|
VikingofRock posted:There was a pretty interesting article in the L.A. Times today about the problems with Prop 65. My takeaway from this article is that the authors think the biggest mistake was allowing citizen enforcement of Prop 65, which led to law firms preying on smaller companies, and to the diluting the actually-important warnings in a sea of meaningless ones. I'm curious what the thread thinks, though. There is a reason why this thread once had the subtitle "This thread is known by the state of CA to cause cancer"
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
CEQA is another example of good intentions being abused. I wouldn't be surprised if it's netted out to more emissions caused then prevented when you account for all of the dense housing and public transit projects that it's played a role in stopping. I would say ~community input~ in housing in general is also an example, but the intentions there have never been good, some of the people using the historic tools of de facto segregation are just better at mouthing the appropriate woke or even leftist buzzwords when they talk about how building a six story apartment would be neoliberal structural violence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
"These lawsuits have been brought to multiple small businesses and caused them to either go out of business or to have to put out tens of thousands of dollars to change something that wasn’t impacting their customers." Their customers being restricted to the able-bodied. Anyone who decides to open a business in a location that is inaccessible thinking "eh, gently caress crips who needs them" can eat poo poo. The ADA has been around for 30 years now. I have about as much sympathy for them as business owners who cry about having to pay their employees a living wage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 04:57
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:CEQA is another example of good intentions being abused. I wouldn't be surprised if it's netted out to more emissions caused then prevented when you account for all of the dense housing and public transit projects that it's played a role in stopping. atherton chuds tried to use ceqa to fight the electrification of the caltrain line (because they though the catenary system would look ugly)
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 05:08
|
|
|
side_burned posted:donoteat01 also co-hosts Well there's Your Problem a podcast about engineering disasters with slides. The most recent episode is about Caltrain Defunding, its good and you should watch. Oh dang, I didn't see that he'd moved to putting those on a different channel. I watched the first two or three and then there weren't any more. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 05:58
|
|
|
Bok Bok posted:"These lawsuits have been brought to multiple small businesses and caused them to either go out of business or to have to put out tens of thousands of dollars to change something that wasn’t impacting their customers." The article is written like poo poo, and it's ridiculous to claim that it "wasn't impacting their customers". The ADA is an excellent law, and is genuinely humane. It was also deliberately hamstrung by having 0 funding provisions. It's socially unacceptable to have businesses and facilities rendered unavailable to people with disabilities. It is also patently ridiculous to create a law which legally mandates X, Y, and Z, and provide no funding to a) monitor and enforce violations, and b) help to retrofit facilities which are in violation of its provisions. We have all the resources in the world to make essentially every place of business ADA compliant, but the current enforcement mechanism is unlikely to ever achieve that end. It sucks so hard, and is a classic example of liberal lawmaking ending up dividing various segments of the non-elite population against each other.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 08:07
|
|
|
Kenning posted:The article is written like poo poo, and it's ridiculous to claim that it "wasn't impacting their customers". The ADA is an excellent law, and is genuinely humane. It was also deliberately hamstrung by having 0 funding provisions. It's socially unacceptable to have businesses and facilities rendered unavailable to people with disabilities. It is also patently ridiculous to create a law which legally mandates X, Y, and Z, and provide no funding to a) monitor and enforce violations, and b) help to retrofit facilities which are in violation of its provisions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:53
|
|
|
Furthermore, violating the ADA is not a crime. The law is set up so that the only way you can get accessibility is by threatening, and very likely going through with, a lawsuit. This may be necessary because of the way American law works, but the result is bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 18:56
|
|
|
Kenning posted:The article is written like poo poo, and it's ridiculous to claim that it "wasn't impacting their customers". The ADA is an excellent law, and is genuinely humane. It was also deliberately hamstrung by having 0 funding provisions. It's socially unacceptable to have businesses and facilities rendered unavailable to people with disabilities. It is also patently ridiculous to create a law which legally mandates X, Y, and Z, and provide no funding to a) monitor and enforce violations, and b) help to retrofit facilities which are in violation of its provisions. There's also the part that California in particular has a literal 4000$ bounty given to plaintiffs for suing for ADA violations. The end result is crooked attorneys scouting places for any and all potential violations, then literally approaching people to be the plaintiff if they'll split the bounty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
