Tired of all the dicks in the world? Science may have found an solution.

[fskimospy]

I think I threw up in my mouth a lil bit.

For me it's that I don't understand the logic.

1: We shouldn't build more in cities because people don't like to be crowded.

2: But building more would mean less crowding as fewer people would need to reside in one house.

1: They should move to Texas instead.

 

[K1052]

For me it's that I don't understand the logic.

1: We shouldn't build more in cities because people don't like to be crowded.

2: But building more would mean less crowding as fewer people would need to reside in one house.

1: They should move to Texas instead.

I mean I think that the people who are crowded into homes would generally be pretty happy to move into their own home in the basically same area. Their living situation isn't by choice, its mostly by necessity. The problem is of course that many cities have decided to prevent that from happening for entirely self-defeating reasons.

 

[Jaskalas]

Re: Plastic.

(NSFW)

• Half of all plastics ever made have been produced since 2005.
• You already consume a credit card’s worth of plastic every week.
• Plastic production is expected to triple by 2050.
• By 2050, the ocean is expected to contain more plastic (by weight) than fish.
  
  
• Less than 9% is recycled, rest goes into the environment.
• Only 2% is recycled into a product that can be recycled again.
• No recycling programs accept common containers sold by the billions in super markets.
• Most recycling symbols are fake, as there is no recycling program for that product.

Assuming there is a lag time between plastic production becoming waste and breaking down into microplastics AND ending up in our bodies.... and further lag time for those not yet born into this contamination... to see what the effect of living through a certain level of exposure is like.... This situation is quite the mess. Are we destined to have 10x the current level of plastic in our bodies? More? Much more? If it has not already harmed us, it is fairly easy to imagine some breaking points where it does.

 

[nOOky]

Working at one of the largest custom plastics compounding companies I can tell you it's horrible to think of how it affects the environment. Yet part of my job is to try to increase the rate at which we make the plastic. At no point are any plastics producers thinking about the environment. Recycling is incredibly difficult due to the complexity of the formulas and alloys and additives. Every time someone tries to come up with methods to re-introduce these waste streams back into the process it ends up being too expensive. At least if you want to remain in business.

We regularly bury truckloads of waste into the earth. We regularly use materials strip mined out of the earth, such as talc which is used as a filler. I could resign in protest, but some young engineer would just replace me anyway, and it would not stop. So I try not to think about it, it would require a societal change way beyond me.

 

[PingSpike]

If this is the case can you point me to a single time in history where population decline was a positive thing for a society? Is Japan better off now than it was ten years ago because its population is declining?

The black death increased peasants rights and standard of living due to a worker shortage. I'm not sure I'd say like half the people dying was positive! But the resulting changes that it forced were positive.

 

[fskimospy]

The black death increased peasants rights and standard of living due to a worker shortage. I'm not sure I'd say like half the people dying was positive! But the resulting changes that it forced were positive.

While I hear your point as you mention I’m not sure if the half of Europe that died would describe the changes as positive.

 

[Jaskalas]

I could resign in protest, but some young engineer would just replace me anyway, and it would not stop. So I try not to think about it, it would require a societal change way beyond me.

I liken that to John Kerry traveling and owning some large homes. His advocacy is not invalidated by him existing in and living through our current system. He does want it to change. Republicans attack him and others in such a manner, but it is a logical fallacy. We are only human, and even the best of us can only make do with what we got. It is the push for government / societal policy change that matters.

 

[Jaskalas]

While I hear your point as you mention I’m not sure if the half of Europe that died would describe the changes as positive.

One can cut a future population in "half" by simply not adding more to it. No purge needed, just a push for sustainability. An earlier post of yours made it seem like you actually oppose stability. Do you truly advocate for growth as something required to be maintained? For what benefit do we take on this burden, ensure a diminished standard of living, and risk everything?

 

[fskimospy]

One can cut a future population in "half" by simply not adding more to it. No purge needed, just a push for sustainability. An earlier post of yours made it seem like you actually oppose stability. Do you truly advocate for growth as something required to be maintained? For what benefit do we take on this burden, ensure a diminished standard of living, and risk everything?

