14 ms·

Who could have guessed, policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them?

sampo 8y ago
> policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them? More like, California and Federal level policymakers have been too lenient and let town and city level politicians make too much selfish policy that hurts the state and country level economy and progress. The economic powerhouse areas don't belong only to their current residents. Everyone in the country has a right to strive for wealth and a better life by moving to economically active regions. We shouldn't create a society where your economic class is determined by where you happened to be born.
- StudentStuff 8y ago
  Slamming the door behind you and looking down on the poors is a common neoliberal philosophy though, its really disconcerting how many people are apt to blame those below them in earnings/stature for being in said situation. No leniency is given, nor help. Very un-Christian, but most of those who claim to be Christian/Catholic do not follow the core teachings of said religion, instead choosing to follow neoliberalism ideology. Its wretched, but that is the society we live in today! Why haven't you picked yourself up by your bootstraps yet? /s
ajross 8y ago
Actually no, or not the way you mean. This is a legitimate moral trap: the "policy" at hand is construction permitting and land zoning, and those are almost exclusively local laws and regulations set at the city and county level. Those governments, by design, serve the interests of their local citizens. That is, the population they serve is inherently skewed toward existing property owners. You can't fix this by complaining about money in politics or whatever, that's not why it's happening. The solution has to be at the broader government level (i.e. in Sacramento in this case), wrenching back some of the control that has traditionally been local in the interests of the broader population and not just, say, Palo Alto residents.
- api 8y ago
  At this point I'm strongly in favor of the nuclear option: a state-level proposition to implement uniform pro-density zoning reforms. It should also include at least a selective repeal of proposition 13 for non-occupant residences and a re-assessment of all such residences to tax those who are using our real estate as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. I'd also be in favor of an extra tax on out-of-state residences held by non-occupants and on out-of-state non-occupant purchases.
  - briandear 8y ago
    A total repeal of Prop 13.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - pascalxus 8y ago
      Repeal 13 and lower the property taxes from 1.3% to 0.6%. Of course, about 80 to 90% of the existing homeowners (in many neighborhoods most people bought they're homes more than 20 years ago, you can verify this for yourself on zillow) won't like that, as they're currently paying about 0.1 to 0.05%! So, it's a pretty hard sell.
    - joejerryronnie 8y ago
      This will never happen. If you want to see a single issue unite hard right wing conservatives and far left wing liberals or single handedly bring down a political party, try taking on Prop 13. Just about every homeowner in the state views this as an existential threat and will bring hellfire and damnation down on any politician that so much as mentions repealing Prop 13. Plus, there are so many other options that have a better chance at making an actual impact. I'm much more in favor of incentivizing people to support positive change than just bringing out the big sticks. How about giving everyone in the neighboorhood a property tax credit if they vote to upzone? Or giving companies big tax breaks if they allow 50% of their workforce to work remotely (tackling both housing and transportation issues)?

> policy makers that serve the hand that feeds them? More like, California and Federal level policymakers have been too lenient and let town and city level politicians make too much selfish policy that hurts the state and country level economy and progress. The economic powerhouse areas don't belong only to their current residents. Everyone in the country has a right to strive for wealth and a better life by moving to economically active regions. We shouldn't create a society where your economic class is determined by where you happened to be born.

StudentStuff 8y ago
Slamming the door behind you and looking down on the poors is a common neoliberal philosophy though, its really disconcerting how many people are apt to blame those below them in earnings/stature for being in said situation. No leniency is given, nor help. Very un-Christian, but most of those who claim to be Christian/Catholic do not follow the core teachings of said religion, instead choosing to follow neoliberalism ideology. Its wretched, but that is the society we live in today! Why haven't you picked yourself up by your bootstraps yet? /s

ajross 8y ago

Actually no, or not the way you mean. This is a legitimate moral trap: the "policy" at hand is construction permitting and land zoning, and those are almost exclusively local laws and regulations set at the city and county level. Those governments, by design, serve the interests of their local citizens. That is, the population they serve is inherently skewed toward existing property owners. You can't fix this by complaining about money in politics or whatever, that's not why it's happening. The solution has to be at the broader government level (i.e. in Sacramento in this case), wrenching back some of the control that has traditionally been local in the interests of the broader population and not just, say, Palo Alto residents.

api 8y ago
At this point I'm strongly in favor of the nuclear option: a state-level proposition to implement uniform pro-density zoning reforms. It should also include at least a selective repeal of proposition 13 for non-occupant residences and a re-assessment of all such residences to tax those who are using our real estate as a financial instrument rather than a place to live. I'd also be in favor of an extra tax on out-of-state residences held by non-occupants and on out-of-state non-occupant purchases.
- briandear 8y ago
  A total repeal of Prop 13.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - pascalxus 8y ago
    Repeal 13 and lower the property taxes from 1.3% to 0.6%. Of course, about 80 to 90% of the existing homeowners (in many neighborhoods most people bought they're homes more than 20 years ago, you can verify this for yourself on zillow) won't like that, as they're currently paying about 0.1 to 0.05%! So, it's a pretty hard sell.
  - joejerryronnie 8y ago
    This will never happen. If you want to see a single issue unite hard right wing conservatives and far left wing liberals or single handedly bring down a political party, try taking on Prop 13. Just about every homeowner in the state views this as an existential threat and will bring hellfire and damnation down on any politician that so much as mentions repealing Prop 13. Plus, there are so many other options that have a better chance at making an actual impact. I'm much more in favor of incentivizing people to support positive change than just bringing out the big sticks. How about giving everyone in the neighboorhood a property tax credit if they vote to upzone? Or giving companies big tax breaks if they allow 50% of their workforce to work remotely (tackling both housing and transportation issues)?