It's almost like liberal lawmaking is horseshit window dressing designed to just barely conceal the slavering maw of capitalistic extraction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 19:27
|
|
|
My wife runs a small ceramics studio in the Castro and has had to try to do ADA accomodations, so I am speaking with some minor and peripheral experience. Complying with the ADA can be extremely difficult. It's a set of guidelines that does not (and in my opinion, absolutely can not) anticipate every possible way in which a person with a disability might find access difficult or impossible. Everyone typically thinks of the obvious, low-hanging fruit, like wheelchair access, but there are countless disabilities and countless ways in which access could be barred for someone. The costs of modifying a facility are also highly variable. In my wife's case: the studio was established in the 1960s, in the ground floor and basement of a Victorian on a steep hill in the Castro. They can get wheelchair access OK for the main floor, via the driveway entrance, but nobody in a wheelchair can get down the narrow stairs to the basement level. The studio addressed accessibility by ensuring there are no common or shared facilities in the basement - just individual studio spaces - so any person in a wheelchair, while unable to access the basement, shouldn't find that to be an impediment to accessing shared equipment, a ground-floor studio space, the gallery, the restroom, the kitchen, etc. But what about someone with a visual impairment? It's a cramped victorian. There has to be railings and stuff, it needs to not be possible to accidentally fall down the stairs. What about someone who can walk, but has sudden involuntary movement of limbs? They need to not accidentally smash ceramic work placed on pedestals in the middle of the gallery space. What about someone with hearing impairment? The studio telephone isn't really for general use, but in an emergency they might need to be able to use it. What about someone with a cognitive difference that means they have a hard time interpreting spoken instructions, and need everything written down? OK, so every policy and procedure and announcement, no matter how minor, has to be available in writing. Right? But the list keeps going and going and going. For every impairment, there are potential modifications that may or may not be required. Well, the ADA, very smartly, leaves some leeway for businesses to address specific requirements of specific users without having to anticipate and accommodate every possible usability issue in advance. And reasonably so. As it happens, currently there are no wheelchair-using members of the studio; members of the public only need to access the gallery and the restroom, so those are both wheelchair accessible. As it happens, there are no current visually-impaired studio members, so the back stairs, which are located in a members-only area, don't have to be somehow caged or roped off or enclosed to prevent a fall from an unsighted person. And that's good, because as a small nonprofit arts institution, implementing every possible accomodation for every possible disability that some future member could possibly have, would be impossibly expensive. The studio would simply close. And that would be a disservice to their community; the studio provides access to the arts at a super low cost (all the way down to free); it does outreach for kids, especially disadvantaged kids in public schools. It's been a valuable part of the community for decades. Relocating within San Francisco today is just not financially possible... in fact, this is the only nonprofit ceramics studio still operating in SF, every other studio is for-profit and much higher cost, just to be able to afford studio spaces. The only reason the studio still exists is because of a friendly relationship with a landlord (who could easily sell the building for millions, but doesn't, because he believes in supporting this studio). I'm not trying to defend bad businesses who refuse to make the most obvious and often really not particularly expensive accommodations for the general public. If you have a store or a restaurant or whatever that was built with only stairs access, you can probably put in a ramp. If your bathroom is too small, you can probably expand it. My wife's studio has spent tens of thousands of dollars already, just making important, low-hanging-fruit modifications to a building they don't even own in order to be as accessible as possible. Some accommodations are reasonable and affordable. But there's a reason why the ACA provides guidelines rather than strict requirements. The state-of-the-art for what constitutes "accessible" is constantly in flux. There is a range of accommodations in increasing rank of cost vs. percentage of the disabled population that is addressed, and those costs and percentages are both asymptotic curves that essentially approach infinity. E.g., a business could incur literally unlimited costs attempting to accommodate literally every particular need of every disabled person everywhere. That's just not possible for any business to do, so... every business, no matter how big or small, instead has to just try to do their best, certainly hit some clear minimums, and then venture into a fuzzy, poorly-defined middle ground where they have to make ten thousand dollar decisions that might in the long term actually not do anything for any customer that actually tries to come in through the front door during the next decade. This is a very hard problem. The law could be better. It could have more teeth. It shouldn't rely on individuals with disabilities having to sue just to get access. It should't permit vexatious litigants from effectively destroying hundreds of businesses with bogus access claims. But it would be really helpful to not try to position the need to accommodate the full range of possible disabilities as a black-and-white situation where any business that hasn't anticipated a specific need must be run by a total rear end in a top hat who deserves to get shut down. That's just not the reality. tl;dr, ADA should require businesses to make a good-faith effort to make their premises as accessible as practical, but not set up an impossible requirement to meet every potential disabled person's needs. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:42 on Jul 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mlevinreports/status/1287829267435278336 Lets see what they poo poo out, but atleast they're trying to engage with reality again Edit: A few early details https://twitter.com/mlevinreports/status/1287831515045302273 I guess they're "borrowing" against future tax earnings and probably hoping some future federal administration will be to help them out with it The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Jul 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:19
|
|
|
ADA “professional plaintiffs” are a California thing FYI. The federal ADA doesn’t provide monetary compensation, just fixing the access issue and attorneys fees. It’s because we make monetary compensation possible through our state legislation that you get “professionally disabled” people going around looking for places to sue. I’m ambivalent about their existence. On one hand, there are certainly hustlers among them, just looking for a payout. And I could see how they could be predatory, just preying on small businesses that would have made accommodations if simply asked. On the other hand, it does work. There’s effectively a private disability access watchdog actively seeking out violations, and it does mean that our cities are prosbably more accessible to people in wheelchairs and stuff than they would otherwise be. The ADA in general is good legislation, and many US cities compare favorably to other places in the world when it comes to things like wheelchair access. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jul 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/emily_hoeven/status/1287829120408145922 More extensive writeup on the planned CA stimulus, looks like they're funding it via a lot of accounting tricks and will probably require a federal bailout in a couple of years to make up for the bonds/taxes we're trying to borrow against. Lets take a look: -Stuff to extend work sharing furloughs, which is like part time unemployment payment for employees on reduced hours -Guaranteeing that unemployment benefits won't go down below current levels even if the federal government cuts them (and extending these benefits to undocumented workers) -funding for safe childcare with schools closed -funding for remote education, including rural broadband and technology assistance for the poor (presumably giving them laptops/tablets) -Funding for affording housing -Eviction bans and relief for landlords/homeowners with mortgages -Expanded wildfire prevention and fighting funds -Wetland reclamation and other measures to counter sea level rise -Expedite the incentives to transition vehicles away from gasoline to electricity and setting up more charging stations -More money for renewable energy generation and R&D of storage technology -Some changes to CEQA to allow infrastructure and housing to get built quicker Seems pretty good on the whole, I'd like to know more details on whether their will be rent relief for renters or just an eviction ban This stimulus bill is about half of the size of the annual state budget, so its pretty hefty overall The Glumslinger fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Jul 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2020 20:45
|
|
|
So, I was speaking with the director of a childcare center today, and she informed me and a few other people of something interesting going on. Apparently the state government in Sacramento is pressuring childcare providers to open up really hard. During the shutdown, centers that closed down (pre-schools, TK, private kindergartens w/ childcare) were still being paid the "subsidy" that covered lower income parents even though the children were not attending the facilities. The tradeoff was that when they reopened, they were supposed to guarantee these subsidized families first position if they had to reduce the number of children who were allowed to attend. This, in turn, kept these places solvent if they were shutdown. Now apparently the state is telling facilities to open the gently caress up, or they will cut off the subsidy pay. The reason given is that apparently Newsom wants daycares open due to parents needing a place to put their kids now that grade schools are closed (by him), since parents being unable to work would have drastic economic effects. She was rather livid because she now needs to reopen or go out of business, but essentially the state just said that the mostly POC daycare workers are now going to have to suck on the overflow from the schools closing. GG, best state.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 05:25
|
|
|
Interestingly enough I just read that a bunch of Child care providers voted to join 3 service unions today (one of them being SEIU). So, uh, that's going to be an interesting negotiation
