Politics: J'accuse!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Duplicity
I wasn't joking about arbitration. If we're going to contract out the military, then why not contract out the regulation of it?

I'm going to assume that whoever signed the contract merely employed the guy who committed the crime. I'm not a litigator, but I vaguely remember something about companies not being liable for employees misdeeds if the employee wasn't acting in the scope of his or her employment. "No, US Governement, he killing prisoners wasn't in the scope of his employment with Guns for Hire, Inc. He was out on a frolic and the arbitration clause has no impact here."

[ltl/fb]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PuriTY
thishttp://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Bush-Cuts-Public-Housing1mar04.htm sort of has Linda Carson spelling out why this landlord issue is really bush's fault. Its pretty interesting reading!

Bush Proposes Huge Cuts to Public Housing
LYNDA CARSON / Street Spirit v.10,n.3, (San Francisco) 1mar04
The massive cutbacks in HUD's budget would place at least 250,000 elderly, disabled and low-income renters at risk of losing their vouchers.

Bush's Public Housing

The Bush Administration's dangerous attempts to achieve world domination by use of force, along with the very expensive creation of a police-state apparatus in America, have cost Americans dearly and have severely cut into the nation's most needed domestic programs for years ahead.

etc.

There is a slim possibility I am whiffing, but I doubt it since I suck at seeing socks and this is an obvious one. If you are going to pretend to be Ty, you need to be more selective in your quotes and edit/format better. Also, you need to study his writing style more.

On a separate note, all of the words ending in "-ty" are causing my head to be full of Odd Todd's voice all the time. Puritay, duplicitay.

ETA, maybe it is cartman. Obviously, I need to watch more cartoons.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Neither went unnoticed. And both headlines scream* for a photogenic copy editor. dtb?

*figuratively, not literally

If you go to press without the benefit of my keen eye -- what can I say? -- you takes your chances.

(Thank you for noting that only photogenic copy editors will do.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Duplicity
I can't think of a good excuse for rent control...

I don't know about rent control where you live, but the fundamental argument for rent control is the same as the argument for having regulated public utilities: basic services needed by the broad population should not be subject to speculation and instability; controlled rent prices converts real estate to an investment that looks more like bonds or public utilities (secure and stable), and that provides a sounder footing for the rest of the economy.

Please comment pro or con, but limit briefs on the issue to no more than 200 words. Multiple replies making the same point will be disregarded. Replies from Hank will not be taken seriously.


-- Greety, Greety, Greety

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't know about rent control where you live, but the fundamental argument for rent control is the same as the argument for having regulated public utilities: basic services needed by the broad population should not be subject to speculation and instability; controlled rent prices converts real estate to an investment that looks more like bonds or public utilities (secure and stable), and that provides a sounder footing for the rest of the economy.

Please comment pro or con, but limit briefs on the issue to no more than 200 words. Multiple replies making the same point will be disregarded. Replies from Hank will not be taken seriously.


-- Greety, Greety, Greety

. Home Sweet Hut


A hurricane is coming, so the Castaways must quickly build one large community hut in which to weather the storm. However, they soon get on each-others nerves, so they later decide to branch out and build individual huts.


b: 03-Oct-1964 w: Bill Davenport & Charles Tannen d: Richard Donner


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't know about rent control where you live, but the fundamental argument for rent control is the same as the argument for having regulated public utilities: basic services needed by the broad population should not be subject to speculation and instability; controlled rent prices converts real estate to an investment that looks more like bonds or public utilities (secure and stable), and that provides a sounder footing for the rest of the economy.

The rationale for regulating prices for those other things is that they are natural monopolies, which housing is not. (Setting apart bilmore's rationale, which is more by way of explanation.) Rent control deters people from investing in housing, with predictable results in places like SF.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I don't know about rent control where you live, but the fundamental argument for rent control is the same as the argument for having regulated public utilities: basic services needed by the broad population should not be subject to speculation and instability; controlled rent prices converts real estate to an investment that looks more like bonds or public utilities (secure and stable), and that provides a sounder footing for the rest of the economy.

Please comment pro or con, but limit briefs on the issue to no more than 200 words. Multiple replies making the same point will be disregarded. Replies from Hank will not be taken seriously.


-- Greety, Greety, Greety

1) Most public utility laws allow for a reasonable rate of return. Many rent control laws do not, for a small landlord with a long-term renter.

2) Even the People's Republic of Massachusetts got rid of rent control. Are you hoping for a return to the days of Mike Dukakis?

