As far as I know, there is no sex or violence in Mr. Trump's scandal profile, at least not directly.
I guess I don't technically know what "directly" requires there but I mean "grab 'em by the pussy" kinda seems like it covers both both the sex and violence thing alone.
Or walking into an underage girls changing room on Teen USA.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+17
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited April 2019
Or paying off women he slept with while married to block their ability to speak and then sending enforcers over to them to threaten them into compliance...
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
First, that was an unedited draft, and second, I kind of feel like society didn't meet its end of the bargain on general public outrage.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
First, that was an unedited draft, and second, I kind of feel like society didn't meet its end of the bargain on general public outrage.
It was noted by many as disqualifying (among many other disqualifying things).
Then he got elected anyways.
I feel like the Women's March being one of the largest protests in US history (if not the biggest single day protest, according to Wikipedia) indicates a substantial response.
Should it be happening monthly? Weekly? Daily? There's always more that can be done, but nobody can keep millions of people riled up for months and years on end (well, nobody but Fox News, but that's another story).
The political and legal system have failed a great many women in a great many ways, summarizing that as 'society didn't meet its end of the bargain on general public outrage' is quite the declaration.
As with many aspects of the US government, much of it cracks or fails when filled by bad faith actors and/or people who have lost the ability to feel shame. I think Kavanaugh's selection, hearings, and confirmation to the court alone covers a lot of that.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
+4
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
There's no reason we shouldn't be trying to eat the rich. They are nakedly admitting they're trying to destroy us, with honest contempt. It'd be refreshing, if it weren't horrifying.
There's no reason we shouldn't be trying to eat the rich. They are nakedly admitting they're trying to destroy us, with honest contempt. It'd be refreshing, if it weren't horrifying.
It really is amazing that we have like literal disney villain billionares and people champion these people! Like there are people in america that celebrate that kind of naked villainy that is fucking them over.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
There's no reason we shouldn't be trying to eat the rich. They are nakedly admitting they're trying to destroy us, with honest contempt. It'd be refreshing, if it weren't horrifying.
It really is amazing that we have like literal disney villain billionares and people champion these people! Like there are people in america that celebrate that kind of naked villainy that is fucking them over.
What's scarier to me is how people are paying to get access to that contempt. In other words, the people he is teaching those courses to are also getting fleeced, just in a different way.
There's no reason we shouldn't be trying to eat the rich. They are nakedly admitting they're trying to destroy us, with honest contempt. It'd be refreshing, if it weren't horrifying.
It really is amazing that we have like literal disney villain billionares and people champion these people! Like there are people in america that celebrate that kind of naked villainy that is fucking them over.
What's scarier to me is how people are paying to get access to that contempt. In other words, the people he is teaching those courses to are also getting fleeced, just in a different way.
Nah people paying for those courses are trying to make money off real estate in scummy fucking ways. They get exactly what they deserve.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
There's no reason we shouldn't be trying to eat the rich. They are nakedly admitting they're trying to destroy us, with honest contempt. It'd be refreshing, if it weren't horrifying.
It really is amazing that we have like literal disney villain billionares and people champion these people! Like there are people in america that celebrate that kind of naked villainy that is fucking them over.
What's scarier to me is how people are paying to get access to that contempt. In other words, the people he is teaching those courses to are also getting fleeced, just in a different way.
Nah people paying for those courses are trying to make money off real estate in scummy fucking ways. They get exactly what they deserve.
They could have just watched Trailer Park Boys with a predatory eye and received the same insights.
I bet this guy doesn't even get into soliciting kickbacks from illegal business goings on in the park!
There's no reason we shouldn't be trying to eat the rich. They are nakedly admitting they're trying to destroy us, with honest contempt. It'd be refreshing, if it weren't horrifying.
It really is amazing that we have like literal disney villain billionares and people champion these people! Like there are people in america that celebrate that kind of naked villainy that is fucking them over.
To borrow a quote...