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 06:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
it doesn't? All the ADA bitching and moaning is just windmill tilting or folks that have been ruinously misinformed by anti-litigation propaganda. Yes, ADA means you have to take action or you can get sued. That's why CASp examinations exist, which cost about $800 (some nonprofits do them for free) and they provide tons of insurance around liability for ADA violations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2020 07:38
|
|
|
great news! https://twitter.com/DennisBlock/status/1288518178302119941
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 23:35
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:it doesn't? All the ADA bitching and moaning is just windmill tilting or folks that have been ruinously misinformed by anti-litigation propaganda. Yes, ADA means you have to take action or you can get sued. That's why CASp examinations exist, which cost about $800 (some nonprofits do them for free) and they provide tons of insurance around liability for ADA violations. Right, I'm kind of reiterating that that's what the ADA should be. I guess I phrased that badly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
Angry emotion intensifies 😡
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 23:49
|
|
|
Great news for the landlords, who can get their units back into a glutted market when no one has any rent money. And definitely no knock-on effects from pushing thousands of desperate people into the street across the state in the summer heat
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Great news for the landlords, who can get their units back into a glutted market when no one has any rent money. And definitely no knock-on effects from pushing thousands of desperate people into the street across the state in the summer heat What could go wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 00:02
|
|
|
The landlords here to visit... they’re blasting disco down below...
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 00:03
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The landlords here to visit... they’re blasting disco down below...
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
Gaming the system for a roof over my head
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 00:33
|
|
|
As a society we’ve internalized the idea that owning property is not an investment that might make you money or not like any other, but something that should guarantee you a high rate of return, and that something is wrong if you don’t, and that this is a social malady that society and the state should protect you from. Rather than being a calculated gamble, taking out a mortgage is understood to be an inherently virtuous act. Landlords benefit from this, but they are secondary or even tertiary beneficiaries of this delusion. The true beneficiaries, and if you care about equitable housing, the true enemy, are homeowners.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
I care less if you own your own home than if you own someone else's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
Homeowners are property speculators just like landlords. The rents they extract at the expense of the rest of us are just a little more indirect, that’s all. Landlords at least provide something in exchange.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:As a society we’ve internalized the idea that owning property is not an investment that might make you money or not like any other, but something that should guarantee you a high rate of return, and that something is wrong if you don’t, and that this is a social malady that society and the state should protect you from. Rather than being a calculated gamble, taking out a mortgage is understood to be an inherently virtuous act. Landlording is both investment and business. Hence, if it's profitable you're a genius, and if it's not profitable you're being weighted down by leeches. Tenants, of course, are afforded none of the benefits of being a "customer" in this scenario. Still Dismal posted:Homeowners are property speculators just like landlords. The rents they extract at the expense of the rest of us are just a little more indirect, that’s all. Landlords at least provide something in exchange. Only in California would this be considered anything but the most nuclear hot take. In fact... no, you're still wrong. Landlords don't provide anything, they withhold it. What's wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Right, I'm kind of reiterating that that's what the ADA should be. I guess I phrased that badly. No I was disagreeing with the second part of your sentence. The ADA does not set up an impossible requirement to meet every potential disabled person's needs. You just need to show that you've considered accessibility needs and made good faith efforts toward increasing accessibility and reasonably removing barriers that shut out individuals with disabilities. Most people don't know where to start, so they google it and see the full universe of options and freak out. This is why Casp reports make the process a lot simpler because you don't need to know about disabled individuals' needs in order to take action. It will never be 100% for anyone, but the law says you have to think about it and make reasonable changes. Like, the response your wife's taking is the classic overreaction to ADA. The changes have to be "readily accessible" ones (not complete rebuilds), and smaller organizations are understood to have a lower burden than big businesses for interpreting that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 02:45
|
|
|