Very much the opposite - I think stagnation ensures diminished standard of living, societal decline, and instability.

 

[Moonbeam]

For me it's that I don't understand the logic.

1: We shouldn't build more in cities because people don't like to be crowded.

2: But building more would mean less crowding as fewer people would need to reside in one house.

1: They should move to Texas instead.

You two certainly didn’t understand the logic which is why I presented it to you. I thought the absurdity of what you seem to think of as logic should be met with logic that would look like that to you.

Why do people want a place to call home. Could it be convenience, the fulfillment of some basic human instinct. Are primates territorial, genetically, do they feel things like threat and fear or aggression toward other resource competition? So let’s move all the HaveNots in with the previously established Haves. Sounds like HaveNot thinking to me.

I gave you some Have thinking, aware of how welcome it would be. I would suggest that when you dream up solutions to problems you look deeply into what causes them.

The universal presence of self hate creates fear of exposure to failure, the destruction of ego pretense. This creates competition and competition is hate. Competition creates winners and losers and losing creates existential hardship and fear. So the reason people are homeless and poor is the result of our capitalist system. There is no solution to be found within that system.

Now suppose we lived in a socialized system that guaranteed every person a minimum wage and the problems of how to arrange human living conditions were the responsibility of the scientifically and liberal arts gifted. What reason do you think would there be that we could not turn the world into a park with human labor devoted to its maintainence. The first thing people do who have what they need is to share any excess with others.

You doubtlessly notice, I am sure, that while you have your eye on the wealth I can’t spend from my small portion of heaven I was lucky enough to carve out at a time of reduced competition, you have not invited any of those into whose crowded apartments you peer, to move half of them in with you, but you fancy a notion you should vote to force me to vacate my home by asking I be taxed at a rate I can’t afford to pay. All I can say is thanks.

 

[dank69]

You two certainly didn’t understand the logic which is why I presented it to you. I thought the absurdity of what you seem to think of as logic should be met with logic that would look like that to you.

Why do people want a place to call home. Could it be convenience, the fulfillment of some basic human instinct. Are primates territorial, genetically, do they feel things like threat and fear or aggression toward other resource competition? So let’s move all the HaveNots in with the previously established Haves. Sounds like HaveNot thinking to me.

I gave you some Have thinking, aware of how welcome it would be. I would suggest that when you dream up solutions to problems you look deeply into what causes them.

The universal presence of self hate creates fear of exposure to failure, the destruction of ego pretense. This creates competition and competition is hate. Competition creates winners and losers and losing creates existential hardship and fear. So the reason people are homeless and poor is the result of our capitalist system. There is no solution to be found within that system.

Now suppose we lived in a socialized system that guaranteed every person a minimum wage and the problems of how to arrange human living conditions were the responsibility of the scientifically and liberal arts gifted. What reason do you think would there be that we could not turn the world into a park with human labor devoted to its maintainence. The first thing people do who have what they need is to share any excess with others.

You doubtlessly notice, I am sure, that while you have your eye on the wealth I can’t spend from my small portion of heaven I was lucky enough to carve out at a time of reduced competition, you have not invited any of those into whose crowded apartments you peer, to move half of them in with you, but you fancy a notion you should vote to force me to vacate my home by asking I be taxed at a rate I can’t afford to pay. All I can say is thanks.

Unless the haves are offered more for less.

Regardless, increasing density doesn't necessarily mean no more single-families or large single-family lots. A lot can be done to increase efficiency and density of already dense areas. Changing a block of 3-story brownstones into a high-rise could increase density while eliminating any downside.

 

[Moonbeam]

You didn’t address my point though. Building more would make things less crowded, not more.

You focus only on building more for people who can’t afford housing and congregate where low paying jobs are available but pay insuficiently to to cover rent. I am not opposed to more housing, but new density should not come at the expense of people who dealt with their own housing struggles successfully in the past. You want to change the rules of the game by force of numbers, voting people out of their homes. Fix poverty instead. I don’t want to sell and have a pile of money. I want to water my flowers and grow some herbs and say hi to the people where I live. I also own another home where two people live and I pay all of the bills there. I am in a race to see if I can die before I go completely broke and have to, you guessed it, rent. Then, of course I will want to build 50 units for 3000 a month plus deposit.

