ClashAndBurn Posted July 15 Posted July 15 Funny how he's making concessions to progressives only after he knows he's going to lose. Probably so he has something to blame it on when the inevitable occurs. 4
Virgos Groove Posted July 15 Posted July 15 (edited) The fact that there are people/companies that own more than 50 houses is genuinely dystopian. But, yes, Biden needs to start rolling out leftist measures to excite the base. Good move. Edited July 15 by Virgos Groove 2
VOSS Posted July 15 Posted July 15 Without offsetting incentives to increase supply this could be devastating for housing production. Not as devastating as Trump's policies emphasizing exclusionary zoning, at least. 1 6
ATRL Moderator Bloo Posted July 15 ATRL Moderator Posted July 15 More consequences should be had for violating this policy. But this is the sort of thing he should have been running on months ago. Unfortunately for Biden, he doesn’t have the vigor to make this stick in the political zeitgeist. 3
Gorjesspazze9 Posted July 15 Posted July 15 And why didn't they do this for the last 4 years in office, as the nation was going through the worst Rent increases ever… our country truly is a joke 3 8
on the line Posted July 16 Posted July 16 1 hour ago, VOSS said: Without offsetting incentives to increase supply this could be devastating for housing production. Not as devastating as Trump's policies emphasizing exclusionary zoning, at least. I agree though. Rent control alone won't solve the housing crisis. We need more housing in general. Everywhere. 1 1
Saintlor Posted July 16 Posted July 16 1 hour ago, Virgos Groove said: The fact that there are people/companies that own more than 50 houses is genuinely dystopian. But, yes, Biden needs to start rolling out leftist measures to excite the base. Good move. How do they do this? Aren't annual property taxes sky high especially for very expensive properties? I know they're rich, but they will be bleeding money, especially for those who leave them vacant
Communion Posted July 16 Author Posted July 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, VOSS said: Without offsetting incentives to increase supply this could be devastating for housing production. Not as devastating as Trump's policies emphasizing exclusionary zoning, at least. 12 minutes ago, on the line said: I agree though. Rent control alone won't solve the housing crisis. We need more housing in general. Everywhere. Not the two tech libs suddenly having criticisms for Biden because they don't want to de-commodify housing but supercharge the pricing of housing as a commodity... 7 minutes ago, Saintlor said: How do they do this? Aren't annual property taxes sky high especially for very expensive properties? I know they're rich, but they will be bleeding money, especially for those who leave them vacant Some of the corporations rely on having investments elsewhere, or the very tax deductions the Biden admin wants to make them ineligible for, but most of it just comes down to corporate greed and increasing rent: Quote Starwood Property Trust increased rent by 30% or more at some of its thousands of properties in 2022 and saw its net income skyrocket by 115% to more than $1 billion—$591 million of which it spent on dividend payments to shareholders. https://www.commondreams.org/news/corporate-landlords-profits-raise-rent#:~:text=The group found that the,billion more than in 2021. Edited July 16 by Communion 3 2
MatiRod Posted July 16 Posted July 16 (edited) I'll say it again, BC is far from the perfect place to live, but it has some of the most incredible rental protections, the rent increase is capped at less than 4% for all landlords period (it used to be 0% for covid years), doesn't matter if you are just renting out one single unit that you own, and it's really hard to evict anybody. The UK and big cities in the USA that have out of control rents need something like this, because right now, there are so many people being plunged into poverty, because of how criminal these rent increases are getting. Edited July 16 by MatiRod
getBusy Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Ok but even if he does it, someone will sue, this will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court, they will say Biden doesn't have the power to do that, everything will go back to how it is today. i hate life
CottageHore Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Too late, you old hag. This is why I ******* hate politicians. Where was this proposal the past four years he was running the middle class into the ground? Of course it would take him realizing he's about to lose his seat for him to even entertain this. He's not winning and he needs to start mentally preparing and so do the rest of us, sorry! 1