You are mistaking "Homeowners are worse" with "Landlords are good". Both landlords and homeowners are extracting value from the property they own. Landlords are doing so by providing housing in exchange for money. Homeowners are doing so by doing jack poo poo and just letting their asset passively appreciate off of an artificial scarcity, their only real effort being expended in perpetuating that scarcity. If the primary method of extracting value from property that you own was through doing poo poo like renting it out rather than just letting it appreciate, it would be a massive improvement. The california version of the Mark Fisher quote people like to toss around about the end of the world is that it's easier for people here to imagine the end of capitalism than it is for them to imagine the end of suburban single family real estate endlessly going up, up, up (or the end of suburbs in general). Cup Runneth Over posted:
Not at all true. There are a wide variety of legal protections that tenants have, and an entire civil court system dedicated to adjudicating landlord tenant disputes. Before you get indignant, I am not saying such protections are perfect or not in need of change (we desperately need a civil gideon for example) . But such protections are possible in the landlord tenant relationship in a way that they aren't in the "homeowner/everyone else" relationship.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
El Mero Mero posted:No I was disagreeing with the second part of your sentence. The ADA does not set up an impossible requirement to meet every potential disabled person's needs. No see, this is exactly what I'm saying: presently the ADA doesn't do that, and that's correct, it should not do that, so I'm saying the ADA should not do that. quote:Like, the response your wife's taking is the classic overreaction to ADA. The changes have to be "readily accessible" ones (not complete rebuilds), and smaller organizations are understood to have a lower burden than big businesses for interpreting that. They did fine. I listed things they couldn't accommodate, and it's good that the ADA doesn't force them to try to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 04:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1288684497014226944
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 04:58
|
|
|
It’s such utter horseshit that local governments can have their elections not on the same day as federal elections. OC blue now and probably getting bluer, but all of the levels of government that effect people’s lives the most will be chudified for the foreseeable future due to this poo poo. And it’s going to kill people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:No see, this is exactly what I'm saying: presently the ADA doesn't do that, and that's correct, it should not do that, so I'm saying the ADA should not do that. Technically correct but conversationally meaningless, the best kind of correct Still Dismal posted:You are mistaking "Homeowners are worse" with "Landlords are good". No, I'm not. I'm correctly interpreting "landlords are better than homeowners." Only in the home of Prop 13 would this take not get you immediately laughed at until you left the room. Still Dismal posted:Both landlords and homeowners are extracting value from the property they own. Landlords are doing so by providing housing in exchange for money. Homeowners are doing so by doing jack poo poo and just letting their asset passively appreciate off of an artificial scarcity, their only real effort being expended in perpetuating that scarcity. Homeowners live in their loving homes?? You have some terminal capitalist brain, my friend. The fact that many homeowners treat their homes as an investment because they are the only wealth many of them will ever own does not mean that homes ought to be something that you can even extract value from. This is just inane. Doing jack poo poo?! They live there! They're providing housing to themselves! And once again, you're wrong. Landlords do not provide housing. They gatekeep it. They withhold it. They passively extract rent from it. They are leeches on society who do not work for their money. You making this argument about homeowners is like me getting mad at baseball card collectors, except that again, homeowners live in their homes. I think what's clearly happening here is that you are falling for the classic capitalist trap of having your blame redirected from the system that creates the inequality to the random mildly well off people who benefit somewhat from the system. Homeowners are not the problem. They are not the ones perpetuating the scarcity of homes -- they loving live there!!! You're actually saying you'd rather they go homeless or be have to pay rent than accrue value in their own home -- that those arrangements would constitute less of a blood-sucking leech at the teat of society. Suffice to say, I've encountered a few mightily confused YIMBYs in my day, but this really takes the cake. Still Dismal posted:If the primary method of extracting value from property that you own was through doing poo poo like renting it out rather than just letting it appreciate, it would be a massive improvement. You are brain poisoned or a landlord yourself. Those are the only two feasible explanations for you making this argument. Still Dismal posted:The california version of the Mark Fisher quote people like to toss around about the end of the world is that it's easier for people here to imagine the end of capitalism than it is for them to imagine the end of suburban single family real estate endlessly going up, up, up (or the end of suburbs in general). The end of suburban single family real estate