Sell the dream- show them how very much they want to be rich, and they'll convince themselves that someday, they will be. How can they revolt against their future selves? -the New Gospel of Wealth
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
First, that was an unedited draft, and second, I kind of feel like society didn't meet its end of the bargain on general public outrage.
It was noted by many as disqualifying (among many other disqualifying things).
Then he got elected anyways.
I feel like the Women's March being one of the largest protests in US history (if not the biggest single day protest, according to Wikipedia) indicates a substantial response.
Should it be happening monthly? Weekly? Daily? There's always more that can be done, but nobody can keep millions of people riled up for months and years on end (well, nobody but Fox News, but that's another story).
The political and legal system have failed a great many women in a great many ways, summarizing that as 'society didn't meet its end of the bargain on general public outrage' is quite the declaration.
As with many aspects of the US government, much of it cracks or fails when filled by bad faith actors and/or people who have lost the ability to feel shame. I think Kavanaugh's selection, hearings, and confirmation to the court alone covers a lot of that.
All the same, when comparing it to other political scandals, there is some kind of intangible difference that I can't seem to elucidate, mainly because I'm trying to explain a thought that I didn't care to finish in the first place.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
First, that was an unedited draft, and second, I kind of feel like society didn't meet its end of the bargain on general public outrage.
It was noted by many as disqualifying (among many other disqualifying things).
Then he got elected anyways.
I feel like the Women's March being one of the largest protests in US history (if not the biggest single day protest, according to Wikipedia) indicates a substantial response.
Should it be happening monthly? Weekly? Daily? There's always more that can be done, but nobody can keep millions of people riled up for months and years on end (well, nobody but Fox News, but that's another story).
The political and legal system have failed a great many women in a great many ways, summarizing that as 'society didn't meet its end of the bargain on general public outrage' is quite the declaration.
As with many aspects of the US government, much of it cracks or fails when filled by bad faith actors and/or people who have lost the ability to feel shame. I think Kavanaugh's selection, hearings, and confirmation to the court alone covers a lot of that.
All the same, when comparing it to other political scandals, there is some kind of intangible difference that I can't seem to elucidate, mainly because I'm trying to explain a thought that I didn't care to finish in the first place.
More specifically, it was directly countered by Wikileaks releasing the Podesta emails, which were then seized upon.
That mobile home piece was deeply, deeply infuriating. Deeply infuriating. There are a decent number of mobile home parks in my town, and they are almost entirely occupied by lower income or elderly people and just...I was so angry watching that. I can totlaly understand wanting to make moeny, and wanting to make it in a decently easy manner, but I cannot get my mind around the absolutel disdain and contempt for other people it takes to victimize other people through their housing like that. I know it happens in other rental situations, but somehow this setup is just...I watching this last night, and I"m still just so angry about it.
It makes me wonder which direction it operates: do you become the person who can bleed people like that because of your disdain for the poor, or do you build that disdain to make it easier to bleed them? Like does a previously decent person slowly come to villainize the poor if it’s necessary for them to make more money?
The exact situation in that mobile home piece is happening all over the place here in southeast Missouri. Demand for middle to upper-middle class housing keeps going up and up so the land the trailers sit on becomes too valuable to 'waste' on low income housing. I can think of 3 small trailer parks off the top of my head that simply don't exist anymore and all of them disappeared within the past year and half, to be replaced by traditional housing plots or in one case an apartment complex.
And at the same exact time we have a lot of unsold houses. The demand, or at least the perceived demand, is for NEW housing. But while related, that's ranging off topic I think.
As far as I know, there is no sex or violence in Mr. Trump's scandal profile, at least not directly.
I guess I don't technically know what "directly" requires there but I mean "grab 'em by the pussy" kinda seems like it covers both both the sex and violence thing alone.
Bragging about how he could go backsatge and Miss Teen America pagents to look at naked underaged girls?
