***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[rexanglorum]

When housing stock is low, affluent people outbid lower-income people for what could be more affordable units.

For lower and middle-income people to keep up, they have to spend more of their monthly budget on housing. The higher the percentage goes, the closer they are to becoming homeless

Even s higher-rise luxury condo relieves some of that pressure pushing the cost of housing up. It meets the demand for more affluent renters, and those renters in turn don't drive up the cost of more affordable units.

So yes, someone objecting to a high rise because it doesn't fit their personal politics, and letting people be pushed closer to homelessness is IMO, NIMBY behavior

Even if we don't call it NIMBYISM, it is counterproductive and selfish.

Sure, if the high rise actually fills up.

It’s an issue when they get built and they have a bunch of empty units, the owner of it won’t lower rents or credit scores to rent a unit and the thing sits there as a personal piggy bank for investors hoping to flip it some day. If the city uses resources to help build it, that’s especially bad.

The question should be, will whatever project make housing more affordable. Most new, higher density buildings will do just that (ceteris parabus) but sometimes it does not because the project is used as an investment vehicle that takes up valuable urban space.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Sure, if the high rise actually fills up.

It’s an issue when they get built and they have a bunch of empty units, the owner of it won’t lower rents or credit scores to rent a unit and the thing sits there as a personal piggy bank for investors hoping to flip it some day. If the city uses resources to help build it, that’s especially bad.

The question should be, will whatever project make housing more affordable. Most new, higher density buildings will do just that (ceteris parabus) but sometimes it does not because the project is used as an investment vehicle that takes up valuable urban space.

So for "sometimes it might not help", that it is a good reason to do nothing?

Then they should push for a vacancy tax as a condition of letting these projects go through, instead of killing them altogether

Second, we should not act like that is the only NIMBY nonsense some leftist align folk have been doing is regarding luxury high rises...

Is Bernie Sanders a NIMBY?

He has a plan to build more housing, but he's helped to elect candidates who have pushed for the opposite.

www.motherjones.com

They even stop affordable units from getting built too because they don't like the developers, they have some "environmental concerns", don't want zoning laws reformed, or some other narrow criteria. From the looks of it many in the DSA left seem to be aligned with NIMBY interest and they can't admit it so they try to reframe the argument so they can be right side of it.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Sure, if the high rise actually fills up.

Have a heart. Sometimes an oligarch needs to launder money like the rest of us.

More seriously, do you have any stats on housing oversupply? I haven’t seen anything that didn’t look dodgy despite hearing about this “problem” for awhile. Mostly just anecdotes here and there.

 

[rexanglorum]

So for "sometimes it might not help", that it is a good reason to do nothing?

Then they should push for a vacancy tax as a condition of letting these projects go through, instead of killing them altogether

Second, we should not act like that is the only NIMBY nonsense some leftist align folk have been doing is regarding luxury high rises...

Is Bernie Sanders a NIMBY?

He has a plan to build more housing, but he's helped to elect candidates who have pushed for the opposite.

www.motherjones.com

They even stop affordable units from getting built too because they don't like the developers, they have some "environmental concerns", don't want zoning laws reformed, or some other narrow criteria. From the looks of it many in the DSA left seem to be aligned with NIMBY interest and they can't admit it so they try to reframe the argument so they can be right side of it.

I’m going to speak for myself here. The question should not be “to build or not to build” it should be “does this make housing affordable.” In many if not most cases, more housing stock does making housing more affordable so go for it. There are some cases were wealthy developers are planning on having most units vacant for tax purposes and their end game is to flip the property at a future date to someone else who will also keep units vacant.

You’re not a NIMBY to ask upfront what rent they plan on charging and what credit score and work history requirements they plan to impose for prospective renters. Capital loves to label any one who asks questions as a NIMBY, it’s rhetorical legerdemain that seeks to conflate opposition to wealthy people’s tax avoidance and real estate speculation schemes with opposition to homeless shelters and building duplexes over SFHs.

 

[yobyellav]

Using rap music to defend white supremacy. Now, that's a proper example of cultural appropriation.

Even threw in the n word for authenticity.

 

[rexanglorum]

Have a heart. Sometimes an oligarch needs to launder money like the rest of us.

More seriously, do you have any stats on housing oversupply? I haven’t seen anything that didn’t look dodgy despite hearing about this “problem” for awhile. Mostly just anecdotes here and there.