 

[fskimospy]

You two certainly didn’t understand the logic which is why I presented it to you. I thought the absurdity of what you seem to think of as logic should be met with logic that would look like that to you.

Why do people want a place to call home. Could it be convenience, the fulfillment of some basic human instinct. Are primates territorial, genetically, do they feel things like threat and fear or aggression toward other resource competition? So let’s move all the HaveNots in with the previously established Haves. Sounds like HaveNot thinking to me.

I gave you some Have thinking, aware of how welcome it would be. I would suggest that when you dream up solutions to problems you look deeply into what causes them.

I do agree some deeper examination is in order. I doubt the have nots would appreciate forcible relocation into places they didn’t choose. I instead offer a better way - allow people to live where they want and allow each person to choose how to best meet that need, both from a demand and a supply perspective.

Remember, the only thing I’m asking of you is to stop banning construction. You don’t have to do anything more than get out of the way.

The universal presence of self hate creates fear of exposure to failure, the destruction of ego pretense. This creates competition and competition is hate. Competition creates winners and losers and losing creates existential hardship and fear. So the reason people are homeless and poor is the result of our capitalist system. There is no solution to be found within that system.

Now suppose we lived in a socialized system that guaranteed every person a minimum wage and the problems of how to arrange human living conditions were the responsibility of the scientifically and liberal arts gifted. What reason do you think would there be that we could not turn the world into a park with human labor devoted to its maintainence. The first thing people do who have what they need is to share any excess with others.

We...uhh...tried that. It led to the deaths of tens of millions. That doesn’t sound happy to me

You doubtlessly notice, I am sure, that while you have your eye on the wealth I can’t spend from my small portion of heaven I was lucky enough to carve out at a time of reduced competition, you have not invited any of those into whose crowded apartments you peer, to move half of them in with you, but you fancy a notion you should vote to force me to vacate my home by asking I be taxed at a rate I can’t afford to pay. All I can say is thanks.

I fancy a notion that you should have to pay the same rate as your next door neighbor. I do not understand why you feel entitled to demand a special lower rate.

I am a homeowner though, and by advocating for an increased supply of the scarce good that I own I am decreasing its value. So yeah, I’m willing to take money out of my own pocket in much the way you suggest.

Often people coming from a place of privilege view equality as oppression. You should ask yourself if that applies to you.

 

[fskimospy]

You focus only on building more for people who can’t afford housing and congregate where low paying jobs are available but pay insuficiently to to cover rent. I am not opposed to more housing, but new density should not come at the expense of people who dealt with their own housing struggles successfully in the past.

No, I do not accept entitlement to what sort of houses other people can build on their own property. What makes you think you have a claim over your next door neighbor’s lot?

You want to change the rules of the game by force of numbers, voting people out of their homes. Fix poverty instead.

The rules of the game are always changing. Prop 13 changed the rules of the game to privilege incumbent landowners over younger and poorer people. How did prop 13 not do exactly what you’re complaining about, using the force of numbers to vote people out of their homes?

I don’t want to sell and have a pile of money. I want to water my flowers and grow some herbs and say hi to the people where I live. I also own another home where two people live and I pay all of the bills there. I am in a race to see if I can die before I go completely broke and have to, you guessed it, rent. Then, of course I will want to build 50 units for 3000 a month plus deposit.

I’m sure you don’t. Lots of people in California don’t want to live under bridges either. If you value your flowers over their suffering that’s up to you but you should at least be honest with yourself that you’re making that choice.

 

[Moonbeam]

While I hear your point as you mention I’m not sure if the half of Europe that died would describe the changes as positive.

We weren’t talking about people dying, just not being born. I have never met anybody not born who regretted it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Unless the haves are offered more for less.

Regardless, increasing density doesn't necessarily mean no more single-families or large single-family lots. A lot can be done to increase efficiency and density of already dense areas. Changing a block of 3-story brownstones into a high-rise could increase density while eliminating any downside.

