4 ms·

> No one is saying these need to be city owned properties. … Regulation can but restrictions on developers and force them to build affordable housing that would

> No one is saying these need to be city owned properties. … Regulation can but restrictions on developers and force them to build affordable housing that would still be profitable just not the absolutely most profitable option. That's just the city seizing developers' property for public use without compensation. Buying the property would give the city moral authority to decide how it's used, while also accurately tracking the cost of the city's policies as opposed to burying that cost in regulations. > It is the same concept as the minimum wage. This is not winning you any points. I'm opposed to that too. You're not changing the actual minimum wage, which is always zero unless you're also guaranteeing everyone a job regardless of willingness to do useful work (which would make this more of a UBI than a minimum wage). You're just ensuring that anyone who can't produce enough value to be worth paying your minimum wage becomes unemployable. > There are no affordable outskirts for a city like Los Angeles. Then maybe we need to consider that not everyone needs to live (or work) in Los Angeles. If your LA job doesn't pay enough to afford unsubsidized housing in LA then you're basically working for free, at best. Housing is not the primary issue here; what you need is a different job in a more affordable city. I'm not a fan of just handing someone a one-way bus fare and sending them off to be someone else's problem, but if you add job placement and housing in the new location to the package I think it becomes a workable option.

slg 5y ago
>That's just the city seizing developers' property for public use without compensation. How is it seizing property? It is just putting in restrictions that reduce the possible profit. It is no different than thousands of other regulations. Is forcing a developer to put fire sprinklers in buildings "seizing property"? >Then maybe we need to consider that not everyone needs to live (or work) in Los Angeles. If your LA job doesn't pay enough to afford unsubsidized housing in LA then you're basically working for free, at best. How do you combine this with your opposition to a minimum wage? Who is supposed to do the less desirable jobs in LA if no one doing those jobs can afford to live there?
- nybble41 5y ago
  Regulations always amount to a seizure of property to some extend; the degree depends on how much the value of the property is reduced by the regulations. Ownership of property consists of the right to decide how that property is used. If the city is telling developers how their property is to be used then the city is exercising rights which belong to the property owner—acting as if they were the property owner. Put another way: If the city tells developers that 10% of their land must be reserved for low-income housing, this is functionally equivalent to the city outright claiming 10% of the developers' land, turning it into low-income housing, and "compensating" the developers with the lower revenues from the rents on the low-income housing rather than the much higher rents which they would have received if the land had been developed normally. There is some compensation, yes, but not just compensation based on the value of the land. The difference is externalized onto the developers, and indirectly onto everyone purchasing or renting property, including (especially) those just above the cutoff to qualify for the low-income housing. The regulation thus amounts to a highly regressive property tax. > Who is supposed to do the less desirable jobs in LA if no one doing those jobs can afford to live there? Either these less-desirable jobs start paying more or they don't get done. If they're actually needed then they will pay enough to ensure that those doing them can afford to live nearby, independent of any minimum wage.

slg 5y ago

>That's just the city seizing developers' property for public use without compensation. How is it seizing property? It is just putting in restrictions that reduce the possible profit. It is no different than thousands of other regulations. Is forcing a developer to put fire sprinklers in buildings "seizing property"? >Then maybe we need to consider that not everyone needs to live (or work) in Los Angeles. If your LA job doesn't pay enough to afford unsubsidized housing in LA then you're basically working for free, at best. How do you combine this with your opposition to a minimum wage? Who is supposed to do the less desirable jobs in LA if no one doing those jobs can afford to live there?

nybble41 5y ago
Regulations always amount to a seizure of property to some extend; the degree depends on how much the value of the property is reduced by the regulations. Ownership of property consists of the right to decide how that property is used. If the city is telling developers how their property is to be used then the city is exercising rights which belong to the property owner—acting as if they were the property owner. Put another way: If the city tells developers that 10% of their land must be reserved for low-income housing, this is functionally equivalent to the city outright claiming 10% of the developers' land, turning it into low-income housing, and "compensating" the developers with the lower revenues from the rents on the low-income housing rather than the much higher rents which they would have received if the land had been developed normally. There is some compensation, yes, but not just compensation based on the value of the land. The difference is externalized onto the developers, and indirectly onto everyone purchasing or renting property, including (especially) those just above the cutoff to qualify for the low-income housing. The regulation thus amounts to a highly regressive property tax. > Who is supposed to do the less desirable jobs in LA if no one doing those jobs can afford to live there? Either these less-desirable jobs start paying more or they don't get done. If they're actually needed then they will pay enough to ensure that those doing them can afford to live nearby, independent of any minimum wage.