5 ms·

housing reform has been a political third-rail for a while now and follows the same aggravating pattern. - Home owners delight in 100k of equity per year on wh

housing reform has been a political third-rail for a while now and follows the same aggravating pattern. - Home owners delight in 100k of equity per year on what amounts to bungalow property held together by stucco, as they have since the late seventies when neoliberal tax reforms at a republican behest elevated them to an untouchable landed gentry. - Residents in the state bemoan "Reagans army," the indelible population of more than 70,000 homeless that shuffle through their suburban streets rifling through trash, defecating on sidewalks and stealing from unlocked vehicles. - politicians promise relief and begin amassing considerable tax funds to house the homeless with various community initiatives resources. politicians secure boisterous agreement that this homeless issue must end in $timeline. - the landed gentry respond in kind, refusing any and all housing relief or homeless shelter construction in their fiefdom as it may in turn pose a threat to their profiteering. lawsuits are filed and reformists hamstrung in court. - The city directs their considerable housing funds to cleanup funds, periodically evacuating and sanitizing the overwhelming and seemingly endless number of encampments across freeway overpasses and abandoned investment properties. Homelessness is bad, but another outbreak of cholera or bubonic plague is worse. - young men and women who cannot find affordable housing in the state simply leave after a decade, taking with them talent experience and acumen honed in the city of angels to cities that can better serve them. its also worth mentioning that California is very friendly when it comes to investment property. there are hundreds of derelict, abandoned malls, clubs, bars, parking structures, and other edifices of commerce including giant grass and trash lots that just seem to exist. Theyre all owned by property management cabals or millionaires who refuse to do anything with the land because surprise, they dont need to. The landed gentry of homeowners will always go to bat, defending their right to chew up property and deliver nothing in return.

what_is_orcas 5y ago
This is so frustrating. I live in a relatively low-income neighborhood in a west-coast city and I hear on social media all the time about how the local government doesn't prioritize us because of our relatively low average household income, but at the same time a lot of those folks are resistant to zoning for more apartment buildings in our neighborhood because of all the nimby classics (crime, diversity, etc.). Maybe I'm wrong (and if someone wants to enlighten me, I'm all ears, because this is definitely not my area of expertise) but it seems to me that an influx of residents into the area might give our neighborhood more pull in local elections as we'd form a voting-block with some aligned interests (services & infrastructure in our neighborhood) even if we differ in other interests. It just seems like we're already in a losing position (w/r/t local politics), why not at least try to make ourselves more formidable. To be honest, I think it would improve a lot of other things. In the past I've mentioned that my neighborhood acts more as a pass-through between the outlying suburbs & the metropolitan city-center, but I think more residents in the area would attract local businesses (can you believe there's not a sit-down cafe in my area other than maybe a starbucks? They're all drive-through kiosks!) because there'd be more of a local population. Once the businesses open up, fewer folks would have to commute to another neighborhood for work (we'll probably, unfortunately, never be rid of that) and we become less of a pass-through neighborhood. But, again, not my expertise. It's also a long-term plan, which seems to be off-putting in today's financial atmosphere.
- milkytron 5y ago
  > it seems to me that an influx of residents into the area might give our neighborhood more pull in local elections as we'd form a voting-block with some aligned interests (services & infrastructure in our neighborhood) even if we differ in other interests. It might give more pull in local elections, but the one major benefit of having more residents is an increased tax base and being a more desirable place for businesses. There are lots of benefits of increasing the density of an area, like you mentioned. The NIMBY resistance has a lot of time and money on their side so it can be hard to overcome. I'm also in a very similar spot as you, between expensive suburbs and a major urban core. Despite the city I live in voting to restrict new housing, they were able to approve an exception for my area. Definitely appears to be helping, lots of townhomes and apartments are going up and new businesses have been coming in.
- deepakhj 5y ago
  New housing or old home sales are the only way to raise money for a city like Oakland. So many houses are subsidized by prop 13 that the revenue per capita is much lower here than SF which also includes a county.
thaumasiotes 5y ago
> there are hundreds of derelict, abandoned malls, clubs, bars, parking structures, and other edifices of commerce including giant grass and trash lots that just seem to exist. Theyre all owned by property management cabals or millionaires who refuse to do anything with the land The fact that developing the lot causes the property tax to be reassessed may have something to do with this. If you make someone pay a gigantic fine for putting something on their lot full of trash, they may opt not to.
- flyingfences 5y ago
  This is why Henry George supported a tax on land value, not on property value.
whimsicalism 5y ago
The people stealing from cars are mostly more organized people from East Bay more so than homeless people.

what_is_orcas 5y ago

This is so frustrating. I live in a relatively low-income neighborhood in a west-coast city and I hear on social media all the time about how the local government doesn't prioritize us because of our relatively low average household income, but at the same time a lot of those folks are resistant to zoning for more apartment buildings in our neighborhood because of all the nimby classics (crime, diversity, etc.). Maybe I'm wrong (and if someone wants to enlighten me, I'm all ears, because this is definitely not my area of expertise) but it seems to me that an influx of residents into the area might give our neighborhood more pull in local elections as we'd form a voting-block with some aligned interests (services & infrastructure in our neighborhood) even if we differ in other interests. It just seems like we're already in a losing position (w/r/t local politics), why not at least try to make ourselves more formidable. To be honest, I think it would improve a lot of other things. In the past I've mentioned that my neighborhood acts more as a pass-through between the outlying suburbs & the metropolitan city-center, but I think more residents in the area would attract local businesses (can you believe there's not a sit-down cafe in my area other than maybe a starbucks? They're all drive-through kiosks!) because there'd be more of a local population. Once the businesses open up, fewer folks would have to commute to another neighborhood for work (we'll probably, unfortunately, never be rid of that) and we become less of a pass-through neighborhood. But, again, not my expertise. It's also a long-term plan, which seems to be off-putting in today's financial atmosphere.

milkytron 5y ago
> it seems to me that an influx of residents into the area might give our neighborhood more pull in local elections as we'd form a voting-block with some aligned interests (services & infrastructure in our neighborhood) even if we differ in other interests. It might give more pull in local elections, but the one major benefit of having more residents is an increased tax base and being a more desirable place for businesses. There are lots of benefits of increasing the density of an area, like you mentioned. The NIMBY resistance has a lot of time and money on their side so it can be hard to overcome. I'm also in a very similar spot as you, between expensive suburbs and a major urban core. Despite the city I live in voting to restrict new housing, they were able to approve an exception for my area. Definitely appears to be helping, lots of townhomes and apartments are going up and new businesses have been coming in.
deepakhj 5y ago
New housing or old home sales are the only way to raise money for a city like Oakland. So many houses are subsidized by prop 13 that the revenue per capita is much lower here than SF which also includes a county.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> there are hundreds of derelict, abandoned malls, clubs, bars, parking structures, and other edifices of commerce including giant grass and trash lots that just seem to exist. Theyre all owned by property management cabals or millionaires who refuse to do anything with the land The fact that developing the lot causes the property tax to be reassessed may have something to do with this. If you make someone pay a gigantic fine for putting something on their lot full of trash, they may opt not to.

flyingfences 5y ago
This is why Henry George supported a tax on land value, not on property value.

whimsicalism 5y ago

The people stealing from cars are mostly more organized people from East Bay more so than homeless people.