So true. I used to get to the freeway in ten minutes and sail along at 65. Now I could walk just about as fast.

But tell me why it is that so many of the folk who would love to buy my house have started to move out of local rentals and moving to less expensive areas. It wouldn’t be because so many, thanks to COVID, are working on line, would it. For a while you could even drive.

Give people the means to survive and multitudes of them will live as far as they can from others.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, I do not accept entitlement to what sort of houses other people can build on their own property. What makes you think you have a claim over your next door neighbor’s lot?


The rules of the game are always changing. Prop 13 changed the rules of the game to privilege incumbent landowners over younger and poorer people. How did prop 13 not do exactly what you’re complaining about, using the force of numbers to vote people out of their homes?i


I’m sure you don’t. Lots of people in California don’t want to live under bridges either. If you value your flowers over their suffering that’s up to you but you should at least be honest with yourself that you’re making that choice.

How are you different than I am? You don’t rent and move under a bridge so you can support someone else who can move into your place for free. But I support two such people at a good 3 to 4 thousand a month. You support the elimination of Prop 13. I support universal living wage. Your way will hand my house to somebody who can pay the huge tax bill that will result while adding no additional housing. My way will make it possible for homeless people to be able to afford to line somewhere. And many of the homeless are junkies with mental health issues. They need hospital beds, not affordable shelter.

I could be wrong but I bet habitat for humanity builds houses for humans rather than cans for sardines because of that humanity thing. Some of us have some sense as to what that means.

Have you ever suspected that the African Savana is mirrored in a Bonsai tree or that Eden is a garden for a reason?

Too many camel bones and people forget what a real camel looks like.

They say you can remove the bars from a tiger long caged and it will pace back and forth just like they were still there.

I was in New York once. I stayed in the YMCA. The elevator on the floor of my room had a strange habit of passing it by as it went up and down, so I took a stairway that exited several floors down directly onto the street. A cop stepped in front of me demanding to know why I had come out that door, the one you could exit by stairs and I shouted at him to get the fuck out of my way. I had had all the delay that I cared for waiting for the elevator to stop. He turned red as a beet and I could see the fear and indecisiveness and other impulses compete to dominate his response. Wasn’t use to us free spirit Californians, apparently, who simple had no training in servility. One of the wonderful effects of density is the urge and the inevitable need to control via a police state.

 

[fskimospy]

How are you different than I am? You don’t rent and move under a bridge so you can support someone else who can move into your place for free. But I support two such people at a good 3 to 4 thousand a month. You support the elimination of Prop 13. I support universal living wage. Your way will hand my house to somebody who can pay the huge tax bill that will result while adding no additional housing.

You keep complaining about your huge tax bill but I have yet to hear a good argument about why you shouldn’t have to pay the same taxes your neighbors do. Why are you special? I don’t want to pay taxes on my income - where do I sign up for a similar exemption?

In addition, this is very much a situation where a child kills their parents and then pleads for leniency because they are an orphan. Your high property values and imagined future high tax bills are the entirely foreseeable result of refusing to allow denser construction. You say no to density, so your property values go up because there’s ever increasing demand for the same number of living units. Then when your property values go up you demand to be exempted from the taxes of that valuation that you helped to cause!

I’ve put forth a compromise to those who say their only goal is to keep people in their homes - defer those property taxes until the homeowner dies or the property is sold, and then take the remainder out of the sale of the property, up to 100% of its value. Then equal taxes are paid and nobody is forced out of their home. Perhaps not surprisingly, nobody likes that idea either because the actual position is that they are entitled to both the inflated value of their home and entitled to exemption from the consequences they have inflicted on everyone else.

My way will make it possible for homeless people to be able to afford to line somewhere. And many of the homeless are junkies with mental health issues. They need hospital beds, not affordable shelter.

While its true that substance abuse and mental illness are much higher in the homeless population than in general, most homeless are neither, they just can’t afford homes.

While your personal charity towards those individuals is admirable I would suggest you take a step back and recognize the anti-density position you have creates far more homeless than you’re saving.

 

[dank69]

So true. I used to get to the freeway in ten minutes and sail along at 65. Now I could walk just about as fast.

