Bernie calls for national rent control

Napoleon said:

Baloney. There is a shortage of affordable housing because developers are bulldozing low income areas of the city and building mid-rise and high-rise units they are charging up to $4K per month for. That high income historical neighborhood commissions like German Village, which has a median home value of around $500,000, are placing height restrictions on proposed development makes not a whit of difference. Kaufman doesn’t do low income development and those units would not be priced for low income renters. The reason for commission opposition is as stated in the article - the area doesn’t have the infrastructure to support the kind of development projects that Kaufman wants to slam in. The roads are narrow and still mostly cobblestone.

Yes, we do need the government to step in here because none of the developers are voluntarily building low income units despite displacing low income residents by tearing down their neighborhoods to build luxury housing. Unfortunately that means replacing the current government since they are bought and paid for by the same developers they’re supposed to be regulating. A local NPR host asked Mayor Ginther why Kaufman was being given tax abatements under the auspices of a neighborhood revitalization program to build luxury apartment and condo mid-rises in the Short North. He hung up the phone. Of course, that question is rhetorical since Kaufman bankrolled his election campaign along with most of the sitting members of City Council.

Click to expand...

Some great points, and this is a problem in many areas.

The affordable housing crisis is bad and getting worse.

Napoleon said:

Indeed, which is why those elected to such positions must be held to representing the people who elected them rather than political donors like Kaufman Development. There’s a robust grassroots effort to unseat and replace th current City Council for that reason.

Click to expand...

Here comes the new boss...

Lisa said:

There are not that many immigrants that if they are deported it will reduce demand in any meaningful way.


LOCK HIM UP!

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Irrelevant.

More public housing is the only solution that will work.

Drawdown said:

More public housing is the only solution that will work.

Click to expand...

Yeah, more project for welfare recipients and violent gangs. I like that idea.


Definitely a case for developers to build more condos and coops.

OldFatGuy said:

Yeah, more project for welfare recipients and violent gangs. I like that idea.


Definitely a case for developers to build more condos and coops.

Click to expand...

Public housing is necessarily a form of welfare but they need not be "projects". Our local housing authority built an entire neighborhood of single family free-standing stick built homes. It pissed a lot of people off that they weren't "projects."

3leftsdoo said:

They're part of the problem - no question. :shrug:

Bizarre/irrelevant comments.

More odd comments, but when it comes to Trump or ANY employer utilizing illegals, severe punishment should attach.

More bizarre comments which deny reality on the topic.

Millions of illegals are a significant part of the affordable housing crisis, and also the ongoing flat wage crisis which fuels the problem further.

This is reality.

Click to expand...

"We can have reasonable debates about immigration policy, but I find the scapegoating of them for our own problems frankly disgusting."

I'd discuss it further, but you're not interested in debate, just one liners dismissing others' comments, so you're not worth the effort.

3leftsdoo said:

They're part of the problem - no question. :shrug:

Bizarre/irrelevant comments.

More odd comments, but when it comes to Trump or ANY employer utilizing illegals, severe punishment should attach.

More bizarre comments which deny reality on the topic.

Millions of illegals are a significant part of the affordable housing crisis, and also the ongoing flat wage crisis which fuels the problem further.

This is reality.

Click to expand...

I agree about the wages but I doubt that they really add much to the housing crisis. Certainly no worse than Airbnb does.

Drawdown said:

Public housing is necessarily a form of welfare but they need not be "projects". Our local housing authority built an entire neighborhood of single family free-standing stick built homes. It pissed a lot of people off that they weren't "projects."

Click to expand...

Try that in an urban area where RE prices are already through the roof. As well, I can show you one family residential neighborhoods that make city multifamily tower projects seem safe. To top it off, both for economic scale with immense housing needs and the ecology threatening issues of one family structures, not a quality alternative either.

For all arguments regarding public housing and public housing initiatives, the current costs for constructing 1500 sq ft unit is about $250k, 2000 sq ft units $300k. This is for basic units, not luxury or even middle income. The costs of construction alone are a restriction, add in land costs in urban centers like San Diego or San Francisco where needs are greatest, and the market is astronomical, the cost skyrocket.

OldFatGuy said:

For all arguments regarding public housing and public housing initiatives, the current costs for constructing 1500 sq ft unit is about $250k, 2000 sq ft units $300k. This is for basic units, not luxury or even middle income. The costs of construction alone are a restriction, add in land costs in urban centers like San Diego or San Francisco where needs are greatest, and the market is astronomical, the cost skyrocket.

Click to expand...