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Seth Meyers did his Ya Burnt segment tonight, and his dunking on Fred from Scooby-Doo was a masterpiece. I can't remember the last time I've heard anyone like, defend, or approve of Fred's place in the gang. He was just the driver and had a chip on his shoulder about it.
+2
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Seth Meyers did his Ya Burnt segment tonight, and his dunking on Fred from Scooby-Doo was a masterpiece. I can't remember the last time I've heard anyone like, defend, or approve of Fred's place in the gang. He was just the driver and had a chip on his shoulder about it.
Mystery Inc portrayed him excellently as the trap enthusiast.
The issue of people buying lots to raise rents because the person who rents the lot owns and essentially permanent structure on that lot... this feels like a problem that can be solved with legislation.
It's already happened with apartment properties. Every apartment complex I've lived in for 15 years has been owned by an investment firm out of state. Every time they're sold rent goes way up when the new firm takes over.
I'm thinking you shouldn't be able to own property in a state you don't reside in.
It's already happened with apartment properties. Every apartment complex I've lived in for 15 years has been owned by an investment firm out of state. Every time they're sold rent goes way up when the new firm takes over.
I'm thinking you shouldn't be able to own property in a state you don't reside in.
Nah, the issue is the whole buying things to spike rents since moving is hard. There need to be protections since its a captive market.
Similar to issues we have with healtg care actually.
It's already happened with apartment properties. Every apartment complex I've lived in for 15 years has been owned by an investment firm out of state. Every time they're sold rent goes way up when the new firm takes over.
I'm thinking you shouldn't be able to own property in a state you don't reside in.
That would cause sooo many unintended consequences...
Better would be rent control laws, Rent rates are grandfathered into the new owners and cannot be raised faster than rate of inflation/cost of living unless the tenant moves or X number of years have passed.
Foefaller on
+8
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
It's already happened with apartment properties. Every apartment complex I've lived in for 15 years has been owned by an investment firm out of state. Every time they're sold rent goes way up when the new firm takes over.
I'm thinking you shouldn't be able to own property in a state you don't reside in.
That would cause sooo many unintended consequences...
Better would be rent control laws, Rent rates are grandfathered into the new owners and cannot be raised faster than rate of inflation/cost of living unless the tenant moves or X number of years have passed.
Then you have issues where landlords let property fall into disrepair, claiming lack of funds, while hoping the terrible conditions will force turnover, allowing for frequent rent hikes.
The issue of people buying lots to raise rents because the person who rents the lot owns and essentially permanent structure on that lot... this feels like a problem that can be solved with legislation.
John Oliver specified the legislative solution: give park residents right of first refusal when the owner sells the park. (This should probably be combined with a fund designed specifically for loans so that lower-income and fixed-income park residents can actually use this option.) While this wouldn't be perfect, it's a good first step.
The only consequence would be no longer buying up property to exploit others from out of state. I don't really care if someone has to rent their summer home or exploitive timeshares that ruin local economies die.
Leveraging wealth to harm others needs to be more difficult. Buying your way in to a location and then contributing nothing to the local economy is actively harmful. I've had to move every 4 years since I was 19 to avoid homelessness due to rising rent. Often finding a new job and starting back at the bottom to do it. Fuck that as an acceptable practice.
And say folks own a piece of property so they can hopefully develop it for themseleves and their families later? Like my wife half owns a plot of land with her brother in another state because they both didn't want to lose the land after their grandfather and uncle passed. They bought it from their parents and aunts and uncles because the older folks all needed dollars in the immediate, and saw no value in holding the land despite it sitting directly next to my sister in laws house. My wife and her brother (who lives nearby the plot), just haven't had the collective money to build themseleves something there, but the plan is for him to eventually buy out my wife, and build his home there. This is a thing they would not have been able to do if you weren't allowed to own property across state lines.
The only consequence would be no longer buying up property to exploit others from out of state. I don't really care if someone has to rent their summer home or exploitive timeshares that ruin local economies die.