ushering in an area where only landlords own their homes and 100% of the non-landlord population are tenants is about as far from the end of capitalism as can be imagined. It's some kind of nightmare cyberpunk anarcho-libertarian hellscape you've dreamed up. You seem to be the one here who cannot imagine a world where single family real estate doesn't go up, up, up, ironically, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up that quote here. You have essentially conflated the mere idea of homeownership -- not suburban homeownership, mind you, but literally the very concept of owning the place you live -- with reverse mortgages and rising property values. I hope at some point in this post you have realized how insane this idea is, or are going to respond to me to clarify that you meant REITs or buying homes you don't live in as an investment or some poo poo, but I'm not holding out hope. Still Dismal posted:Not at all true. There are a wide variety of legal protections that tenants have, and an entire civil court system dedicated to adjudicating landlord tenant disputes. Before you get indignant, I am not saying such protections are perfect or not in need of change (we desperately need a civil gideon for example) . But such protections are possible in the landlord tenant relationship in a way that they aren't in the "homeowner/everyone else" relationship. Tenants do not have the legal protections of customers buying a product. I did not say that they had no legal protections, but nice strawman. It's rare one sees such distilled windmill-tilting, keep at it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 05:35
|
|
|
Still Dismal posted:You are mistaking "Homeowners are worse" with "Landlords are good". Both landlords and homeowners are extracting value from the property they own. Landlords are doing so by providing housing in exchange for money. Homeowners are doing so by doing jack poo poo and just letting their asset passively appreciate off of an artificial scarcity, their only real effort being expended in perpetuating that scarcity. If the primary method of extracting value from property that you own was through doing poo poo like renting it out rather than just letting it appreciate, it would be a massive improvement. what
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 05:46
|
|
|
lmao ok buddy, keep stanning for those poor benighted souls, the true victims of capitalism, California homeowners. And not say, the unhoused or the working people with three hour commutes from the only area they can afford because those plucky lil' homeowners blocked the construction of apartments anywhere closer.Cup Runneth Over posted:
It's a sign of how deep the suburb brain rot goes that even self-ID'd leftists can't picture the people sitting on massive unearned wealth as anything other than honest yeoman o' the land. What the gently caress do you think things like single family zoning are if not "gatekeeping"? Or private homeownership in general. Your mind has been so captured by ideology that you see the people with massively undertaxed assets whose value is largely protected by historic tools of racism like single family zoning as the underdog here. They aren't, but they'll happily let useful idiots like yourself portray them as such. Sadly you'd fit right in in most bay area city council chambers, alongside the people talking about how progressive they are in one breath, and opposing dense affordable housing in the next. Cup Runneth Over posted:
Nope, what's actually happening here is that those homeowners have convinced you that their current status is a natural and inevitable, and nothing short of overthrowing capitalism would change it. And I'm not a landlord, in fact I've been one form of housing insecure in one way or another my entire adult life. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Jul 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 06:08
|
|
|
Disliking homeownership as a concept is fine. The real headscratcher is thinking that landlords, who often own multiple homes and are exploiting their value and the power of ownership to accrue massive wealth far in excess of the labor required to maintain the property, are somehow morally superior. It's a deeply stupid take. And of course the US has 17 million vacant housing units right now so there are plenty of landlords letting property just sit there, essentially doing exactly what you accuse homeowners of doing, except of course that the single homeowner is at least using their one significant asset to see to their need for shelter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Disliking homeownership as a concept is fine. The real headscratcher is thinking that landlords, who often own multiple homes and are exploiting their value and the power of ownership to accrue massive wealth far in excess of the labor required to maintain the property, are somehow morally superior. It's a deeply stupid take. This the basis of Georgism, it's hardly my own crazy idea. To be clear, when I say homeownership I am referring to the idea that homes should be investments that rise in value over time, and the idea that private individuals owning their own homes is somehow morally virtuous or desirable. People having some kind of legal claim to the place that they live is separate from that and is of course good. Fill Baptismal fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Jul 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:00 |
|
|
"I don't think anyone should own property at all, also please allow me to defend landlords for multiple paragraphs." lmao okay buddy 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2020 06:22
|
|
