The Democratic Party's Slide Into Irrelevance
Attaching a poll ... Dems unfavorability rating increased from 45% to 57% during the Biden Administration.
New housing requires land which is incredibly expensive and scarce in San Francisco
Affordable housing requires affordable land which there is zero available in San Francisco
Thats why 99% of their new housing are back yard cottages and basement units
The NIMBYs are doing everything they can to slow down multidwelling and high rise buildings that would actually make economic sense.
This is despite state legal mandates telling SF to get its acts together in terms of building more housing.
The NIMBYs are doing everything they can to slow down multidwelling and high rise buildings that would actually make economic sense.
This is despite state legal mandates telling SF to get its acts together in terms of building more housing.
The wants and opinions of people in the neighborhoods should never even be a consideration in where housing (or any other type of building) is built.
The state should just tell all local governments to delete and ignore any input from locals.
The wants and opinions of people in the neighborhoods should never even be a consideration in where housing (or any other type of building) is built.
The state should just tell all local governments to delete and ignore any input from locals.
The desires of the folks paying city and property taxes in the neighborhood should absolutely have no say in what gets built in their neighborhoods.
If they don't like it, then can take their $$$ and move somewhere else: AND MANY OF THEM WILL!!!
nobody wants more housing if they already ownthe artificial scarcity is a backbone of our economy with people assuming their properties will maintain or increase in value over timein fact, a big part of being a landlord is assuming you can take losses or break even on certain units simply because the value of the property will increase over timeif we increased housing - it upse
Nothing you’re saying is news to me. I’m well aware that homeowners are deliberately preventing the ability to build higher properties because they get an extreme benefit at the cost of everyone who is unlucky enough to be born later chronologically.
That’s why I make it clear every time I talk about this issue that Democrats when they talk about “building affordable housing” are completely obfuscating the issue. Republicans on the other hand just don’t even pretend, they want SFH and have been open about using anti-competitive government regulations to do it. It’s not so bad for them though because if you want to build SFH out in the countryside where the population density is extremely low and land is cheap, no one should care about that. It’s when our biggest cities are under siege by these insane NIMBYs that we have to worry.
And of course it’s a bipartisan issue because Republicans that live in the cities as Inso put it don’t want to live around the people who can only afford cheaper housing. So it’s a win-win-lose a lot of the time (the losers are the people that want to stay in the city and aren’t making 6 figures or didn’t get lucky with a cheap apartment).
That means the cities end up being majority out of touch upper middle class people (the kind that claim to live paycheck to paycheck while bringing in 200k+ a year) and people who get some kind of government assistance. The ones that get squeezed out are the middle and lower middle class who have to move to a lower CoL state and are now mad at big blue states for making it too expensive for them to live.
Exaggerating of course but I think this is a fair picture of what’s going on.
The desires of the folks paying city and property taxes in the neighborhood should absolutely have no say in what gets built in their neighborhoods.
If they don't like it, then can take their $$$ and move somewhere else: AND MANY OF THEM WILL!!!
That would be ideal, because property values would go down, plus there would be extra space available to build denser housing.
That would be ideal, because property values would go down, plus there would be extra space available to build denser housing.
Denser housing for who? If the state goes against the communities wishes, the schools get shittier, stores and restaurants bail, and you're left with, like you say, lower valued property with a diminished tax revenue that are needed to support govt services like fire and emergency leading to deficits.
A total **** show of mismanagement that has been done before but you will get you wish for lower property values if that's what you're shooting for.
Denser housing for who? If the state goes against the communities wishes, the schools get shittier, stores and restaurants bail, and you're left with, like you say, lower valued property with a diminished tax revenue that are needed to support govt services like fire and emergency leading to deficits. A total **** show of mismanagement that has been done before but you will g
Denser housing for the middle / lower-middle class people who can't afford to live in the city now, as has been mentioned above.
If for every 10 rich people who move out, 50+ middle class people move in, I don't think it would result in a lower tax base or any of those related issues. There would be lower property value per residence, but higher overall.
Denser housing for the middle / lower-middle class people who can't afford to live in the city now, as has been mentioned above.
If for every 10 rich people who move out, 50+ middle class people move in, I don't think it would result in a lower tax base or any of those related issues. There would be lower property value per residence, but higher overall.
Sure, and you would collect more money and that would be a good thing as long as it's understood that there are causes and effects - when you deviate away from what the community wants.
Because you'll have more revenue, but you'll also have more costs because you've got more people (which could also be fine). You''ll have to pay for more schools, clinics, transportation ... all that stuff (again, which is fine) but there are benefits to having the people build up their own communities in the way that works for them instead of just Sim City ing it on a more of a mathematical exercise in square footage.
But I think keeping people happy is important. They get along and work together. And they are less likely to leave, and take their businesses with them.
It’s sort of a boring point to go down because the goal should be to bring about things democratically and convince people why what they think works actually has counterintuitive results. Yes, people want to live in a nice neighborhood, but they also want their kids to be able to move somewhere close and start a family.