Leveraging wealth to harm others needs to be more difficult. Buying your way in to a location and then contributing nothing to the local economy is actively harmful. I've had to move every 4 years since I was 19 to avoid homelessness due to rising rent. Often finding a new job and starting back at the bottom to do it. Fuck that as an acceptable practice.
I’ll give you the simplest and most devastating unintended result of your proposal: if I own a home, and need to relocate to another state while the housing market is down, now you’ve forced me to take an enormous financial loss in order to do so since I cannot legally own a property if I no longer reside in the state. Renting a home out behind you can offer a much less damaging way to maintain some amount of mobility in what has become a more regional or national job market.
Unless you’re prepared to start buying every last home you live in (with all the associated risks, including the above), you should consider that some landlords are just, like, people. For the shitty landlords and property owners, there are other laws that can curb their more damaging practices and protect tenants.
The right of first refusal for mobile lots is definitely a better alternative. Same with rent controls, though as noted those also have to come with minimum maintenance standards. You can levy additional tax on vacant properties as well, particularly in constrained markets. But some sort of ban on out of state ownership is probably the most blunt tool you could suggest, and has the most wide reaching collateral impacts.
So you're going to not sell a house when someone who may still live in the area can afford it, but hold on to it until you can turn a profit. You could also just keep the house and maintain residency in the state you're moving from.
I get that it's not convenient because things are the way they are.
They are the way they are because we've been exploiting housing markets for 40 years though.
Buying property somewhere because someday you might want to move there takes it off the market for people who actually already live there.
So you're going to not sell a house when someone who may still live in the area can afford it, but hold on to it until you can turn a profit. You could also just keep the house and maintain residency in the state you're moving from.
Or it could just get bought by a *local* slumlord because you don’t have the capital to outbid them, even in a down market. Guess that’s a win?
I get that it's not convenient because things are the way they are.
They are the way they are because we've been exploiting housing markets for 40 years though.
Let’s be clear, what you’re suggesting is a law that would restrict me from taking an out of state job opportunity because you want to create a *new* requirement that I sell a major asset immediately in a potentially adverse situation in order to do so.
That’s yours to defend. But consider it may not be hurting the people it’s supposed to hurt, as they say.
Buying property somewhere because someday you might want to move there takes it off the market for people who actually already live there.
And that’s why you can enact a specific tax on vacant properties in constrained markets, thus providing additional incentive for the owner to rent that property out at a fair market rate to people who do want to live there. See how that’s a much less absurd solution to the problem?
For dealing with skyrocketing rent in general, it's mostly supply and demand; everyone wants to live in the city, because that's where the jobs are. So, you increase supply. There are a few ways to do this as a local government. For example:
* Mass transit. People care more about commute time than distance, so if you can get actually good mass transit, you can have a larger area in commute range before traffic grinds to a halt.
* Removing single-family-home residential zoning as a thing that exists. This is a good idea in general, and allows creation of apartment buildings or townhomes as needed.
For dealing with skyrocketing rent in general, it's mostly supply and demand; everyone wants to live in the city, because that's where the jobs are. So, you increase supply. There are a few ways to do this as a local government. For example:
* Mass transit. People care more about commute time than distance, so if you can get actually good mass transit, you can have a larger area in commute range before traffic grinds to a halt.
* Removing single-family-home residential zoning as a thing that exists. This is a good idea in general, and allows creation of apartment buildings or townhomes as needed.
The problem I've seen, and this might just be local, but people tear down a SFH and put in 3 townhomes that each cost the same as the SFH. You've increased supply without dampening demand in any way.
Also I can speak personally to being forced (not by law but by circumstance) to sell in an adverse market and being harmed financially by it. Part of this was because I had absolutely no desire to deal with being somebody’s landlord, and all the liabilities that entails.
So now my house in Kitsap is owned by some multi-property slumlords from Seattle (I’ve driven by, and they clearly aren’t maintaining it), because they were the ones that could come closest to meeting the price I needed to walk away without losing my shirt. They were cash buyers on a 220K house, and still nickel and dimed me for every thousand they could. Because of course they did, it’s business and they’re there to make money same as anyone.
