Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Except your solution isn't really sustainable in the context of cops regularly seeking out and dispersing those who employ your solution. Not to mention wild animals of which sightings are often reported.
I don't mind meeting a cougar in an indoor setting (say, in a club), but don't want to meet one outdoors when I'm sleeping in a tent under an overpass.
In most countries that rely on this sort of cheap housing a tipping point is reached and the cops usually just give up . Afterall when you are in a cow pasture you don't deliberately step in cow patties. Also if one lives in a country like Brazil, Nigeria, India or Phillipines and you are sufficently well off you just get used to it and the fact your cities have parts that could pass for a 1st World country and other parts are slums, favelas or shantytowns and all those poor people just become invisible. One does this to prevent ones self from going mad. All Americans should live for a year and a half in such nations as I've mentioned it would do wonders for their education.
You and your fellow citizens are not some powerless entities who are unable to change anything. You can put ballot measures up, etc.
Heck you can even disincorporate your city with enough local voters.
But heres the thing, you live in a giant HOA called a city. By moving there, you have agreed to be bound by the rules. You can change them.
Instead you act like you shouldn't be bound by the rules of your city or state. You CHOOSE that city/state. Pick somewhere else if you don't like it, or change the rules with the consent of the people in that group. But whining about it is kinda foolish.
Now back to the original topic.
We've discussed libertarian ideas on how to make this occur (Ideas I agree with even-ie change the laws dealing with minimum lot size etc.). What about Republican ideas? A tax cut for housing of this nature? Tax exemption? Or?
Um, I don't think so. Poor people can put up ballot measures and have them defeated by Big Money thrown at them by the homeowner majority or special interests such as Realtors. If necessary, the oppoition can run to the Legislature too prohibit local governments from doing the thing the ballot measure would accomplish. (This happened in 1988 when Detroit voters qualified a rent control proposal for the November ballot.)
In Oregon, a neighborhood cannot vote itself free of a city and thus, once annexed, is forever captive to the citywide majority. A homeowner majority can keep politically captive a renter minority.
So it I stay outside the city, I'm still politically captive to the homeowner majority of the county.
I presume you own your home, and I find it implausible that you somehow are unable to grasp the class warfare that plays out in the rules you exalt.
Now I find intriguing and appealinng the idea of a tax cut for housing of this type, but I cannot imagine a protectionist homeower majority supporting it.
Um, I don't think so. Poor people can put up ballot measures and have them defeated by Big Money thrown at them by the homeowner majority or special interests such as Realtors. If necessary, the oppoition can run to the Legislature too prohibit local governments from doing the thing the ballot measure would accomplish. (This happened in 1988 when Detroit voters qualified a rent control proposal for the November ballot.)
Again "big money" can only influence a vote to a certain degree. Studies say about 5-10%. After that though the amount of money spent becomes irrelevant as long as the opposing side has enough of a minimum amount to get their side heard. Often just being in a voters pamphlet is enough.
And yes the larger statewide group you are part of can do that. Kinda sucky, but there ya go. a statewide ballot would be their choice then.
Quote:
In Oregon, a neighborhood cannot vote itself free of a city and thus, once annexed, is forever captive to the citywide majority. A homeowner majority can keep politically captive a renter minority.
Read the link carefully. you CAN disincorporate in Oregon, however the majority of voters eligible to vote must say yes. I used to live there.
Quote:
So it I stay outside the city, I'm still politically captive to the homeowner majority of the county.
I presume you own your home, and I find it implausible that you somehow are unable to grasp the class warfare that plays out in the rules you exalt.
Now I find intriguing and appealinng the idea of a tax cut for housing of this type, but I cannot imagine a protectionist homeower majority supporting it.
I did not always own a home. lol. But yes I do so now. Owning a home makes you FAR more captive to the area. Its far harder to just move. So yes since you are in the area, and have a vested financial interest in the home valuations-you tend to be more protective of them. But in the end you have just 1 vote like everyone else in your area.
No, it sounds like common sense. No one is willing to build housing that there is no market for (without subsidies). And, why should there be subsidies?
Will the government subsidize me buying a new car that I couldn't afford otherwise?
This is just plain stupid!
There shouldn't be subsidies. But a "government of the people, by the people and for the people" is doing a disservice to its constituents when it fails to get out of the way and stop impeding a private sector solution. The private sector WOULD build the relevant housing if only government would get out of the way.
Chevy Sonics and Ford Fiestas are made because not everyone can afford a Lexus or a Bimmer, but government says there is not enough room for the housing equivalents of those four cars, thereby taking the more affordable options off the table.
Again "big money" can only influence a vote to a certain degree. Studies say about 5-10%. After that though the amount of money spent becomes irrelevant as long as the opposing side has enough of a minimum amount to get their side heard. Often just being in a voters pamphlet is enough.
And yes the larger statewide group you are part of can do that. Kinda sucky, but there ya go. a statewide ballot would be their choice then.
Read the link carefully. you CAN disincorporate in Oregon, however the majority of voters eligible to vote must say yes. I used to live there.
I did not always own a home. lol. But yes I do so now. Owning a home makes you FAR more captive to the area. Its far harder to just move. So yes since you are in the area, and have a vested financial interest in the home valuations-you tend to be more protective of them. But in the end you have just 1 vote like everyone else in your area.
A poor (renter) minority cannot disincorporate if the non-poor (homeowner) majority won't let them.
Markets are based on voluntary Demand. Demand does not automatically create a Market. For one plthing, Capital has to be available, plus at a minimum, the cost of the Capital has to be recouped.
Note also that the immutable Laws of Economics levy severe penalties for not using Capital efficiently.
That's one reason jobs are leaving the US....Labor Capital is not being used efficiently.
There are 1,539 separate Markets in the US.
Did you check all of them?
You may have to relocate. What are you Hopi or something? 'Cause "relocate" doesn't seem to be part of your vocabulary.
If you get priced out, you'll just have to leave....too bad, so sad.
If you get priced out of an iPhone, you'll just have to settle for Samsung.
That's it works....
Mircea
Neither the government nor private sector owes anyone affordable housing.
Do it the way European immigrants did. Several families shared apartments, ate potato soup and saved every Penny till they could buy a 2 flat and let renters pay their mortgage.
I can't speak for everyone (though my views aren't really conservative, but somewhat libertarian) would be strict regulations on corporations and limited to almost no regulations on other businesses. Basically, end corporate America and create a legitimate free market.
Also, if I had the power to do so, I'd charge an insane amount of politicians and corporate business men with political corruption and arguably treason as I consider what many of them do to be an absolute defacement of actual America values.
There shouldn't be subsidies. But a "government of the people, by the people and for the people" is doing a disservice to its constituents when it fails to get out of the way and stop impeding a private sector solution. The private sector WOULD build the relevant housing if only government would get out of the way.
The old-school private-sector solution was to 1.) Restrict the movement of poor immigrants or black/Puerto Rican migrants, and 2.) Rent unsafe and unsanitary dwellings to these desperate people who could not move anywhere else.
I'm not saying that changing regulations couldn't help, but the private sector has failed low-income people in the past.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