But tell me why it is that so many of the folk who would love to buy my house have started to move out of local rentals and moving to less expensive areas. It wouldn’t be because so many, thanks to COVID, are working on line, would it. For a while you could even drive.

Give people the means to survive and multitudes of them will live as far as they can from others.

It's possible that the big attraction to living close to others (always having lots of people in close contact) has lost some of its luster during the pandemic. Will have to see if the trend reverses once we can crawl all over each other again.

Hopefully the popularity of working remotely remains so we can reduce needless traffic, though.

 

[Moonbeam]

You keep complaining about your huge tax bill but I have yet to hear a good argument about why you shouldn’t have to pay the same taxes your neighbors do. Why are you special? I don’t want to pay taxes on my income - where do I sign up for a similar exemption?

In addition, this is very much a situation where a child kills their parents and then pleads for leniency because they are an orphan. Your high property values and imagined future high tax bills are the entirely foreseeable result of refusing to allow denser construction. You say no to density, so your property values go up because there’s ever increasing demand for the same number of living units. Then when your property values go up you demand to be exempted from the taxes of that valuation that you helped to cause!

I’ve put forth a compromise to those who say their only goal is to keep people in their homes - defer those property taxes until the homeowner dies or the property is sold, and then take the remainder out of the sale of the property, up to 100% of its value. Then equal taxes are paid and nobody is forced out of their home. Perhaps not surprisingly, nobody likes that idea either because the actual position is that they are entitled to both the inflated value of their home and entitled to exemption from the consequences they have inflicted on everyone else.


While its true that substance abuse and mental illness are much higher in the homeless population than in general, most homeless are neither, they just can’t afford homes.

While your personal charity towards those individuals is admirable I would suggest you take a step back and recognize the anti-density position you have creates far more homeless than you’re saving.

I did nothing. I was a callous fool who voted against prop 13. I did the opposite of voting for myself. I did nothing to have advantage over my neighbor. My guess is that the tax bill on the people who lived here before me was probably 600 dollars. My neighbor who is adding on to his 2 million house is probably 7000 a year and about to go up. The tax bill today per month would be larger than the mortgage I had that I could barely qualify for. The only reason I don’t move is because I do not live alone so moving is not in the cards for that reason. Also, prop 13 is transferable and I plan to leave my house to a family member who is disabled and can’t earn an income. Selfish of me I know, not to worry that because of me and current law, a person who would be homeless and disabled may a decent life in decent housing in a decent area from what I hope to be able to leave. Mohamed said, I have heard, if the most needs a lamp and the home needs to eat, the family comes first.

I kind of think it’s genetic. It will be dechades and beyond before my wealthy new neighbors will ever allow high density in my neighborhood. What you seek is that only the 1% can live in my house.

where is your answer to to homelessness if everybody had a livable wage? I think the sardines would quickly vacate for less dense climes as I would if I thought only of myself.

 

[fskimospy]

I did nothing. I was a callous fool who voted against prop 13. I did the opposite of voting for myself. I did nothing to have advantage over my neighbor.

So in other words the rules got changed while you were a homeowner. Great - let’s change them back to what they were when you bought. It doesn’t remove your culpability for now supporting special tax privileges for yourself though.

My guess is that the tax bill on the people who lived here before me was probably 600 dollars. My neighbor who is adding on to his 2 million house is probably 7000 a year and about to go up. The tax bill today per month would be larger than the mortgage I had that I could barely qualify for. The only reason I don’t move is because I do not live alone so moving is not in the cards for that reason. Also, prop 13 is transferable and I plan to leave my house to a family member who is disabled and can’t earn an income. Selfish of me I know, not to worry that because of me and current law, a person who would be homeless and disabled may a decent life in decent housing in a decent area from what I hope to be able to leave. Mohamed said, I have heard, if the most needs a lamp and the home needs to eat, the family comes first.

Yes, and now prop 13 becomes a generational entitlement. Again, personal charity is admirable but that system which allows you to do this is inflicting mass suffering. Are you okay with that? It’s the same with nonsensical rent control in NYC. Get a rent controlled apartment passed down to you from grandma? You get to pay $500/month for a $5,000 apartment. Everyone else of your income? Screwed.