I guess we can go ahead and give local slumlords even more leverage over middle class homeowners who need to relocate, can’t see that going wrong.
For dealing with skyrocketing rent in general, it's mostly supply and demand; everyone wants to live in the city, because that's where the jobs are. So, you increase supply. There are a few ways to do this as a local government. For example:
* Mass transit. People care more about commute time than distance, so if you can get actually good mass transit, you can have a larger area in commute range before traffic grinds to a halt.
* Removing single-family-home residential zoning as a thing that exists. This is a good idea in general, and allows creation of apartment buildings or townhomes as needed.
The problem I've seen, and this might just be local, but people tear down a SFH and put in 3 townhomes that each cost the same as the SFH. You've increased supply without dampening demand in any way.
You’re not trying to dampen demand, right? You’re trying to meet it. Build enough units, eventually prices come down. The problem is that the scale at which we are rezoning SFH in this example is probably insufficient to address the excess demand. Definitely the case in Seattle.
For dealing with skyrocketing rent in general, it's mostly supply and demand; everyone wants to live in the city, because that's where the jobs are. So, you increase supply. There are a few ways to do this as a local government. For example:
* Mass transit. People care more about commute time than distance, so if you can get actually good mass transit, you can have a larger area in commute range before traffic grinds to a halt.
* Removing single-family-home residential zoning as a thing that exists. This is a good idea in general, and allows creation of apartment buildings or townhomes as needed.
The problem I've seen, and this might just be local, but people tear down a SFH and put in 3 townhomes that each cost the same as the SFH. You've increased supply without dampening demand in any way.
You’re not trying to dampen demand, right? You’re trying to meet it. Build enough units, eventually prices come down. The problem is that the scale at which we are rezoning SFH in this example is probably insufficient to address the excess demand. Definitely the case in Seattle.
I guess I'm saying there is probably some kind of population/metro tipping point where demand becomes asymptotic and it's not as simple as "build more" because there are too many bad actors involved (investment companies and landlords).
New York is a pretty obvious example of how density does not equal affordability.
The Seattle area's primary problem is they are building houses double or triple the value of existing homes and forcing people who currently live there out. Like I live in Bothell. I bought my condo at 180k. Within the last few years houses have gone up in my neighborhood for 700 to 800k. Its god damn ridiculous. And anytime people talk about removing restrictions or whatever that's what they want. Builders want to throw up more super expensive housing, have a token small amount of "affordable housing" and force working class people further and further from urban/suburban places. And then motherfuckers wonder where the god damn middle class is going.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
The Seattle area's primary problem is they are building houses double or triple the value of existing homes and forcing people who currently live there out. Like I live in Bothell. I bought my condo at 180k. Within the last few years houses have gone up in my neighborhood for 700 to 800k. Its god damn ridiculous. And anytime people talk about removing restrictions or whatever that's what they want. Builders want to throw up more super expensive housing, have a token small amount of "affordable housing" and force working class people further and further from urban/suburban places. And then motherfuckers wonder where the god damn middle class is going.
Definitely an issue, but I also think you have a lot of New Amazon Money buyers who’ve been dropped into a market that’s not ready for them, supply-wise. The thing where builders only target an $800K price point is real, because that’s where profits are. But that doesn’t explain why we were getting outbid by $600K *cash* offers on 50’s houses with 60’s interiors in Maple Leaf that wouldn’t go for $250K in Bremerton.
Those $600K and $800K houses have buyers, is the thing. Because there simply aren’t enough homes in the city to meet demand. And having a sea of backyards within walking distance of the Space Needle plays a part in that.
