Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

inpractice.yimbyaction.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 539 posts

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#121

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

anon7000 wrote: post #73
legitster wrote: post #46

I've grown a little bit more skeptical of what can realistically be achieved by the passive nature of YIMBY-ism. In Portland, they passed some radical new zoning laws a few years ago that allowed anyone, anywhere the ability to zone ADUs on their property. And the cost to get permits is almost nothing. I have lots of friends and family in the area with property. But not a single one has added an ADU. It seems like it…

It’s more about long term, but I see what you mean about lighting a fire under butts. One of the most eye opening discoveries for me on my urbanism journey is how Amsterdam got better. It wasn’t always a bicycle paradise; its city center had massive parking lots, huge roads, and a poor pedestrian environment. But today it’s much different — because policies were enacted decades ago which ensure roads are re-configure…

Boston was a mess before the big dig. Enough ink has been spilled over how long it took, but just about everybody agrees the city is better for it.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#122

Post by hkt »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #61
Ericson2314 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since more affordable housing is very nearly equivalent to real estate values decreasing (at the very least, as perceived by voters) Wrong!! Please get this right, because telling people they need to loose wealth to fix society is a horrible place to be in. They own the land and the land will appreciate in value (unless your house as a shit location, but then you area poor-ass republican anyways, statistically spea…

> Please get this right, because telling people they need to loose wealth to fix society is a horrible place to be in. This is often the reality. Massive wealth inequality won't be fixed by making everyone billionaires, it'll be fixed by getting rid of billionaires

Unless you tell the fed to run inflation at 20% for a few decades and tie everything else (wages, pensions, welfare, etc) to that rate. It is called fiscal repression and it has it's drawbacks, but it would serve to end inequality by making everyone billionaires. (The price of a coffee might end up at £1m though..)

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#123

Post by Herring »

wormlord wrote: post #31

Probably gonna get downvoted for quoting Lenin on this site -- but he nailed this 120 years ago in "What is to be done?". We are witnessing the collapse of Liberalism in real-time. Liberalism has outlived its usefulness as a tool of containing class conflict. The US ruling class has nearly consolidated absolute power and is disposing of Liberalism because it was only ever a tool used for their benefit . This is not j…

Hmm yeah this article rubbed me weird, like why can't rich investors just snap up any amount of new housing? Article didn't mention "affordable housing" once.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#124

Post by lotsofpulp »

singpolyma3 wrote: post #103
ReptileMan wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The balance simple - renters have total rights as long as they pay on time and there is no damage on the property except normal wear and tear and 0 when when not paying. You as landlord can't say anything as long as the property is not damaged for the duration of the contract. You always renegotiate at market rates. There is no concept of squatting and evictions are fast. That's it. Works like a charm. No bullshits l…

This is ideal if you're a landlord, but hell if you're a tenant.

The courts should be speedy at forcing landlords to rectify problems just as the courts should be speedy at forcing out squatters.

There is no reason either should take 6 months+ to litigate (real world example). I even had an email from the tenant stating they would start paying again if we would reduce the rent.

No damage, no question about the facts, just someone who knew that worst case scenario is 6 months free housing for them, simply because that’s how long paperwork apparently takes.

End result? I’m even more selective to who I rent out to, and the costs are borne by innocent people who just don’t happen to have sufficient history.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#125

Post by PaulHoule »

dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #75
knowknow wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s amazing that this gets upvoted while it is completely uninformed about what liberal politicians actually run on. This is what the Kamala campaign ran on, it didn’t work. People love getting tangled on social issues as it’s the most provocative. This conception that most people actually care about rational policies is false and has been false for at least the past decade.

Your assumptions are wrong. Kamala lost because of inflation during the Biden admin and some related missteps. Also her gender and skin color likely worked against her. Also you're misreading my point, campaigning on these things isn't a panacea, but delivering on them just might be.