I want to make it so everyone has a chance at decent housing, not the privileged few.

I kind of think it’s genetic. It will be dechades and beyond before my wealthy new neighbors will ever allow high density in my neighborhood. What you seek is that only the 1% can live in my house.

Precisely the opposite - YOU seek that only your privileged family members or the 1% can live in your house because you oppose building sufficient housing. Like I said, you helped make a situation where only millionaires can live in your neighborhood and now your complaint is that you’ve driven the price up on your property so high that you can’t pay the taxes.

Sorry, you get no pity from me. You’ve enriched yourself while supporting a policy of mass human suffering. Maybe you didn’t realize this is what you were doing and only thought about your family and your garden, but that’s what you did.

where is your answer to to homelessness if everybody had a livable wage? I think the sardines would quickly vacate for less dense climes as I would if I thought only of myself.

My answer to homelessness is simple - allow homes to be built and stop using the government to ban them and the problem will largely solve itself. There will always be some people who can’t afford homes though, and for those people the government will provide it.

There’s no point in you or I trying to decide where people want to live, what we think doesn’t matter. Let people decide for themselves - stop using the law to stop people from reducing homelessness. The main reason people cite when emigrating from California is not that they no longer wish to live there but that they simply can’t afford it. This is almost entirely due to the housing crisis.

 

[Moonbeam]

So in other words the rules got changed while you were a homeowner. Great - let’s change them back to what they were when you bought. It doesn’t remove your culpability for now supporting special tax privileges for yourself though.


Yes, and now prop 13 becomes a generational entitlement. Again, personal charity is admirable but that system which allows you to do this is inflicting mass suffering. Are you okay with that? It’s the same with nonsensical rent control in NYC. Get a rent controlled apartment passed down to you from grandma? You get to pay $500/month for a $5,000 apartment. Everyone else of your income? Screwed.

I want to make it so everyone has a chance at decent housing, not the privileged few.


Precisely the opposite - YOU seek that only your privileged family members or the 1% can live in your house because you oppose building sufficient housing. Like I said, you helped make a situation where only millionaires can live in your neighborhood and now your complaint is that you’ve driven the price up on your property so high that you can’t pay the taxes.

Sorry, you get no pity from me. You’ve enriched yourself while supporting a policy of mass human suffering. Maybe you didn’t realize this is what you were doing and only thought about your family and your garden, but that’s what you did.


My answer to homelessness is simple - allow homes to be built and stop using the government to ban them and the problem will largely solve itself. There will always be some people who can’t afford homes though, and for those people the government will provide it.

There’s no point in you or I trying to decide where people want to live, what we think doesn’t matter. Let people decide for themselves - stop using a stone and poorthe law to stop people from reducing homelessness. The main reason people cite when emigrating from California is not that they no longer wish to live there but that they simply can’t afford it. This is almost entirely due to the housing crisis

Well the housing crisis es easy to fix. Tax income and equities so that nobody can afford to live anywhere. The demand for low density housing will drop like a stone as well as the property tax evaluations. People will be willing to sell for a song. The government will be rich and can build new homes for everybody for free. You know it is all those people with money that create poverty. Their ability to pay for the kinds of things people want drives up the price of everything.

Really, I don’t care if my house is worth nothing at all so long as I can afford to live there. I am also terribly guilty that I don’t shoot you and give what you have to the poor. See, we have the same moral standards. You keep looking, too, for me to fix the homeless problem when, a solution that with my best efforts would never happen, but meanwhile I support others at my own expense. Get back to me when you pay taxes on more than one property, one at the full rate, and allow a couple of people to live there all bills paid by you. All I do is argue against what I consider to be a wrong and unjust solution to a problem that can only be fixed another way. You see things so clearly but you seem blind here to me. I simply do not take your guilt trip seriously. I have the better solution, to treat not symptoms of systemic failure but change the system itself.

Property taxes were killing people long before their homes became goldmines. I watch hundreds of old people forced out of apartments because they couldn’t pay the rising rent. Homeowners rebelled and passed prop 13. I voted against it. Glad I lost. Can’t wait for Democrats to make prop 13 repeal an issue. They have a talent for fucking themselves in the ass.