But the NYC example is a good one, because it suggests that there is likely a point a city reaches where the density itself induce further demand, to the point that no increase in supply can reach it at an affordable price. At the same time, all those homes need buyers or renters, so either local wages rise (because eventually people won’t take jobs if they can’t pay rent on the salary) or the prices come down. Unlike NYC I don’t think we have too many foreign VIPs spending $100M to buy up multiple brownstones and turn them into urban mega mansions with basement pools (“fun” story that hit my feed the other day from NYT, apparently the construction has been...disruptive).
Posts
I guess I don't technically know what "directly" requires there but I mean "grab 'em by the pussy" kinda seems like it covers both both the sex and violence thing alone.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It was noted by many as disqualifying (among many other disqualifying things).
Then he got elected anyways.
I feel like the Women's March being one of the largest protests in US history (if not the biggest single day protest, according to Wikipedia) indicates a substantial response.
Should it be happening monthly? Weekly? Daily? There's always more that can be done, but nobody can keep millions of people riled up for months and years on end (well, nobody but Fox News, but that's another story).
The political and legal system have failed a great many women in a great many ways, summarizing that as 'society didn't meet its end of the bargain on general public outrage' is quite the declaration.
As with many aspects of the US government, much of it cracks or fails when filled by bad faith actors and/or people who have lost the ability to feel shame. I think Kavanaugh's selection, hearings, and confirmation to the court alone covers a lot of that.
There's no reason we shouldn't be trying to eat the rich. They are nakedly admitting they're trying to destroy us, with honest contempt. It'd be refreshing, if it weren't horrifying.
It really is amazing that we have like literal disney villain billionares and people champion these people! Like there are people in america that celebrate that kind of naked villainy that is fucking them over.
pleasepaypreacher.net
What's scarier to me is how people are paying to get access to that contempt. In other words, the people he is teaching those courses to are also getting fleeced, just in a different way.
Nah people paying for those courses are trying to make money off real estate in scummy fucking ways. They get exactly what they deserve.
pleasepaypreacher.net
They could have just watched Trailer Park Boys with a predatory eye and received the same insights.
I bet this guy doesn't even get into soliciting kickbacks from illegal business goings on in the park!
To borrow a quote...
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
All the same, when comparing it to other political scandals, there is some kind of intangible difference that I can't seem to elucidate, mainly because I'm trying to explain a thought that I didn't care to finish in the first place.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
More specifically, it was directly countered by Wikileaks releasing the Podesta emails, which were then seized upon.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
And at the same exact time we have a lot of unsold houses. The demand, or at least the perceived demand, is for NEW housing. But while related, that's ranging off topic I think.
Bragging about how he could go backsatge and Miss Teen America pagents to look at naked underaged girls?
Mystery Inc portrayed him excellently as the trap enthusiast.
I'm thinking you shouldn't be able to own property in a state you don't reside in.
Nah, the issue is the whole buying things to spike rents since moving is hard. There need to be protections since its a captive market.
Similar to issues we have with healtg care actually.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
That would cause sooo many unintended consequences...
Better would be rent control laws, Rent rates are grandfathered into the new owners and cannot be raised faster than rate of inflation/cost of living unless the tenant moves or X number of years have passed.
Then you have issues where landlords let property fall into disrepair, claiming lack of funds, while hoping the terrible conditions will force turnover, allowing for frequent rent hikes.
John Oliver specified the legislative solution: give park residents right of first refusal when the owner sells the park. (This should probably be combined with a fund designed specifically for loans so that lower-income and fixed-income park residents can actually use this option.) While this wouldn't be perfect, it's a good first step.
Leveraging wealth to harm others needs to be more difficult. Buying your way in to a location and then contributing nothing to the local economy is actively harmful. I've had to move every 4 years since I was 19 to avoid homelessness due to rising rent. Often finding a new job and starting back at the bottom to do it. Fuck that as an acceptable practice.
Seth also had Timothy Olyphant on last night (his first 4 time guest I guess?) and it was delightful.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I’ll give you the simplest and most devastating unintended result of your proposal: if I own a home, and need to relocate to another state while the housing market is down, now you’ve forced me to take an enormous financial loss in order to do so since I cannot legally own a property if I no longer reside in the state. Renting a home out behind you can offer a much less damaging way to maintain some amount of mobility in what has become a more regional or national job market.
