NationStates

CoraSpia wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:Nope, people are worth more than their monetary possessions and are all entitled to a certain standard of living. Besides, who said anything about the taxpayer? The collective will pay for it, but it can be done with the labor value already stolen from them by the 1%.

Oh so we're talking in fantasy land. The collective doesn't exist and never will.

I see we're on to an even purer form of ideology where you deny 'the collective' exists while a page back you were exhorting the existence of 'the taxpayers' as an interest group

Thermodolia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:Housing should be a human right, and people and businesses who own more than one should be taxed at a prohibitively higher and higher rate based on how many they own. The money from that should be used to provide free housing for all.

The problem, at least in California. Isn’t so much the fact that there aren’t enough houses but that there’s more empty bedrooms than people not counting hotels.

So basically if you where required to rent out the extra homes you own so that you could fill out all the bedrooms you’d fix the homeless problem.

Only if its free at point of use.

And I don’t think we should be taxing people just for owning a second or third home. If you own say ten homes then you might want to start taxing higher

I really don't see much reason anyone needs a second or third home, especially when there's an epidemic of people having housing uncertainty, or worse, outright homelessness.

Thermodolia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:Housing should be a human right, and people and businesses who own more than one should be taxed at a prohibitively higher and higher rate based on how many they own. The money from that should be used to provide free housing for all.

The problem, at least in California. Isn’t so much the fact that there aren’t enough houses but that there’s more empty bedrooms than people not counting hotels.

So basically if you where required to rent out the extra homes you own so that you could fill out all the bedrooms you’d fix the homeless problem.

And I don’t think we should be taxing people just for owning a second or third home. If you own say ten homes then you might want to start taxing higher

incidentally, this isn't entirely true
a majority of those "extra homes" are uh...entirely unlivable and a substantial minority aren't actually vacant
it's the artifact of statistical methods-they're just vacant for a few months as they go in-between tenants
it's not just "seize landlord X's extra 5 houses and put homeless people in them"
you can't get out of the problem without building new homes

CoraSpia wrote:

Alcala-Cordel wrote:No one should be able to buy houses

Or sell houses

Or own houses


But everyone is entitled to a home

Nope, you're entitled to what you can afford. Taxpayers (which always just means richer people) have no reason to give you shit for free.

Now in particular, or would we call this a historical constant?

A two-bedroom two-story house with a backyard, and a fifty-unit apartment take up the same amount of lot space. Regardless of who owns it, single-family housing isn't very efficient.

Now corporations buying up properties marketed for the uber rich, which jacks up prices in that the neighborhood can't afford? That's different. That's what zoning boards are for. No need to build luxury condos in the middle of a poor neighborhood.

Enjuku wrote:A two-bedroom two-story house with a backyard, and a fifty-unit apartment take up the same amount of lot space. Regardless of who owns it, single-family housing isn't very efficient.

Now corporations buying up properties marketed for the uber rich, which jacks up prices in that the neighborhood can't afford? That's different. That's what zoning boards are for. No need to build luxury condos in the middle of a poor neighborhood.

To be fair, literally every business advertises their apartments/condos as luxury

Great Algerstonia wrote:

Enjuku wrote:A two-bedroom two-story house with a backyard, and a fifty-unit apartment take up the same amount of lot space. Regardless of who owns it, single-family housing isn't very efficient.

Now corporations buying up properties marketed for the uber rich, which jacks up prices in that the neighborhood can't afford? That's different. That's what zoning boards are for. No need to build luxury condos in the middle of a poor neighborhood.

To be fair, literally every business advertises their apartments/condos as luxury

Here's a typical luxury apartment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgz_bg00OZ8

Enjuku wrote:A two-bedroom two-story house with a backyard, and a fifty-unit apartment take up the same amount of lot space.

Unless you're talking about a backyard that is incredibly huge, I really, really don't know how you can honestly say that. 20 years ago, my grandparents had a 2 story house with a backyard, and at best, you could maybe fit 4 single-bedroom, single-story apartments in that space. Of course, once you get into multi-level apartment buildings, the space required for parking becomes more and more significant, and you probably couldn't make a 3-story apartment building and the required parking fit in that lot size.

Peaceful and Voluntary Exchange wrote:

Kowani wrote:i don't get how anyone thinks this is an own
the problem with unaffordable housing in areas run by democrats is a consequence of economic strength as a result of liberalism being paired with right-wing housing policy
the solution is moving left on those issues, not more market fundamentalism
the reason houses are affordable in republican governed areas is a bit more complex, and has to do with general economic hollowing-out as a result of disinvestment and trade policy (though i'd argue competitive advantage made the latter inevitable)
the problem is that the democrats are fundamentally a right-wing party on economic issues, and this shows nowhere more strongly than housing
the other problem is just
you don't understand how demand works

"economic hollowing-out" ?!

Have you seen the recent census data?

Americans and jobs are moving out of progressive Democrat governed hellholes into largely Red states. The fact is wherever there are progressives governing you have crippling inequality.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/medi ... 472e46.png

Leftist policies, High taxes and onerous regulation in progressive hellholes have increased prices across the board making life a futile challenge for poor Democrat constituents and lining the pockets of rich Democrat elites.