It’s been frustrating to get really definitive data, housing advocates highlight ratios of vacancies to unhoused people (and the ratio becomes far more obscene when it’s unhoused plus people paying over 50% of their income on housing versus vacancies). Others counter that vacancies are low in the most impacted cities and that many vacancies are short-term in nature.

this Bloomberg article is pretty even handed https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-06/unpacking-a-debate-on-california-s-vacant-housing

IMO, without great data, you got to go by some combination of what you see and hear, what people close to the issue are saying and go by history. Whom does this country serve and whom does it not serve? IMO, real estate developers and speculators do t care about Un and underhoused people so if their luxury condos downtown or gentrifying neighborhoods made life better for people at the bottom, it would be counter to our country’s history.

 

[whywesteppin]

He may come back wearing #45 (45th president) and lose to the Orlando libbies but it will only fuel him and he’ll spend the summer lifting weights while also filming a movie where he outwits like liberal space illegal aliens. After that he’ll switch to #23 (for the number of housing discrimination law suits he incurred) and have a legendary year where he’ll appoint 72 Oral Roberts Law School alums to the federal bench.

No. I think his return is going to resemble this 45's return a bit more ('0' = five in some scripts):

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

IMO, without great data, you got to go by some combination of what you see and hear, what people close to the issue are saying and go by history.

I really do need to just pay for Bloomberg news.

Anyway, what I’ve seen and heard definitely supports your assertion that real estate people aren’t thinking about the houseless. On the other hand, it definitely counters your claim that developers have permanent vacancies as their business plan.

 

[rexanglorum]

I really do need to just pay for Bloomberg news.

Anyway, what I’ve seen and heard definitely supports your assertion that real estate people aren’t thinking about the houseless. On the other hand, it definitely counters your claim that developers have permanent vacancies as their business plan.

The vacancies can be clustered heavily in one building while the buildings next door are at full capacity or close to it. Some buildings are built for the purposes of maximizing profit by renting out as many units as possible while some clearly won’t budge on bringing down rents or credit score requirements and it becomes clear that the owners business strategy is not to rent to as many people as possible.

Another issue with luxury condos is many of the renters are rich people and it’s not their primary residence so while the unit is technically not vacant, most nights, there’s no one home while there’s homeless people sleeping on the streets down below. So that’s another way that people see all these empty high rise units in close proximity to unhoused people.

 

[Fozz]

And this is why I’m against more taxes for regular people.

police got f’ing robot dogs but they don’t have money to help people out.

ok...

It's

Dog that **** got me crine

#KardashianKlay

 

[rexanglorum]

No. I think his return is going to resemble this 45's return a bit more ('0' = five in some scripts):

Folks, every day, more and more whole are saying that in the reignman. I know the people up there in the press box will freak out but I would mind reigning some more.

 

[Nike Jordan]

fam really said "This parking lot is the hub of the community."

NIMBY's are a scourge and they must be eradicated.

I initially read this as East New York.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[Based Jesus]

Properly funded and maintained public housing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[mplsdunk]

Properly funded and maintained public housing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

come talk that I’m mn. We just put them in the park.

fake *** lib state. The only thing they tolerate here is gay people.

 

[dmbrhs]

The Adult Entertainment Expo has really fallen off.

 

[IATT]

 

[IATT]

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

Another issue with luxury condos is many of the renters are rich people and it’s not their primary residence so while the unit is technically not vacant, most nights, there’s no one home while there’s homeless people sleeping on the streets down below. So that’s another way that people see all these empty high rise units in close proximity to unhoused people.

That was at the heart of my oligarch comment. The first time I heard about this vacancy by second home issue it was in regards to midtown Manhattan and forget lease holders. But then, as now, I can’t get solid data.

But even in that case, I imagine those people were going to eat up capacity whether or not new building were developed, so I thin Rusty’s point still stands. As long as lease Rates remain high, it seems like part of the answer needs to be more stock, and probably greater density.

 

[rexanglorum]

That was at the heart of my oligarch comment. The first time I heard about this vacancy by second home issue it was in regards to midtown Manhattan and forget lease holders. But then, as now, I can’t get solid data.

But even in that case, I imagine those people were going to eat up capacity whether or not new building were developed, so I thin Rusty’s point still stands. As long as lease Rates remain high, it seems like part of the answer needs to be more stock, and probably greater density.

There’s no two ways about it, there needs to be more housing stock but between strategic vacancies and massive wealth inequality, it’s not as simple as “just build.” If it’s lots of private housing stock, it needs oversight and either prohibitions or major disincentives against at a few rich people hoarding housing stock. And in lieu of it in addition to regulated private building, we need quality public housing and a lot of it.

 

[DLF]

fam really said "This parking lot is the hub of the community."

NIMBY's are a scourge and they must be eradicated.

That sucks but let’s be real here. What would you do if they built a homeless camp next door after you just bought a house there?

 

[dinyc3st]

Yea this whole CPAC **** doesn’t sit well w me, especially with an award in dedication of Reagan...