The American Eviction Crisis: Countdown to Doomsday

[Plzen]

The provision of a right as a public service by a democratic authority. Really, what is to understand?

The specifics may differ, but assuming a generic and uninspired representative-social-democratic model:

How do you incentivize new housing to be built if the end user doesn't pay?

By state fiat.

Does the government pay for new housing construction at need(and how does the government pay for this)?

Yes, with taxes (and the other usual methods by which a government collects revenue).

If so, what incentivizes the government to prioritize housing quality?

Because if they don't, people will be upset and therefore less inclined to re-elect the sitting government.

What about converting housing in between occupants? Who pays for major repairs, and what incentivizes them to actually do so? Who coordinates distribution of available housing?

The State, for all of these, because if they don't do it properly, see above.

What role do individual preferences play in housing allotment?

Letting the State know in what economic basin you are being educated/employed/etc. in, so the State knows what general region your house ought to be in. Some limited personal choice regarding orientation, height, etc might be indulged, depending on availability

In a capitalist market, sellers who have resources and desire profit come out and compete for the patronage of buyers who have money by offering them services. In a democratic state, sellers who have resources and desire re-election come out and compete for the patronage of citizens who have voting rights by offering them services. The primary difference between the two is that there isn't very much inequality in how many votes any given citizen wields, but there is a vast inequality in how much money they have.

I don't hold Ifreann's opinion that the housing market should be fully decommodified, but it is perfectly possible to run a private housing market and housing provided as a public service in parallel. After all, many civilised countries do the same with education or healthcare - these things are often both a right and a commodity. Why not housing?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Housing decommodified and guaranteed for all people, no exceptions, ideally with local communities democratically making decisions about building more housing or converting unused housing. No one has to buy a house ever again, no one has to pay rent ever again. You want to live in the big city? Someone there wants to move out of the city, you can have the house they won't be using any more, no money need change hands.

---

Do you want people to be evicted?

We have a governor not a king

If you believe that only a king could stop mass evictions then you should be advocating for a king.

[San Lumen]

We have a governor not a king

Why are you pro-eviction?

Never said I was

[Greed and Death]

What do you want to replace it and why do you think it will do better?

Housing decommodified and guaranteed for all people, no exceptions, ideally with local communities democratically making decisions about building more housing or converting unused housing. No one has to buy a house ever again, no one has to pay rent ever again. You want to live in the big city? Someone there wants to move out of the city, you can have the house they won't be using any more, no money need change hands.

Local communities will under develop as they have no incentive to house people who do not yet live there and people will generally vote to maintain low densities.


How are these spots in high demand cities assigned when they open up ? Waiting list ? That could be decades. Lottery ? That could be even worse. Let the person moving out decide? He or she will be paid in such a case.

[Diopolis]

Housing decommodified and guaranteed for all people, no exceptions, ideally with local communities democratically making decisions about building more housing or converting unused housing. No one has to buy a house ever again, no one has to pay rent ever again. You want to live in the big city? Someone there wants to move out of the city, you can have the house they won't be using any more, no money need change hands.

Local communities will under develop as they have no incentive to house people who do not yet live there and people will generally vote to maintain low densities.


How are these spots in high demand cities assigned when they open up ? Waiting list ? That could be decades. Lottery ? That could be even worse. Let the person moving out decide? He or she will be paid in such a case.

This sounds like a recipe for overpriced black market flophouses.
Having lived in a flophouse, and worked construction before, someone has to get paid in all this, or new housing doesn't get built.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Why are you pro-eviction?

Never said I was

Yet seem to be opposing things that would aid in the prevention of people being evicted.

[Diopolis]

Never said I was

Yet seem to be opposing things that would aid in the prevention of people being evicted.

Realistically, I doubt the "wave of evictions" will be anywhere near what it's being made out to be, for the simple reason that landlords are hurting for cash and would rather take something(even if it's less than what they're owed) than nothing.

[Thermodolia]

Yet seem to be opposing things that would aid in the prevention of people being evicted.

Realistically, I doubt the "wave of evictions" will be anywhere near what it's being made out to be, for the simple reason that landlords are hurting for cash and would rather take something(even if it's less than what they're owed) than nothing.

Well that’s if Trump doesn’t use executive orders to extend the eviction ban

[Diopolis]

Realistically, I doubt the "wave of evictions" will be anywhere near what it's being made out to be, for the simple reason that landlords are hurting for cash and would rather take something(even if it's less than what they're owed) than nothing.

Well that’s if Trump doesn’t use executive orders to extend the eviction ban

Last I saw was he was going to waive payroll taxes, idk about eviction ban.

[San Lumen]

Realistically, I doubt the "wave of evictions" will be anywhere near what it's being made out to be, for the simple reason that landlords are hurting for cash and would rather take something(even if it's less than what they're owed) than nothing.