That isn’t really a problem here. Columbus provides tax abatements for 10-15 years that attract development and it even sells city owned lots below market value to private developers to do it. The problem is that the developers are building luxury rather than affordable housing. Lots of it. Cascades. And they’re making the affordable housing crisis worse through gentrification. Our city suffers from the same problem that many others do - that no one seems to be able to figure out how to do neighborhood revitalization without driving most or all of the existing low income residents out.

Napoleon said:

That isn’t really a problem here. Columbus provides tax abatements for 10-15 years that attract development and it even sells city owned lots below market value to private developers to do it. The problem is that the developers are building luxury rather than affordable housing. Lots of it. Cascades. And they’re making the affordable housing crisis worse through gentrification. Our city suffers from the same problem that many others do - that no one seems to be able to figure out how to do neighborhood revitalization without driving most or all of the existing low income residents out.

Click to expand...

Developers are in business to make money. Regardless of what they build, the base costs remains the same. A bit more to make for luxury, more sq footage, better whiteware, a built in security system, a spa, whatever, and the profit ratio rises exponentially. The point of gentrification is getting rid of the low rent "undesirables." It is unsaid, but that is what gentrification means.

Almost ironically, here, when gentrification hit the old neighborhoods, once deemed for artists and other pioneers, the displaced moved to the old suburbs. Now centers of gang wars and other crimes. Suburban police who once had it relatively easy, find themselves in a maelstrom of activity they never anticipated.

ludin said:

Does not negate the point i was addressing and is non sequitur.



See previous comment



see previous comment.

have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I did not negate what you said. In fact, I confirmed so and I said so using the term "Indeed", if you understand.

I was adding to the discussion in terms of debate. After all, this is a debate forum. Your post implies Gen X is better off than Boomers (your Dad's gen). But, I'd much rather be making less and having more. I think most people that can add 2 + 2 Boomers and subtract 3 - 1 Gen-X would agree which to choose when the higher number is the better in the final analysis. You just didn't give the final analysis. Only the part-way in that made your implication look better.

Which situation would you rather be? Making more, but saving less than the next guy? Just to say, "I make more than you do". Maybe you can also add "And, I have more toys". So, which do you believe is the better financial situation?

bluesmoke said:

I did not negate what you said. In fact, I confirmed so and I said so using the term "Indeed", if you understand.

I was adding to the discussion in terms of debate. After all, this is a debate forum. Your post implies Gen X is better off than Boomers (your Dad's gen). But, I'd much rather be making less and having more. I think most people that can add 2 + 2 Boomers and subtract 3 - 1 Gen-X would agree which to choose when the higher number is the better in the final analysis. You just didn't give the final analysis. Only the part-way in that made your implication look better.

Which situation would you rather be? Making more, but saving less than the next guy? Just to say, "I make more than you do". Maybe you can also add "And, I have more toys". So, which do you believe is the better financial situation?

Click to expand...

your post was a non sequitur. had nothing to do with what i posted.
you are conflating talking points.
saving and budgeting is a learned skill.

if gen x is not doing it then that is their choice not to save money. is it smart? probably not, but it is their money and does not negate what i said.
so have a nice day.

JasperL said:

"We can have reasonable debates about immigration policy, but I find the scapegoating of them for our own problems frankly disgusting."

I'd discuss it further, but you're not interested in debate, just one liners dismissing others' comments, so you're not worth the effort.

Click to expand...

Bizarre/irrelevant.

Ditto.

Drawdown said:

I agree about the wages but I doubt that they really add much to the housing crisis. Certainly no worse than Airbnb does.

Click to expand...

Well, the lowest estimate - likely off by millions if not tens of millions - is 11 million illegals here, so I think that's having a substantial impact.

Airbnb upwardly impacts already prohibitively high costs in destination areas, but it's really an icing on the poison cake kind of thing not affecting most of the country, while illegals are everywhere.

Napoleon said:

That isn’t really a problem here. Columbus provides tax abatements for 10-15 years that attract development and it even sells city owned lots below market value to private developers to do it. The problem is that the developers are building luxury rather than affordable housing. Lots of it. Cascades. And they’re making the affordable housing crisis worse through gentrification. Our city suffers from the same problem that many others do - that no one seems to be able to figure out how to do neighborhood revitalization without driving most or all of the existing low income residents out.

Click to expand...

Politicians = Worthless criminals at best, dangerous sociopaths at worst

3leftsdoo said:

Well, the lowest estimate - likely off by millions if not tens of millions - is 11 million illegals here, so I think that's having a substantial impact.

Airbnb upwardly impacts already prohibitively high costs in destination areas, but it's really an icing on the poison cake kind of thing not affecting most of the country, while illegals are everywhere.

Click to expand...