People assume a female candidate is to the left of where they actually are. Worked great for Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel who both represented center-right parties and took their nations rightward and whose favorite slogan was “there is no alternative” but not for center-right Hillary Clinton who headed what is allegedly a center-left party. [1]

If the Democrats have a fight between an abundance agenda and populist leftists who are really inclusive like Bernie Sanders I think that will be great.

[1] Clinton was always as far to the right as she could get away with, probably to compensate for being a woman, but paid the price for her mindless hawkish in 2008 when she lost the primaries to Barack Obama

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#126

Post by tormeh »

hkt wrote: post #100
MajimasEyepatch wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the Democrats had a majority in the House and a supermajority in the Senate when Obama was elected, they couldn't even get a public option included in the Affordable Care Act, and the right so successfully demagogued "Obamacare" (their name for it) that the Democrats lost an incredible number of seats in the 2010 midterms. Bernie Sanders campaigned on Medicare for All (essentially what you're suggesting) in 2016…

In fairness, and NHS didn't get tested at the ballot in 2016. There's a structural problem with parties of the "left", namely that they're hostages of their predominantly centre-right memberships. Labour in the UK has the same problem, as do the Socialist party in France. Pretty much all social democratic parties have been hollowed out by a managerial class (alongside career lawyers and the like) that their tradition…

The American voting system only permits two parties. You're welcome to think otherwise but it'll just lose you elections. If you want the left to win elections you need to start a new right-wing party to split the vote for the Republicans. Name it True Patriots or some shit like that.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#127

Post by TimorousBestie »

ReptileMan wrote: post #81
e40 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>* There's a general fear of being a landlord. Tenants have a lot of legal rights, and the risk of inviting someone onto your property who could start squatting or doing drugs and not being able to evict them is beyond the pale for most families.* This is a big problem in a lot of places. It's really hard for cities to strike a good balance between renters and owners, and I think few do it well. Especially for the ed…

The balance simple - renters have total rights as long as they pay on time and there is no damage on the property except normal wear and tear and 0 when when not paying. You as landlord can't say anything as long as the property is not damaged for the duration of the contract. You always renegotiate at market rates. There is no concept of squatting and evictions are fast. That's it. Works like a charm. No bullshits l…

> You always renegotiate at market rates.

As long as RealPage and friends exist, market rates are whatever they say they are. There’s no free market in real estate.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#128

Post by PaulHoule »

ReptileMan wrote: post #93
dkjaudyeqooe wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assumptions are wrong. Kamala lost because of inflation during the Biden admin and some related missteps. Also her gender and skin color likely worked against her. Also you're misreading my point, campaigning on these things isn't a panacea, but delivering on them just might be.

> Also her gender and skin color likely worked against her. She had less charisma than Hilary. Probably even less than Al Gore or Zuckeberg before his new software update was installed. And she had a history of bending the knee to the progressives.

… and donors too. Mainstream Democrats are seen as disingenuous in that they direct cheap talk at progressives but somehow beat Republicans at the fundraising game almost every time.

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#129

Post by [deleted] »

FirmwareBurner wrote: post #6
lenerdenator wrote: post #2

Considering that a lot of the politicians - or the people acting through them - are very well-insulated by their economic resources, that's going to take a very, very long time.

long time = never gonna happen OR world war happens

[deleted]

Re: Abundance isn't going to happen unless politicians are scared of the status quo

#130

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #54
avidiax wrote: post #9

I think the author has it quite backwards, at least as it comes to housing. Politicians are beholden to the members of their district, not would-be members. Sure, more affordable housing would benefit many people, but it wouldn't benefit the members of the district, particularly the wealthy and powerful, since more affordable housing is very nearly equivalent to real estate values decreasing (at the very least, as pe…

Given that I'm not trying to sell my house, its market value is meaningless to me. Meanwhile, that house is in the midst of an growing group of increasingly desperate people. Desperation has very real consequences for the people living nearby. The effect you're describing is not nothing, but I think you're overstating it. I'd rather see the homeless housed than see my property value go up by another 10k. It would be…

Not for $10k? How about $100k?
Post reply on HN