Well that’s if Trump doesn’t use executive orders to extend the eviction ban

Which might not be constitutional

[Thermodolia]

Well that’s if Trump doesn’t use executive orders to extend the eviction ban

Which might not be constitutional

Who cares at this point. I’d rather not have a mass wave of evictions

[Cisairse]

Yet seem to be opposing things that would aid in the prevention of people being evicted.

Realistically, I doubt the "wave of evictions" will be anywhere near what it's being made out to be, for the simple reason that landlords are hurting for cash and would rather take something(even if it's less than what they're owed) than nothing.

This is so untrue it's actually hilarious that you'd even post it. We consistently have huge amounts of unrented and unsold property despite there being widespread homelessness.

[San Lumen]

Which might not be constitutional

Who cares at this point. I’d rather not have a mass wave of evictions

Why bother having a congress then? Let’s just crown every governor a king or queen at this point and let them do whatever they want

[Cisairse]

Who cares at this point. I’d rather not have a mass wave of evictions

Why bother having a congress then? Let’s just crown every governor a king or queen at this point and let them do whatever they want

...We literally can do that, you know, right?

There is nothing saying that states can't have dictatorial regimes. They just have to be republics. You can easily have an autocratic dictatorial republic.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Realistically, I doubt the "wave of evictions" will be anywhere near what it's being made out to be, for the simple reason that landlords are hurting for cash and would rather take something(even if it's less than what they're owed) than nothing.

This is so untrue it's actually hilarious that you'd even post it. We consistently have huge amounts of unrented and unsold property despite there being widespread homelessness.

Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

[Juristonia]

Who cares at this point. I’d rather not have a mass wave of evictions

Why bother having a congress then? Let’s just crown every governor a king or queen at this point and let them do whatever they want

We're having a big hyperbole day today, aren't we?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Well that’s if Trump doesn’t use executive orders to extend the eviction ban

Which might not be constitutional

You might want to detail how an eviction ban would be unconstitutional.

[Diopolis]

Well that’s if Trump doesn’t use executive orders to extend the eviction ban

Which might not be constitutional

Virtually nothing the government has done has been constitutional in centuries.

Realistically, I doubt the "wave of evictions" will be anywhere near what it's being made out to be, for the simple reason that landlords are hurting for cash and would rather take something(even if it's less than what they're owed) than nothing.

This is so untrue it's actually hilarious that you'd even post it. We consistently have huge amounts of unrented and unsold property despite there being widespread homelessness.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive, and in any case, evictions are expensive enough to change the calculus somewhat.

[Dresderstan]

Who cares at this point. I’d rather not have a mass wave of evictions

Why bother having a congress then? Let’s just crown every governor a king or queen at this point and let them do whatever they want

Cut it with the overdramatic hyperbole like you always do.

[Cisairse]

Which might not be constitutional

Virtually nothing the government has done has been constitutional in centuries.

[Diopolis]

Virtually nothing the government has done has been constitutional in centuries.

The entirety of the new deal, the vast majority of what was required to fight the civil war, the income tax prior to a constitutional amendment(which did exist), Indian removal, the gun control act, the war on drugs, every war since WWII, and quite a bit of what went on in trustbusting, just to name some basic examples.

[Cisairse]

The entirety of the new deal, the vast majority of what was required to fight the civil war, the income tax prior to a constitutional amendment(which did exist), Indian removal, the gun control act, the war on drugs, every war since WWII, and quite a bit of what went on in trustbusting, just to name some basic examples.

None of those violate the Constitution.

[Saiwania]

So I'd avoid banking collapse by authorizing banks to loot the assets of rich people and corporations. Who won't like it one bit, and will never trust that bank again. So it has to be all banks, and those who come out ahead will gladly give a cut to government for making it all possible.

The money of depositors' isn't the banks' to steal or misuse. Banks can lend money out and make interest off of it but that is it. The principal amount individuals and entities have deposited into a savings or checking account, it is still rightfully theirs. We have FDIC to begin with, so people can trust the US banking system to some extent- enough so anyways; to not be in a rush to take all of their money out whenever the economy crashes.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Never said I was

Yet seem to be opposing things that would aid in the prevention of people being evicted.

Rainbow Capitalism!

[The Reformed American Republic]

The entirety of the new deal, the vast majority of what was required to fight the civil war, the income tax prior to a constitutional amendment(which did exist), Indian removal, the gun control act, the war on drugs, every war since WWII, and quite a bit of what went on in trustbusting, just to name some basic examples.

None of those violate the Constitution.

I think Indian Removal was found to be unconstitutional, and the Government did it anyway.

Why bother having a congress then? Let’s just crown every governor a king or queen at this point and let them do whatever they want

Cut it with the overdramatic hyperbole like you always do.

Indeed. Executive orders are not an abuse of power. Congress is useless nowadays anyway.