Politics: J'accuse!

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

That was a pretty good response, but I would have said, listen, I've taken your clown-faced burger bullshit for long enough. That woulda shown him.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

That was me, pal. I take back the pro forma nice thing I said about your stupid response. Don't fight the hypothetical -- in my hypo, you heard what I said and, with that risk in mind, bought the car. Sheesh.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
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.

ETA--huh? Ty, you mean? (ETA--yeah, fucky mcfuckster, get it right; there's no ty in my name)

Property taxes on rental housing aren't the issue. The point is whether a property owner should be entitled to maximize the income stream from his property. Sure, on one hand, we tolerate zoning regulations that prohibit a factory in a residential area, and usually a factory is a more valuable use of land. But that's different.

Why? Because with rent control, it's precisely the same use, just by a different person, that changes the value. If I can rent to a tenant for $500 or $2000, why should I be forced to rent to the $500 person (assuming a lease is up)? Put differently, is it right that the value of a property can quadruple simply because someone moves out or dies? That seems like a non-sensical form of regulation.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why? Because with rent control, it's precisely the same use, just by a different person, that changes the value. If I can rent to a tenant for $500 or $2000, why should I be forced to rent to the $500 person (assuming a lease is up)? Put differently, is it right that the value of a property can quadruple simply because someone moves out or dies? That seems like a non-sensical form of regulation.

Exactly. Many poor people need lawyers, and don't get them, but we would be screaming if the feds decreed that every lawyer had to work for twenty hours per week for the poor at $10 per hour. If this is a social need, then the cost should be borne by society, and not simply by the holder of the asset that is undersupplied.

[Effete Liberal Snob]

Originally posted by Gardener
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.

This is utterly outrageous and needs to be stopped.

However, I encourage each and every one of you to pray tomorrow.

Now where is that maple syrup?

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by bilmore
Drudge had this headline this afternoon:

"Abu Ghraib inmate population to be cut in half"...

And I thought, okay, NOW it's war cirmes . . . .

Like the two prisoner deaths already ruled homicides - http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...202EDT0550.DTL ? This is just beginning.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
ETA--huh? Ty, you mean? (ETA--yeah, fucky mcfuckster, get it right; there's no ty in my name)

Apparently I meant Ty. I should have known you are not THAT moronic. If I were about to buy a rental property and was told ahead of time that rent control was going to go into effect shortly, I'd adjust my behavior. Duh.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why? Because with rent control, it's precisely the same use, just by a different person, that changes the value. If I can rent to a tenant for $500 or $2000, why should I be forced to rent to the $500 person (assuming a lease is up)? Put differently, is it right that the value of a property can quadruple simply because someone moves out or dies? That seems like a non-sensical form of regulation.

It all depends on how you look at it. I know you reject anyone having any kind of property right other than the owner, but why should I have to move to Buttfuck Cheapland just because my landlord wants to rent to your yuppie ass, and you are willing to pay a ridiculous premium to live wherever it is that I live that didn't used to be cool but now is?

In any event, if the landlord bought after the rent control stuff went in, s/he knew that was a limitation just like s/he knew that building a factory there (or having a big ugly smelly dirt-belching factory go in across the street where several cute houses used to be, significantly lowering the desirability of the single-family house he now owns because, well, yuck) wasn't an option b/c of zoning. The owner is betting on renter turnover, just like he bets on future development in the area, etc.

If the landlord bought before RC, shouldn't s/he be dead by now? And you don't want to get me started on inheritance.

ETA society is bearing the cost, eventually. Obviously the entire economy affected by this, at least on a micro level (b/c the spending habits of the people who are there differ from those of the BMW-driving yuppie TINKs who would be there, and the landlord has less money than he might, and the renters have more money than they might, or whatever).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

It all depends on how you look at it. I know you reject anyone having any kind of property right other than the owner, but why should I have to move to Buttfuck Cheapland just because my landlord wants to rent to your yuppie ass, and you are willing to pay a ridiculous premium to live wherever it is that I live that didn't used to be cool but now is?

When I look at it that way I still say, because we use the market to allocate goods and services in the United States. That's what distinguishes us from the communists. Why should housing deviate so greatly from this principle? If so, why not require anyone who has a homeless person knock at their door to provide them with a spare bed?

Nothing prevents someone from locking in a long-term rental contract. But I haven't seen too many renters looking for ten year leases.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
When I look at it that way I still say, because we use the market to allocate goods and services in the United States. That's what distinguishes us from the communists. Why should housing deviate so greatly from this principle? If so, why not require anyone who has a homeless person knock at their door to provide them with a spare bed?

Nothing prevents someone from locking in a long-term rental contract. But I haven't seen too many renters looking for ten year leases.

There are all kinds of rules applicable to housing. Why can't landlords rent out housing that is overrun with rats and roaches, with non-functioning plumbing and no heat?

[Replaced_Texan]

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

True story: During the tech boom, I rented an attic apartment from an ex- hippie who bought her house in the Berkeley hills sometime in the 60s. She was as shocked as anyone that she grew up, got a real job, and her house was now worth a fortune. She rented the attic aparment on short term, month-to-month leases in order to get around Berkeley's rent control. Visiting professors and grad students were here bread and butter tenants. I got a fantastic view of the Golden Gate Bridge and a place to crash for a few months while fighting the housing market in the Bay Area, and she got a hell of a lot more rent than she would have under the rent control rules. I think we both won.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
There are all kinds of rules applicable to housing. Why can't landlords rent out housing that is overrun with rats and roaches, with non-functioning plumbing and no heat?

They can't? We should repeal those regulations as well. Although somehow I'm guessing that the need for those regulations coincides with the rise of rent control.

But again, you're conflating arguments for generally applicable regulations and ones that depend solely on the identity of the tenant. Rent control is not public housing, with a specified rent for a specified unit. That's the public utility model, and if taxpayers want to support that, so be it. Rent control specifies a rent for a particular person, and no one else. That person has an option to continue with that rent, but if he/she moves out, any new tenant can be charged, at least initially, the current market rent.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
When I look at it that way I still say, because we use the market to allocate goods and services in the United States. That's what distinguishes us from the communists. Why should housing deviate so greatly from this principle? If so, why not require anyone who has a homeless person knock at their door to provide them with a spare bed?

And those Spada purses, or whatever they're called, that everyone on the FB raves about? We should all have a RIGHT to own one, no matter how much money we have. And those BMW's, the really BIG ones? Why should just the rich bastards get 'em?! MAKE em sell them to me for a price I like! It's my RIGHT!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by LessinSF
Like the two prisoner deaths already ruled homicides - http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...202EDT0550.DTL ? This is just beginning.

Is your point that I have said that those killings were not war crimes? 'Cuz, I didn't. They were war crimes. And I take them more seriously than writing "rapist" on the arm of a rapist.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I got a fantastic view of the Golden Gate Bridge and a place to crash for a few months while fighting the housing market in the Bay Area, and she got a hell of a lot more rent than she would have under the rent control rules. I think we both won.

capitalist pigs. think about the grandmother you conspired to prevent from having a cheap, great view of the bay in her dying years. society has lost.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by LessinSF
This is just beginning.

Kevin Drum points out that some of it was reported by CNN on January 21, but that the story didn't go anywhere without pictures.