Politics: J'accuse!

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I fully support free rent for inmates in the correctional facility of the government's choosing.

I think they should have to make license plates.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Duplicity
I think they should have to make license plates.

I kind of like the free-market industriousness some prisons engender:

I bought myself some nice products here .

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Duplicity
I own, so lose that notion. And my last paragraph, which is the crux of the issue for me, is that rent control is, on balance, bad for everyone. Some few renters benefit, but other renters lose, and so do landlords. Setting aside the landlords entirely, since they are subhuman and do not deserve equal protection under the law, I think rent control hurts people. It deters the building of new housing, and it makes what housing is out there more expensive.

I refer you to the PM I sent you, which responds to the PM you sent me with more info.

Whatever. I note again that I have never said that rent control is nirvana. I'm merely pointing out that it is a (but not the sole and only and bestest or worstest) rational response and does, to an extent, have the intended effects. It also has other effects. Shocking.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Duplicity
(1) It is an enormous hardship on landlords. That landlord in SF was getting $500/mo. instead of (maybe) $2000/mo. (depending on location, etc. -- I don't know where that was). That's a lot of money.

(1a) You say this is mitigated by the fact that landlords who bought after rent control knew what they were getting into. Maybe so. But maybe they had the property for longer. Or maybe rent control was initially thought of as a temporary thing. I dunno.

(2) But who cares about the fatcat landlords? The big problem with rent control is that it screws up the rental market for the rest of us. Market rents in SF are crazy, and it's at least partly because of the people staying where they are because they don't want to lose their rent controlled digs. No one wants to invest in new housing because rent control limits your returns. It's a mess.

eta: This last bit coming with someone who doesn't have an objection in principle to government regulation. These regulations, it seems to me, have pernicious effects.

-Ty,

You are turning into Bilmore. And, I'll bet, that as you are now so once was he.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
. I note again that I have never said that rent control is nirvana. I'm merely pointing out that it is a (but not the sole and only and bestest or worstest) rational response and does, to an extent, have the intended effects. It also has other effects. Shocking.

Sure, but the efficacy with which it achieves its intended goal is rivaled only by the war on drugs. and that's not company you want your policies to be in .

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Mmmm! Houston for everyone!

No, I can see the merit of residential vs. commercial vs. industrial zoning, b/c of the types of traffic and environmental stuff, etc. It's the different types of housing zoning that irritate me. Pure wealth preservation for the haves.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Interesting. I think there would be real merit to a system in which the government could subsidize private housing for low-income persons by way of vouchers or tax-advantaged rents. This would cause welfare and public assistance activists to howl, because it would break up their constitutents' "community" (which is really nothing other than a political constituency conveniently housed in one easy-to-canvass building), but it would really be the best thing for everyone involved.

If a welfare recipient could, in a perfect world, take a housing voucher to a private landlord and get an apartment in an economically diverse* neighborhood, that would go a long way toward breaking up the culture of poverty and dependence, because a housing-assistance family would be living alongside persons who've never been on the dole.

Oh, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.

*Literally diverse, not a euphemism for lots of a single minority.

leave flinty out of this. he tried to talk you out of that burrito last night.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but the efficacy with which it achieves its intended goal is rivaled only by the war on drugs. and that's not company you want your policies to be in .

Have I ever chosen to live in a place that has rent control? As already stated, no. Perhaps one could consider that voting with my feet.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, I can see the merit of residential vs. commercial vs. industrial zoning, b/c of the types of traffic and environmental stuff, etc. It's the different types of housing zoning that irritate me. Pure wealth preservation for the haves.

Now zoning is something I've never understood. It's the white trash in me - I think we should all be able to put our trailers whereever we want.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Oh, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.

Ideally, if we could take you, and all the other similarly-situated people with monkeys flying out of THEIR butts, and spread you out evenly among the non-monkey-butt population, it would go a long way, I think, towards demystifying and undemonizing the monkeys-out-of-butts lifestyle for the non-monkeys-out-of-butts people, along with helping you monkey-butts observe and absorb the good parts of the non-monkey-butt lifestyle. Yeah, it does fracture the discrete monkey-butt culture, but I continue to believe that the melting pot idea works better for all of us in the long run. You can have monkeys flying out of your butts and STILL pursue the dream.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Interesting. I think there would be real merit to a system in which the government could subsidize private housing for low-income persons by way of vouchers or tax-advantaged rents. This would cause welfare and public assistance activists to howl, because it would break up their constitutents' "community" (which is really nothing other than a political constituency conveniently housed in one easy-to-canvass building), but it would really be the best thing for everyone involved.

If a welfare recipient could, in a perfect world, take a housing voucher to a private landlord and get an apartment in an economically diverse* neighborhood, that would go a long way toward breaking up the culture of poverty and dependence, because a housing-assistance family would be living alongside persons who've never been on the dole.

Oh, and monkeys might fly out of my butt.

*Literally diverse, not a euphemism for lots of a single minority.

Uh, are you being sarcastic? Or are there a bunch of shitty monkeys flying around some places? Like Chicago, I think.

[Duplicity]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Uh, are you being sarcastic? Or are there a bunch of shitty monkeys flying around some places? Like Chicago, I think.

AG is trying to say that he's all for helping poor people, but not if they have wings and can fly over and shit on his neighborhood.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You are turning into Bilmore.

That was a compliment, and, consequently, untrue.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Now zoning is something I've never understood. It's the white trash in me - I think we should all be able to put our trailers whereever we want.

Have you read the case? It's fucking ridiculous. I think one of the names in it starts with a "B." It came out not so long after the racial zoning laws were struck down. It upheld the economic (I mean, health and welfare concerned) zoning laws. Because it's OK to despise the poor -- it is their own damn fault. Black people were born black.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Uh, are you being sarcastic? Or are there a bunch of shitty monkeys flying around some places? Like Chicago, I think.

Not technically sarcasm, because the aspiration of economically diverse housing is sincerely felt. The universal meaning behind "yeah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt" is that some result is highly desired but also highly unlikely. What this says about the level of my desire to actually have monkeys fly out of my butt, I leave to others.