moved in. There’s a cost to having a longer commute or worse just having to find a new job. There’s a cost to getting settled in a new place. There are massive costs if you happen to be a minority and the cheap state’s laws suddenly deny you access to healthcare, worker protections based on who you marry, or the right to vote. Instead we're stuck in a FYGM vicious cycle where those that have some security are constantly punching down because they fear their own position is precarious and have developed unhealthy neuroses about any and all change. Many even think they're punching up by blocking the development of denser housing, even as the well-off gobble up the scarce and overpriced lots that come available and replace them with McMansions.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 15:39
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:You're making a lot of assumption about what people are and are not ignore here. I'm not expecting them to move so I have no idea why you made this post to begin with. My example of goons insisting I should leave the PNW should have been enough to get this across.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 15:48
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I'm not expecting them to move so I have no idea why you made this post to begin with. My example of goons insisting I should leave the PNW should have been enough to get this across. I was pointing out how your arguments cut both ways. Is your point that no one should have to move? You specifically defend old people in your post. It isn’t clear where you stop talking just about olds.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
once again folks are forgetting that old people who own homes can also be poor. triangulate your ok boomer sensibility accordingly
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 16:45
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:I was pointing out how your arguments cut both ways. Is your point that no one should have to move? You specifically defend old people in your post. It isn’t clear where you stop talking just about olds. My point is that forcing people to constantly move is lovely for numerous reasons. Expecting them to drop everything, eat all those costs and start over again because richer folks decided to make their area trendy is lovely as well. It's also lovely to disregard the reasons why someone might want to stay in the home they've lived in for years over some min-maxing bullshit. You can build more housing without kicking every widowed grandmother out of her home, or expecting every trade school grad to move to the middle of nowhere. Yes, if you have a SFH in the middle of an urban area there is more urgency to make that lot denser, but we're talking about more than just urban areas. This idea that "people who want to stay in their homes are just being emotionally irrational" is a bad argument.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 17:56
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:
It is, but also suggesting we shouldn't have taxes on anyone because of some sympathetic edge case is awful silly. Just have property taxes on the 95% of people that aren't the elderly poor that bought a now gentrified house. You don't have to throw out the concept of property tax existing over it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Homeowners are as a class wealthier than renters because they own property. Again, the people who own something valuable and don’t want to be taxed on it aren’t the victims here. There is only so much land for housing available in cities, walkable neighborhoods, near transit, near job clusters, etc. I’m sure that grannies vegetable garden is lovely. But there are a lot of grannies with vegetable gardens, and if we refuse to implement any policy that might cause them to move, we end up with sprawl, longer commutes, more inequality, worse public health, and increased carbon emissions. We have bent over backwards for decades to accommodate boomer homeowners, and it’s been a disaster for everyone but them.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
I apologize for the low content post but a friend just shared me this video. It is very short and basic, but it explains “YIMBYIsm and rezoning SF housing 101” for anyone who is confused by the subject. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ajSEIdjkU8E
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 22:26
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:Homeowners are as a class wealthier than renters because they own property. Again, the people who own something valuable and don’t want to be taxed on it aren’t the victims here. Cool, but literally no one here is making any of these arguments. And gently caress apartment living, I was moving every few years farther and farther away from work, facing 8-12% increases in rent per year, no ability to negotiate on contracts due to all the places being owned by management companies, not to mention having almost no privacy from near constant "inspections" and the joyful surprise of seeing what new fee they could come up with next. The last one before I finally moved out was a charge to accept packages. And come on, it would be trivial to add "missing middle" sorts of housing to many different neighborhoods that would vastly increase density while still offering many of the same things that people like about houses. Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 23:09 on May 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
if your position is essentially that the elderly should have most of their wealth removed from them and assigned to someone younger and more viable then you're going to need a hell of a pitch to not come off like some kind of crank
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:20
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Cool, but literally no one here is making any of these arguments. It's true that apartment living in the US can often be really terrible. Comparing to Germany it's night and day. luxury handset posted:if your position is essentially that the elderly should have most of their wealth removed from them and assigned to someone younger and more viable then you're going to need a hell of a pitch to not come off like some kind of crank I'd be okay with Prop 13 if taking the property tax limitation meant that your home value was frozen at whatever number was being used for that limitation, so anything higher than that would just go to the state or something.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 09:26 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:And gently caress apartment living, I've been fortunate enough in my lifetime of renting to have had nothing but mildly positive experiences with various buildings' management. Apartment living in a walkable, transit-accessible area can be great, if not outright empowering for those who can't or don't want to put up with the burden of ownership.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2020 00:29
|
|