11 million illegals is 3 million households maybe. There are 3,141 counties so you are talking about an average of less than 1K households per county. If we 18M vacant homes in the US, I seriously doubt that they add as much pressure nationally as you seem to think. Maybe is certain "Hispanic Communities" they would create shortages, but the numbers do not suggest to me at least that they are a significant factor. In my area at least they often buy dumps nobody wants for cash and often turn them into fairly decent houses with sweat equity. I am not saying they do that everywhere. I am sure there are places where the opposite is true--houses get destroyed by them. I just think it is a little more complex.

ttwtt78640 said:

The Bernie Sanders answer to all questions/issues is that we need more federal government control.

Click to expand...

Not only that, but also, down with Wall Street.

So, we can't call him a one-trick poney. He is a two-trick poney.

Bernie Sanders is nuts, and a full-blown idiot. Thankfully he is a loser, and will lose again, this electoral cycle. I can't wait from the day this imbecile will drop out of the race.

GreatNews2night said:

Not only that, but also, down with Wall Street.

So, we can't call him a one-trick poney. He is a two-trick poney.

Bernie Sanders is nuts, and a full-blown idiot. Thankfully he is a loser, and will lose again, this electoral cycle. I can't wait from the day this imbecile will drop out of the race.

Click to expand...

Note that, the alleged capitalist, Warren has picked up on the usefulness of a Wall Street "transaction tax" as a new federal piggy bank. The great lie that all manner of new "free" federal benefits can be funded by simply taxing "the rich" (with higher federal income tax bracket rates) more has been dropped.

The idea that the federal government has the Constitutional power to play Robin Hood and that so long as something "important" is funded by (new?) federal tax money that it becomes a new federal government power is insane. There simply is no Constitutional federal power to "outlaw" private medical care insurance, to tax an individual's wealth or to force all US medical care providers to become non-profit. These are very significant new (recently invented?) federal powers which have no connection to the federal powers granted by the Constitution.

ttwtt78640 said:

Note that, the alleged capitalist, Warren has picked up on the usefulness of a Wall Street "transaction tax" as a new federal piggy bank. The great lie that all manner of new "free" federal benefits can be funded by simply taxing "the rich" (with higher federal income tax bracket rates) more has been dropped.

The idea that the federal government has the Constitutional power to play Robin Hood and that so long as something "important" is funded by (new?) federal tax money that it becomes a new federal government power is insane. There simply is no Constitutional federal power to "outlaw" private medical care insurance, to tax an individual's wealth or to force all US medical care providers to become non-profit. These are very significant new (recently invented?) federal powers which have no connection to the federal powers granted by the Constitution.

Click to expand...

As a centrist, I agree with you. The problem with taxing the rich to fund everything is that you rapidly run out of the rich, who take their business elsewhere with off-shore corporations and even actually moving her fiscal domicile abroad, like happen when France tried the same move. This said, I don't favor obscene tax cuts for the rich either, like Trump championed. I think there needs to be a happy medium.

GreatNews2night said:

As a centrist, I agree with you. The problem with taxing the rich to fund everything is that you rapidly run out of the rich, who take their business elsewhere with off-shore corporations and even actually moving her fiscal domicile abroad, like happen when France tried the same move. This said, I don't favor obscene tax cuts for the rich either, like Trump championed. I think there needs to be a happy medium.

Click to expand...

I agree that reducing federal taxation as an economic "stimulus" while running $1T annual federal "budget" deficits is insane. That being said, trusting the federal government to become the single-payer of all US medical care providers after seeing how they "manage" our single-payer DoD while enriching the MIC beyond belief is frightening.

Congress critters work for campaign cash providers and follow the instructions of their lobbyists which is required to keep them in power. Anyone who thinks that folks toss millions to these congress critters (often not even in their district/state) out of some civic duty while expecting no personal benefits (federal pork) in return is kidding themselves.

Drawdown said:

11 million illegals is 3 million households maybe. There are 3,141 counties so you are talking about an average of less than 1K households per county. If we 18M vacant homes in the US, I seriously doubt that they add as much pressure nationally as you seem to think. Maybe is certain "Hispanic Communities" they would create shortages, but the numbers do not suggest to me at least that they are a significant factor. In my area at least they often buy dumps nobody wants for cash and often turn them into fairly decent houses with sweat equity. I am not saying they do that everywhere. I am sure there are places where the opposite is true--houses get destroyed by them. I just think it is a little more complex.

Click to expand...

The numbers can be parsed in many ways, but the bottom line is they create numerous problems.

In this instance, pushing housing costs up, and keeping wages low.

ttwtt78640 said:

I agree that reducing federal taxation as an economic "stimulus" while running $1T annual federal "budget" deficits is insane. That being said, trusting the federal government to become the single-payer of all US medical care providers after seeing how they "manage" our single-payer DoD while enriching the MIC beyond belief is frightening.