Unless you’re prepared to start buying every last home you live in (with all the associated risks, including the above), you should consider that some landlords are just, like, people. For the shitty landlords and property owners, there are other laws that can curb their more damaging practices and protect tenants.
The right of first refusal for mobile lots is definitely a better alternative. Same with rent controls, though as noted those also have to come with minimum maintenance standards. You can levy additional tax on vacant properties as well, particularly in constrained markets. But some sort of ban on out of state ownership is probably the most blunt tool you could suggest, and has the most wide reaching collateral impacts.
I get that it's not convenient because things are the way they are.
They are the way they are because we've been exploiting housing markets for 40 years though.
Buying property somewhere because someday you might want to move there takes it off the market for people who actually already live there.
Or it could just get bought by a *local* slumlord because you don’t have the capital to outbid them, even in a down market. Guess that’s a win?
Let’s be clear, what you’re suggesting is a law that would restrict me from taking an out of state job opportunity because you want to create a *new* requirement that I sell a major asset immediately in a potentially adverse situation in order to do so.
That’s yours to defend. But consider it may not be hurting the people it’s supposed to hurt, as they say.
And that’s why you can enact a specific tax on vacant properties in constrained markets, thus providing additional incentive for the owner to rent that property out at a fair market rate to people who do want to live there. See how that’s a much less absurd solution to the problem?
* Mass transit. People care more about commute time than distance, so if you can get actually good mass transit, you can have a larger area in commute range before traffic grinds to a halt.
* Removing single-family-home residential zoning as a thing that exists. This is a good idea in general, and allows creation of apartment buildings or townhomes as needed.
The problem I've seen, and this might just be local, but people tear down a SFH and put in 3 townhomes that each cost the same as the SFH. You've increased supply without dampening demand in any way.
So now my house in Kitsap is owned by some multi-property slumlords from Seattle (I’ve driven by, and they clearly aren’t maintaining it), because they were the ones that could come closest to meeting the price I needed to walk away without losing my shirt. They were cash buyers on a 220K house, and still nickel and dimed me for every thousand they could. Because of course they did, it’s business and they’re there to make money same as anyone.
I guess we can go ahead and give local slumlords even more leverage over middle class homeowners who need to relocate, can’t see that going wrong.
You’re not trying to dampen demand, right? You’re trying to meet it. Build enough units, eventually prices come down. The problem is that the scale at which we are rezoning SFH in this example is probably insufficient to address the excess demand. Definitely the case in Seattle.
I guess I'm saying there is probably some kind of population/metro tipping point where demand becomes asymptotic and it's not as simple as "build more" because there are too many bad actors involved (investment companies and landlords).
New York is a pretty obvious example of how density does not equal affordability.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Definitely an issue, but I also think you have a lot of New Amazon Money buyers who’ve been dropped into a market that’s not ready for them, supply-wise. The thing where builders only target an $800K price point is real, because that’s where profits are. But that doesn’t explain why we were getting outbid by $600K *cash* offers on 50’s houses with 60’s interiors in Maple Leaf that wouldn’t go for $250K in Bremerton.
Those $600K and $800K houses have buyers, is the thing. Because there simply aren’t enough homes in the city to meet demand. And having a sea of backyards within walking distance of the Space Needle plays a part in that.
But the NYC example is a good one, because it suggests that there is likely a point a city reaches where the density itself induce further demand, to the point that no increase in supply can reach it at an affordable price. At the same time, all those homes need buyers or renters, so either local wages rise (because eventually people won’t take jobs if they can’t pay rent on the salary) or the prices come down. Unlike NYC I don’t think we have too many foreign VIPs spending $100M to buy up multiple brownstones and turn them into urban mega mansions with basement pools (“fun” story that hit my feed the other day from NYT, apparently the construction has been...disruptive).