VOSS Posted July 16 Posted July 16 1 hour ago, Communion said: Not the two tech libs suddenly having criticisms for Biden because they don't want to de-commodify housing but supercharge the pricing of housing as a commodity... Some of the corporations rely on having investments elsewhere, or the very tax deductions the Biden admin wants to make them ineligible for, but most of it just comes down to corporate greed and increasing rent: https://www.commondreams.org/news/corporate-landlords-profits-raise-rent#:~:text=The group found that the,billion more than in 2021. You can't really "de-commodify" housing without building a lot more housing where people want to live, driving down rents and making housing a less desirable asset for investors 1
Harrier Posted July 16 Posted July 16 Half of renters in the US pay to landlords that own over 50 properties?.????? That is unbelievably dystopian What i wouldnt give for that change to be made here in my country. I had my rent raised by 50% one year 1
byzantium Posted July 16 Posted July 16 4 hours ago, Virgos Groove said: The fact that there are people/companies that own more than 50 houses is genuinely dystopian. But, yes, Biden needs to start rolling out leftist measures to excite the base. Good move. This is the only way housing can largely be built nowadays. We have made the zoning code so prohibitively expensive to navigate that it's just not feasible for smaller developments.
byzantium Posted July 16 Posted July 16 2 hours ago, Communion said: Not the two tech libs suddenly having criticisms for Biden because they don't want to de-commodify housing but supercharge the pricing of housing as a commodity... Even if you, "de-commodity housing" we still need a lot more of it.
Communion Posted July 16 Author Posted July 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, VOSS said: You can't really "de-commodify" housing without building a lot more housing where people want to live, driving down rents and making housing a less desirable asset for investors 21 minutes ago, byzantium said: Even if you, "de-commodity housing" we still need a lot more of it. De-commodifying housing is the process in which housing is made a public utility under the responsibility of the government. Would we advocate that Nestle controlling more natural water sources is the only way to get clean water to more people? Should one advocate for the building of charter schools because they're at least still expanding access to education? I already know where these conversations go. At the end of the day, YIMBYism and NIMBYism are sectarian identity labels that don't actually address a socialist view of housing. To be a leftist, one has to acknowledge that housing is an inherently material need for survival that people are entitled to and thus must be de-commodified. Sectarian cultural movements like being a YIMBY or a NIMBY are two sides of the same capitalist coin that don't acknowledge the leftist perspective. Of course not everyone is a socialist! But it's also not surprising that people who don't support exploiting poor people then don't believe in market housing. Edited July 16 by Communion 1
VOSS Posted July 16 Posted July 16 6 minutes ago, Communion said: De-commodifying housing is the process in which housing is made a public utility under the responsibility of the government. Would we advocate that Nestle controlling more natural water sources is the only way to get clean water to more people? Should one advocate for the building of charter schools because they're at least still expanding access to education? I already know where these conversations go. At the end of the day, YIMBYism and NIMBYism are sectarian identity labels that don't actually address a socialist view of housing. To be a leftist, one has to acknowledge that housing is an inherently material need for survival that people are entitled to and thus must be de-commodified. Sectarian cultural movements like being a YIMBY or a NIMBY are two sides of the same capitalist coin that don't acknowledge the leftist perspective. Of course not everyone is a socialist! But it's also not surprising that people who don't support exploiting poor people then don't believe in market housing. In case the revolution doesn't come I'd prefer to fix the barriers to housing supply under our current system But I read more about this initiative and it doesn't apply to new construction and I'm all for taking tax benefits away from the landlord class. They should apply it to all rentals though not just owners with 50+ units.
BrokenMachine Posted July 16 Posted July 16 4 hours ago, Virgos Groove said: The fact that there are people/companies that own more than 50 houses is genuinely dystopian. This, and it wouldn't be such a great problem if they SOLD those houses, but they know they'll get way more profit by renting them at insane prices
Recommended Posts