(curious fact I just learned: Mike Dukakis was a law school classmate of Antonin Scalia and Laurence Silberman)

(ETA) And, yeah, what Ty said. Cable television is not a necessity.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Duplicity
The rationale for regulating prices for those other things is that they are natural monopolies, which housing is not. (Setting apart bilmore's rationale, which is more by way of explanation.) Rent control deters people from investing in housing, with predictable results in places like SF.

this is different from my post how?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Duplicity
The rationale for regulating prices for those other things is that they are natural monopolies, which housing is not. (Setting apart bilmore's rationale, which is more by way of explanation.) Rent control deters people from investing in housing, with predictable results in places like SF.

Translation: I may be a hippie, but I own investment properTYs.

Seriously, concur 100%. There are particular market conditions that may warrant government regulation of certain specific privately owned housing stock, such as when development rights are conditioned on maintaining a certain number of affordable housing units, but simply transferring land value from Owner to Tenant by limiting market rents, just because Tenants vote in larger numbers, is a mistake. The fact that those mistakes are evident only in the long term means this problem will never be solved.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this is different from my post how?

I'm not smart enough to put it in Gilligan terms.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
I may be a hippie, but I own investment properTYs.

First of all, I'm not a hippie, I'm two bears. Second, in this market, you'd have to be a fool not to have your savings in precious metals. Gold is overrated, but silver and platinum are looking good.

http://www.nationaldayofprayer.org/


Presidential Proclamation 2004

by George W. Bush
"Prayer is an opportunity to praise God for His mighty works. His gift of freedom. His mercy, and His boundless love." -- United States president George W. Bush has issued the National Day of Prayer Proclamation for 2004. Read the proclamation.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
1) Most public utility laws allow for a reasonable rate of return. Many rent control laws do not, for a small landlord with a long-term renter.

I don't really feel one way or the other about rent control, but why would a small landlord with a long-term renter be at a disadvantage? The property value is going to be based on projected income generation, which has to take into account rent control. But, it seems unlikely that the property value would be less than what the owner paid for it. It just won't quadruple in value overnight like people in SF/NY whatever have seen with their houses.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't really feel one way or the other about rent control, but why would a small landlord with a long-term renter be at a disadvantage? The property value is going to be based on projected income generation, which has to take into account rent control. But, it seems unlikely that the property value would be less than what the owner paid for it. It just won't quadruple in value overnight like people in SF/NY whatever have seen with their houses.

If I meet you on the way into the car dealership and tell you that I'll be stealing your car in a couple of weeks, you won't really be at a disadvantage when I steal your car, right?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't really feel one way or the other about rent control, but why would a small landlord with a long-term renter be at a disadvantage? The property value is going to be based on projected income generation, which has to take into account rent control. But, it seems unlikely that the property value would be less than what the owner paid for it. It just won't quadruple in value overnight like people in SF/NY whatever have seen with their houses.

Well, if you're talking about expectation value for a landlord buying rental housing, true, they don't have the argument of surprise (except the folks stuck at the implementation of RC). But the problem is that the value of hte property is determined by its best, highest value use. That means either a renter paying full value (if the old one moves out), or the value to a buyer. Both of these surely are higher than a long-term RC tenant. Which is why landlords in SF apparently are saying "Fuck it, I'm moving into my house, since the rent's so low, it's actually pretty cheap for me to live there. Or live there just long enough to flip it to a developer"

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, if you're talking about expectation value for a landlord buying rental housing, true, they don't have the argument of surprise (except the folks stuck at the implementation of RC). But the problem is that the value of hte property is determined by its best, highest value use. That means either a renter paying full value (if the old one moves out), or the value to a buyer. Both of these surely are higher than a long-term RC tenant. Which is why landlords in SF apparently are saying "Fuck it, I'm moving into my house, since the rent's so low, it's actually pretty cheap for me to live there. Or live there just long enough to flip it to a developer"

Are values for purposes of property taxes really determined on the basis of the highest rent possible? If so, that's wacko.

Unless a buyer is a moron, s/he's going to take into account the current resident(s) and their current rents and then speculate on how long the current residents are going to stay there. The buyer is already speculating on whether the neighborhood as a whole (not just the property in particular) will justify whatever rental payment, etc., as well as any number of other things, so I don't see how that kind of valuation changes anything either.


ETA nice that you noticed your initial response was stupid -- if I knew that the particular car I was buying was more likely to be stolen than another car, I would probalby not be willing to pay as much for it. If I knew it was subject to appropriation, I would probably rent a car. Etc. Sheesh. I expect better of you.