Now if we pull up the article this is from
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ty/360130/
It says that the richest districts are democratic. But weren't they supposed to be poor?

Peaceful and Voluntary Exchange wrote:

Kowani wrote:i don't get how anyone thinks this is an own
the problem with unaffordable housing in areas run by democrats is a consequence of economic strength as a result of liberalism being paired with right-wing housing policy
the solution is moving left on those issues, not more market fundamentalism
the reason houses are affordable in republican governed areas is a bit more complex, and has to do with general economic hollowing-out as a result of disinvestment and trade policy (though i'd argue competitive advantage made the latter inevitable)
the problem is that the democrats are fundamentally a right-wing party on economic issues, and this shows nowhere more strongly than housing
the other problem is just
you don't understand how demand works

"economic hollowing-out" ?!

the fact that you're reacting with disbelief indicates to me you don't actually live in a rural area
probably suburban, then
explains a lot
the economic hollowing-out of rural and smalltown american is quite possibly one of the most documented trends in modern america

Have you seen the recent census data?

Americans and jobs are moving out of progressive Democrat governed hellholes into largely Red states.

so firstly this is an oversimplification and it's not entirely accurate
secondly, there's a key question you're not addressing: where are they moving within those states?
they're going from blue sanfran to blue austin

The fact is wherever there are progressives governing you have crippling inequality.

so firstly, there are no jurisdictions-city or state-where "progressives" are governing
you have liberals in certain areas, but as aforementioned, the problem with them is that their economic policies are too far to the right*
but "liberal" and "progressive" are not the same thing-and they have very different policy perscriptions

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/medi ... 472e46.png

Leftist policies, High taxes and onerous regulation in progressive hellholes have increased prices across the board making life a futile challenge for poor Democrat constituents and lining the pockets of rich Democrat elites.

yeah it's almost like having economic right-wingers (please point me to any "leftists" in power) in power in cities leads to inequality
why do republican areas suffer less from it?
the aforementioned hollowing-out of rural areas, a lack of state services, brain drain, and general population density means low aggregate demand
the income inequality is low because there isn't much money in the first place

Nilokeras wrote:

CoraSpia wrote:Nope, you're entitled to what you can afford. Taxpayers (which always just means richer people) have no reason to give you shit for free.

A beautifully plated meal of pure ideology, fresh from the trash can.

The pot calls the kettle black.

Kowani wrote:why do republican areas suffer less from it?

I'd argue they're suffering just as much. They've just been brainwashed into thinking its all the fault of the Democrats, illegal aliens, and leftism.

Grenartia wrote:

Kowani wrote:why do republican areas suffer less from it?

I'd argue they're suffering just as much. They've just been brainwashed into thinking its all the fault of the Democrats, illegal aliens, and leftism.

i mean
in the aggregate, yes
but not within-districts, which is what we were talking about

As many as possible: in an ideal world I'd restrict the number of homes a single person/corporation can own to three: one where you live for most the year, maybe one in another city that you commute to frequently enough that you need a home there, and a vacation home, just so there would be enough homes for people to live in, and that housing would not be used as an investment.

As for me though, I'd prefer condos. All the pros of not having to pay rent (but only for maintenance), and the pros of not having to deal with yardwork and what not, plus condos would be more walkable than suburbia which would honestly be great for me as I can choose between restaurants/grocery stores/where have you as opposed to where I live where there is a corner store a couple blocks from me, a gas station convenience store a couple more blocks away and a restaurant which I've never bothered to check.

Grenartia wrote:

Enjuku wrote:A two-bedroom two-story house with a backyard, and a fifty-unit apartment take up the same amount of lot space.

Unless you're talking about a backyard that is incredibly huge, I really, really don't know how you can honestly say that. 20 years ago, my grandparents had a 2 story house with a backyard, and at best, you could maybe fit 4 single-bedroom, single-story apartments in that space. Of course, once you get into multi-level apartment buildings, the space required for parking becomes more and more significant, and you probably couldn't make a 3-story apartment building and the required parking fit in that lot size.

You could technically remove the parking lot element by either totally relying on public transportation or just turning the basement into the parking deck

Luziyca wrote:As many as possible: in an ideal world I'd restrict the number of homes a single person/corporation can own to three: one where you live for most the year, maybe one in another city that you commute to frequently enough that you need a home there, and a vacation home, just so there would be enough homes for people to live in, and that housing would not be used as an investment.

As for me though, I'd prefer condos. All the pros of not having to pay rent (but only for maintenance), and the pros of not having to deal with yardwork and what not, plus condos would be more walkable than suburbia which would honestly be great for me as I can choose between restaurants/grocery stores/where have you as opposed to where I live where there is a corner store a couple blocks from me, a gas station convenience store a couple more blocks away and a restaurant which I've never bothered to check.