Regardless, it’s probably right that if people don’t want to adopt these policies, we’ll see people move to where they can live. And as much as you claim that high property values makes people want to stay, it also makes people want to cash out and take their money with them, or move out because renting is unaffordable and they can purchase property elsewhere.
Of course it’s not clear that even building more housing would have the effect of bringing everyone’s home price down. What’s more likely is that it will create opportunities to move into places that weren’t already there. Why that would cause some mass instability in prices is unclear, and it honestly seems like alarmism more than anything.
Sure, and you would collect more money and that would be a good thing as long as it's understood that there are causes and effects - when you deviate away from what the community wants. Because you'll have more revenue, but you'll also have more costs because you've got more people (which could also be fine). You''ll have to pay for more schools, clinics, transportation ... al
Sure, that would be lovely and ideal, but it's not happening. It was just noted by several people that current residents almost never want denser housing in their neighborhoods, and how that's completely rational for them, so it's never going to happen unless cities/states just stop paying attention to the NIMBYs.
People aren't going to leave until it's certain the new units will be going in, and with the housing shortage at least in west coast cities, the new units aren't going to stay empty for long if they're priced correctly.
The only problem would be while the buildings are going up, and the cities could get some kind of loan to cover that period if necessary.
And as much as you claim that high property values makes people want to stay, it also makes people want to cash out and take their money with them, or move out because renting is unaffordable and they can purchase property elsewhere.
.
Tax policies (especially in some states) militate against this. For the most part it makes more sense to rent out high value properties you no longer want to live in than to sell it out right. And that’s exactly what people do.
Even for those that sell, the buyers are more often than not rent seekers (PEs for example)
The wants and opinions of people in the neighborhoods should never even be a consideration in where housing (or any other type of building) is built.
The state should just tell all local governments to delete and ignore any input from locals.
you country is literally founded on "no taxation without representation"
Tax policies (especially in some states) militate against this. For the most part it makes more sense to rent out high value properties you no longer want to live in than to sell it out right. And that’s exactly what people do.
Even for those that sell, the buyers are more often than not rent seekers (PEs for example)
Mortgage should be portable to other property at the same conditions. Capital gains shouldn't exist for residential real estate owned more than x years. They don't even exist in ultra-taxed italy!
Or at the very very minimum, capital gains should be assesses on cost basis + compound inflation , not on cost basis.
People aren't going to leave until it's certain the new units will be going in, and with the housing shortage at least in west coast cities, the new units aren't going to stay empty for long if they're priced correctly.
The only problem would be while the buildings are going up, and the cities could get some kind of loan to cover that period if necessary.
Cities usually get lumpsum payments or at least very large financial commitments to support local infrastructure for high end developments. Anything from developers paying out of pocket to refurbish the subway station attached to straight up building the roads and the rails in a certain area.
There is a name for this... "public/private" partnership.
How is this a taxation issue?
And anyway, there is representation. Obviously this can't happen unless state (or national) government elected officials pass measures approving it. It just shouldn't be up to certain residents to be able to veto anything that happens in their neighborhood. In other words, one property owner shouldn't be able to control what his neighbor property owner does with his property. Isn't that something you support all the time? There will always be someone in the neighborhood who will be happy to sell his property, for a very large profit, to someone who will create housing for many more people; his nextdoor neighbor shouldn't be allowed to stop him from doing that.
Mortgage should be portable to other property at the same conditions. Capital gains shouldn't exist for residential real estate owned more than x years. They don't even exist in ultra-taxed italy!
Or at the very very minimum, capital gains should be assesses on cost basis + compound inflation , not on cost basis.
In the US, no capital gains tax is taken on the first $250,000 of profit from the sale of a primary residence ($500,000 for married couples). That is enough to cover most property value increases for anything other than mega mansions owned by the super-rich.
Tax policies (especially in some states) militate against this. For the most part it makes more sense to rent out high value properties you no longer want to live in than to sell it out right. And that’s exactly what people do.
Even for those that sell, the buyers are more often than not rent seekers (PEs for example)
Having been close to both transactions, rental properties are often huge headaches and the average person going into it is warned that it’s not easy money.
And despite the high tax burden, it can still make a lot of sense to sell the home, because you get access to your equity that is being tied up.
Sure, that would be lovely and ideal, but it's not happening. It was just noted by several people that current residents almost never want denser housing in their neighborhoods, and how that's completely rational for them, so it's never going to happen unless cities/states just stop paying attention to the NIMBYs.
The reality here is that we are embarking on one of the biggest debates about urban planning and something that has been talked about and planned for at great lengths for a very long time be people who have a lot more information than us peons do.
We already do build denser housing in certain locations, job centers, transit hubs and so forth - or add in new development upgrades into the mix that residents want to offset those who might be resistant on the other transitions. Par the new housing with better roads and utilities and **** like that. Again, all be done before.
But the successful cities still plan around the peoples wants considering it's the people who make it everything, and your idea, here on 2+2, to just bulldoze it down and go against what a lot of the Nimbys want, isn't going to be some ahha moment of why didn't I think of that! It's complicated.
Ezra Klein has a good video editorial about how the Democrats need new leadership and need to balk at passing a spending bill at the end of this month, causing most of the federal government to shut down.