 

[MrSquished]

I bought a house with a yard because I didn’t want to live in an apartment anymore. I bought it at a time when prices were rising so fast a year later I would not have been able to afford it. I bought where I grew up to be near my parents. Now, of course I am worth vast sums of money, beyond what billions of people will ever see. How clever of me. I wish I had bought a farm instead, one maybe worth little more now than then. I can’t spend my house at the store or pay the taxes on it. But my life is now here I live and I play a role in family support. The people who jam up like sardines in NYC or LA could have more room in Texas but want to live as they do instead. But they are not going to move in with me. It’s not my fault I could afford to live where I do when I bought because everybody and their brother hadn’t decided by the thousands they wanted to live on top of me. I did what I had to do to have a small home and a bit of land. I would have never done so knowing that years later someone would vote to force me out to put up a sardine can.

All those who want to dense up on my land will scream murder when others years later will want to run them out to build something even denser.

And kids in an apartment building. I remember that misery.

I am quite certain that he is not arguing that you should be forced off of your land, just that when people buy land in your area, they can build bigger buildings and not be restricted by zoning laws as much. This doesn't mean they can drop a 50 story building in a single family neighborhood. But maybe 2-4 family units become ok, etc...and in certain other parts of town, maybe something a bit denser, and on and so forth.

 

[fskimospy]

Well the housing crisis es easy to fix. Tax income and equities so that nobody can afford to live anywhere. The demand for low density housing will drop like a stone as well as the property tax evaluations. People will be willing to sell for a song. The government will be rich and can build new homes for everybody for free. You know it is all those people with money that create poverty. Their ability to pay for the kinds of things people want drives up the price of everything.

So in other words you have no answer for why you deserve special tax rates.

Really, I don’t care if my house is worth nothing at all so long as I can afford to live there. I am also terribly guilty that I don’t shoot you and give what you have to the poor. See, we have the same moral standards. You keep looking, too, for me to fix the homeless problem when, a solution that with my best efforts would never happen, but meanwhile I support others at my own expense.

Get back to me when you pay taxes on more than one property, one at the full rate, and allow a couple of people to live there all bills paid by you.

Ah, the voice of entitlement. I can only critique the immorality of your position when I own multiple properties, the exact thing that your position renders impossible for all but the absolute richest of the rich.

All I do is argue against what I consider to be a wrong and unjust solution to a problem that can only be fixed another way. You see things so clearly but you seem blind here to me. I simply do not take your guilt trip seriously. I have the better solution, to treat not symptoms of systemic failure but change the system itself.

I genuinely don’t care if you feel guilty or not, I am simply describing the reality of what your preferred policies have resulted in. You look at helping a couple people and think you’re fighting the good fight. I see the larger picture and see the people forced to live in a parking lot because you have decided the government should ban building.

Property taxes were killing people long before their homes became goldmines. I watch hundreds of old people forced out of apartments because they couldn’t pay the rising rent. Homeowners rebelled and passed prop 13. I voted against it. Glad I lost. Can’t wait for Democrats to make prop 13 repeal an issue. They have a talent for fucking themselves in the ass.

If property taxes were the problem you could repeal property taxes. Instead incumbent landowners decided property taxes for everyone else and not for them.[/quote]

 

[fskimospy]

I am quite certain that he is not arguing that you should be forced off of your land, just that when people buy land in your area, they can build bigger buildings and not be restricted by zoning laws as much. This doesn't mean they can drop a 50 story building in a single family neighborhood. But maybe 2-4 family units become ok, etc...and in certain other parts of town, maybe something a bit denser, and on and so forth.

You’re partially right. I’m arguing against him having to pay a small fraction of the property tax that a new owner would have to pay for an identical property. It’s possible if he had to pay the full taxes on his home he would need to sell it and then pocket hundreds of thousands in profit, perhaps millions.

I also believe they should be able to drop a 100 story house in a single family neighborhood if they want. That being said, I’m willing to compromise because considering the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis we are facing the perfect can’t be the enemy of the good.