You could easily just not have a lawn. I mean that’s what I did. I have a house with just a rock lawn no yard work required

Thermodolia wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Unless you're talking about a backyard that is incredibly huge, I really, really don't know how you can honestly say that. 20 years ago, my grandparents had a 2 story house with a backyard, and at best, you could maybe fit 4 single-bedroom, single-story apartments in that space. Of course, once you get into multi-level apartment buildings, the space required for parking becomes more and more significant, and you probably couldn't make a 3-story apartment building and the required parking fit in that lot size.

You could technically remove the parking lot element by either totally relying on public transportation or just turning the basement into the parking deck

You can't 100% rely on public transport. Especially not in America, and especially especially not in the South. And in south Louisiana, you cannot build basements. Hell, why do you think we have above-ground cemetaries?

Thermodolia wrote:You could easily just not have a lawn. I mean that’s what I did. I have a house with just a rock lawn no yard work required

If it doesn't look aesthetically pleasing, its just not practical to not have a lawn. And people can usually forget about astroturf or artificial grass because most of it has a runaway greenhouse effect where it heats up and gives off an unacceptable amount of heat depending on what hot weather goes through a location. It sounds like it'd be quite costly to fully grade a large field to be level enough to accept gravel, which in itself will be very expensive if you need a lot of it to fully cover the area.

Luziyca wrote:As many as possible: in an ideal world I'd restrict the number of homes a single person/corporation can own to three: one where you live for most the year, maybe one in another city that you commute to frequently enough that you need a home there, and a vacation home, just so there would be enough homes for people to live in, and that housing would not be used as an investment.

If real estate isn't available as an investment, then this takes away the incentive for anyone to want to do any home improvement of any sort, beyond the bare minimum like fixing a leaking roof.

Luziyca wrote:As for me though, I'd prefer condos. All the pros of not having to pay rent (but only for maintenance), and the pros of not having to deal with yardwork and what not, plus condos would be more walkable than suburbia..

Sure, if you don't mind possibly having neighbors who you can't do anything about within close distance, and if your neighboring units have renters in them as opposed to owners, you'll have to tolerate frequent move ins and move outs. As you're commuting to or from your room, perhaps boxes of crap will be in your way as this is happening.

Grenartia wrote:And in south Louisiana, you cannot build basements. Hell, why do you think we have above-ground cemetaries?

Cemetaries are such a bad waste of land. Cremation should be used 100% of the time for anyone who dies. The land a cemetary sits on will almost certainly be repurposed for something else more useful eventually, if the land keeps existing.

anyone with money should be able to buy houses, but empty houses should be taxed heavily for being unoccupied.

Saiwania wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You could easily just not have a lawn. I mean that’s what I did. I have a house with just a rock lawn no yard work required

If it doesn't look aesthetically pleasing, its just not practical to not have a lawn. And people can usually forget about astroturf or artificial grass because most of it has a runaway greenhouse effect where it heats up and gives off an unacceptable amount of heat depending on what hot weather goes through a location. It sounds like it'd be quite costly to fully grade a large field to be level enough to accept gravel, which in itself will be very expensive if you need a lot of it to fully cover the area.

I don’t even use artificial turf. I just used rocks and plants. When I lived in georgia I used moss to cover the ground.

Grenartia wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You could technically remove the parking lot element by either totally relying on public transportation or just turning the basement into the parking deck

You can't 100% rely on public transport. Especially not in America, and especially especially not in the South. And in south Louisiana, you cannot build basements. Hell, why do you think we have above-ground cemetaries?

We should revitalize our public transport system.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
You can't 100% rely on public transport. Especially not in America, and especially especially not in the South. And in south Louisiana, you cannot build basements. Hell, why do you think we have above-ground cemetaries?

We should revitalize our public transport system.

I mean, ideally, yes, but that's quite the pipe dream in the current political climate, especially in the South. And even if it can be politically done, practically speaking, private vehicles would still be necessary for a significant portion of the population.

Grenartia wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:We should revitalize our public transport system.

I mean, ideally, yes, but that's quite the pipe dream in the current political climate, especially in the South. And even if it can be politically done, practically speaking, private vehicles would still be necessary for a significant portion of the population.

We would frankly have to totally reorient how we approach urban planning to make mass public transport sustainable.
...Which is not a bad idea, but frankly communism may be more reasonable a demand than that.

I mean if you are legal citizen of some country and if you have enough money you should be able to buy a house without any restrictions. I don't see any reason why someone wouldn't be allowed to buy it.

Kubra wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
I mean, ideally, yes, but that's quite the pipe dream in the current political climate, especially in the South. And even if it can be politically done, practically speaking, private vehicles would still be necessary for a significant portion of the population.

We would frankly have to totally reorient how we approach urban planning to make mass public transport sustainable.
...Which is not a bad idea, but frankly communism may be more reasonable a demand than that.

I don't even think its a matter of communism vs capitalism, or urban planning (though that can certainly alter the degree of the issue). Its just an inherent fact of life that you're always going to need to go somewhere that public transport either doesn't reach, or is inefficient at reaching in a timely fashion, or when you need to transport more cargo than you can carry in your arms, and less cargo than can be justified to rent a moving van (say, grocery store trips, or going to the laundromat).