41–50 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but probably that "fulfilling basic human needs shouldn't be for profit" I'm a colossal fan of co-ops and credit unions for this reason.
Why do you want those needs to go unfulfilled?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other arbitrary rules about investments do you have?
Guess he is against private ownership of public infrastructure, because of what experience has shown. Invariably, there is persistent underinvestment to increase short-term profit, and once the physical plant is so run down that it plainly can't function any longer, it is renationalized at great loss to the public. The current model has led to a persistent underinvestment in housing, especially entry-level housing si…
This style of posting - assuming but not stating a controversial position, but stating as given what follows from it - is real bad news. First, it's essentially a dishonest way of communicating. They state as truth something that is very far from accepted, in the attempt to get people to accept something that they don't, without having to go through the hard work of actually persuading them on the real point of disagreement.
But even if no dishonesty is intended - they think the controversial point is not controversial at all, but rather something that everyone accepts - it's still bad news, because it hides the actual point of disagreement that needs discussed. It results in a "conversation" that is both sides hurling sound bytes at each other, but never actually talking about where the disagreement is. That's not a good conversation, even in general, but it's a terrible conversation for HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other arbitrary rules about investments do you have?
Guess he is against private ownership of public infrastructure, because of what experience has shown. Invariably, there is persistent underinvestment to increase short-term profit, and once the physical plant is so run down that it plainly can't function any longer, it is renationalized at great loss to the public. The current model has led to a persistent underinvestment in housing, especially entry-level housing si…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Landlords are the reason housing is unaffordable, but in a world without landlords if homeownership is out of reach for a segment of the population there should be public housing to accommodate that need.
Is there any place on this earth where “public housing” was anything but an unmitigated disaster that was used simply to corral “the have nots” away from “the haves”? Whatever the solution is, it’s damn sure is not public housing .
There are other options that are better than a simple rental such as a lease option or a land contract sale. The renter /purchaser ends up owning the property and the seller/landlord can get rid of his property at a decent price in a falling market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a rhetorical question that intentionally ignores the overall premise without adding value.
Fair complaint. But one could also complain about the initial post. It does nothing to motivate the claim that housing should not be an investment, so it does in fact appear to be an arbitrary rule that is being put forward.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If rent was illegal, you would buy.
Buy what? If rent were illegal, there would be far less housing because most people cannot (or will not) save enough capital to create or buy their own.
It might be sad if you ended up in some overly leveraged position, but you did that knowing the risks and expecting to make a lot of money using that leverage. But no one is entitled to risk-free money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Landlords are the reason housing is unaffordable, but in a world without landlords if homeownership is out of reach for a segment of the population there should be public housing to accommodate that need.
Is there any place on this earth where “public housing” was anything but an unmitigated disaster that was used simply to corral “the have nots” away from “the haves”? Whatever the solution is, it’s damn sure is not public housing .
Later in this interview they get into public schools, and the implications of the lottery system. While this is well-intentioned this is really a terrible policy, I personally moved out of SF largely because of this issue (I have 3 kiddos so private school is not an option).
The example he gives is that despite living a stone's throw away from a high school his child was allocated to a school 1 hour bus ride away. This is really how it works for anyone living near one of the better schools. In addition to it effectively destroying the community aspect of schools where your kids go to school with the neighbors which facilitates neighboring families meeting each other and becoming friends, walking to school together, and so on.
The policy is well intentioned, but ultimately does more harm than good and everyone who is closely involved and knowledgable about the system is completely powerless. The voters just don't care what any experts or those affected say, they just vote on ideology. Quite frankly it feels a lot like the way in which Texas voters could not, evidently, care less about the plight of women with complications in pregnancy.