Congress critters work for campaign cash providers and follow the instructions of their lobbyists which is required to keep them in power. Anyone who thinks that folks toss millions to these congress critters (often not even in their district/state) out of some civic duty while expecting no personal benefits (federal pork) in return is kidding themselves.

Click to expand...

Exactly. There was a study, I think by Stanford University (sorry, it's been a while, I wouldn't have a link, now) demonstrating that 99.5% of congressional decisions comes from the interest of lobbies, while 0.5% comes from the interest of the people. Frightening, indeed.

What bothers me with the Trump economy is that it *seems* good or is *perceived* as such right now which greatly enhances his electoral chances, but at some point we'll have to pay the price for the astronomical deficit; most likely with a significant delay. Economic factors often have a long delay to show effects. You do something now, the economy looks great, but in 2-3 years there is a detrimental effect. So, many will flock to the 2020 ballot boxes believing that everything is peachy and Trump deserves another term, and then the following year they'll see the disaster that is looming.

I agree that when we look at the bloated and inefficient Veterans Affairs healthcare, it is frightening to think of Medicare For All and the end of the viability of private health insurance. But again, as a centrist, I'm always for the happy medium. If you look at a country like France, which I know very well because I studied, lived, and worked there for five years (and I qualified for, and used their national health system), they were able to set up an extremely smart hybrid system, where everybody qualifies for the national health system where everything is free if that's what they want to use, but can also use a mixed middle system where doctors can charge more and patients have co-pays, or a third sector where doctors charge whatever they want and payment is entirely out of pocket. Patients don't need to pick a sector and be stuck with it. They can for example preferentially go to the public free system but if they want to see a specialist who commands a great reputation for a second opinion and pay out of pocket, they can, or if they want to go to the middle system to avoid waiting times and pay a co-pay, they can. Someone can for example have a primary care doctor in the free system and a specialist in the middle system. People can contract with private insurance to better afford the middle system co-pays if they want, and the premium is much smaller than here because what is left for the insurer to pay is also much smaller in the middle system given that social security does pick up a good chunk of the tab. The existence of the hybrid system and the fee-for-service out-of-pocket system decompresses the free system so that there isn't a lot of waiting time like in the British system. Everybody is happy because patients get great care, and doctors aren't stuck in a state bureaucracy either, given that doctors who are more entrepreneurial can choose to practice in the middle or the fee-for-service systems where they can earn more money, but those will be more competitive while a younger doctor or a more timid doctor can choose to practice in the free system where good business is pretty much guaranteed without much advertising. This is all very clearly spelled out, with doctors, clinics, and hospitals prominently displaying what system they practice in, and patients can just freely pick what they want.

This smart and agile system has earned for France the #1 spot in quality healthcare in the world, according to the World Health Organization. It's a win-win.

Why in the hell can't we have something similar here? Sure, our system is more complex and we have three times France's population, and their individual income taxes are higher than here. But I can't believe that we can't find a way to have a hybrid system here with a public option, and a private option for those who prefer and can afford the latter.

Continued below due to character limit

Continued from above

When I lived in France my wife got seriously sick. We were students so we picked the public free system. At one point we had one visit with a fee-for-service prestigious professor for a second opinion. He ended up confirming what his colleague from the public system was doing so we returned to the public system. She made a full recovery. The care was free for us (we would have spent a significant chunk of money in the US) except for our silly insecurity of reaching out to the big professor to confirm that the public system doctor was right.

I greatly admire the healthcare in countries like France and Italy (the latter has the #2 system in the world). I qualify for care in Italy because I'm a dual citizen (I'm Italian-American and I hold both passports). I once got sick in Italy and had emergency surgery; I paid nothing. The doctors and the hospital were great. What is interesting about these smart European countries is that if you don't qualify, you can buy-in. If you pay a relatively large annual fee to their social security system (say, you are there as a non-resident, you are not a citizen, therefore you don't automatically qualify) you can use it.

So, all talks of free healthcare for immigrants here make me laugh. The Dems are crazy when they propose that. It would result in unintended consequences: people would flock here from the Third World with expensive healthcare needs such as chemotherapy for cancer, transplants, heart surgery, etc., because they wouldn't be able to afford it in their home country but if they sneaked into the US (like overstaying a valid visa or simply sneaking in through the porous border) they'd qualify for free healthcare as illegal aliens. Crazy, when you think that a transplant can cost $650,000, heart surgery $250,000, and chemotherapy $300,000, so why in the hell would we pay for that for an illegal alien??? In Europe where they do have universal healthcare, they aren't stupid enough to do that. If you don't qualify, you don't get anything other than emergency care to stabilize you for the sake of humanitarian bases, but if you want the full care you have to buy in.