4 ms·

And neither is rented strictly better than owned. You would care if you wanted to own but couldn't.

tptacek 10mo ago
I agree, in the same way I'd care the other direction if I wanted to rent, which is why I don't understand the concern about inventory shifting to rentals.
- epistasis 10mo ago
  In my experience, there are a lot of people who don't consider renters as people that deserve consideration in governmental decision making. So if rental supply becomes available, it doesn't matter, not only because the person doesn't want to rent, but more so because renters are not considered permanent citizens of the local city and therefore they don't matter. This is a recurring theme k see among both right wing and left wing people when it comes to looking at single family homes.
  - tptacek 10mo ago
    Yes, it's a real problem. A surprising number of politically-well-connected people in my muni believe that renters don't even pay property tax.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
    Can you point to any municipality anywhere in the USA (or anywhere else, if you like) that prevents renters from voting, attending public meetings, donating to candidates and otherwise participating in local decision making?
    - epistasis 10mo ago
      No but that is not what my comment was talking about.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
        > there are a lot of people who don't consider renters as people that deserve consideration in governmental decision making How does it matter whether "a lot of people don't consider" something if there are no laws or enforcement actions that make their opinions actually effective in the world?
        epistasis 10mo ago
        > no laws or enforcement actions that make their opinions actually effective in the world? How do you come to that conclusion? The people who show up to local planning meetings are clearly very effective at enacting their opinions in the world, and local planning is the place where a tiny number, perhaps 3-5 people, can drastically change the results for an entire area.
        PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
        The line I quoted from you concerned people who don't consider that renters should be involved in local decision making. I'm asking you what difference it makes what they consider, when they are not actually able to enact any barriers to participating in local decision making? I mean, sure, they make think that renters should stay out of the planning meetings, but if they do not stop them, what difference does it make what they think? Renters vote too ....
        epistasis 10mo ago
        If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because renters can vote, they have equal impact on planning decisions, and therefore a bloc of voters that do not consider renters' needs as being valid for the city is OK. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I have two objections to that. 1) Local planning decisions are not made on the basis of democratic votes, they are political decisions made by a tiny number of people that are highly susceptible to influence. In particular, money and local political power has a huge effect on who gets elected, who is paying attention to what happens, and who benefits. There's very little attention paid to these matters except those with highly conflicted interests, which means that highly conflicted decisions are the most common outcome. Which leads to suboptimal results over longer periods of time, as happens in any system that appears to be democratic but is actually corrupt. 2) Even in democracy, one bloc deciding that another bloc's interests can be ignored and don't matter to the functioning of government is an extremely toxic environment which results in awful outcomes. I view any system where there are second-class citizens as a fundamentally un-American idea and counter to the goals of our nation. Those who wish to exclude an entire economic class from their community are trying to create precisely that sort of second-class citizen.
- immibis 10mo ago
  Are you concerned about physical DVD purchases shifting to subscription-based websites?
  - tptacek 10mo ago
    Not remotely. As someone who came of age in the 1990s, I can say with complete confidence that it has never, ever, in the whole of human history, been easier for ordinary people to access more film content than it is today. If I had to pay every single time I watched a film, as opposed to opting to "buy" (say) Big Night, I'd still take that in preference to going to a fucking video store. But either way this has nothing at all to do with housing affordability.
    - immibis 10mo ago
      My point is that the rent vs own model is taking over every industry and it's never good long-term. If you had to watch the same movie every day, and you knew that fact in advance, and your only option was pay-per-view, wouldn't that suck?
      - tptacek 10mo ago
        You're doing my job on this thread for me by trying to set rental up as some kind of second-class residency we should be skeptical of. I agree, that's the subtext of this corporate investment stuff: that renters are bad.
        immibis 10mo ago
        > renters are bad Uh, no, don't equivocate "forced rent" with "renters". That's bad faith.
        tptacek 10mo ago
        No, it isn't. This is literally the subtext behind the policy. You see it all over this thread: the idea that converting an owner-occupied unit to a rental, even though it lowers area median rent, is a bad thing. There's no other interpretation. If reading that makes you uncomfortable, recheck your priors on the policy itself!

I agree, in the same way I'd care the other direction if I wanted to rent, which is why I don't understand the concern about inventory shifting to rentals.

epistasis 10mo ago
In my experience, there are a lot of people who don't consider renters as people that deserve consideration in governmental decision making. So if rental supply becomes available, it doesn't matter, not only because the person doesn't want to rent, but more so because renters are not considered permanent citizens of the local city and therefore they don't matter. This is a recurring theme k see among both right wing and left wing people when it comes to looking at single family homes.
- tptacek 10mo ago
  Yes, it's a real problem. A surprising number of politically-well-connected people in my muni believe that renters don't even pay property tax.
- PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
  Can you point to any municipality anywhere in the USA (or anywhere else, if you like) that prevents renters from voting, attending public meetings, donating to candidates and otherwise participating in local decision making?
  - epistasis 10mo ago
    No but that is not what my comment was talking about.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
      > there are a lot of people who don't consider renters as people that deserve consideration in governmental decision making How does it matter whether "a lot of people don't consider" something if there are no laws or enforcement actions that make their opinions actually effective in the world?
      - epistasis 10mo ago
        > no laws or enforcement actions that make their opinions actually effective in the world? How do you come to that conclusion? The people who show up to local planning meetings are clearly very effective at enacting their opinions in the world, and local planning is the place where a tiny number, perhaps 3-5 people, can drastically change the results for an entire area.
        PaulDavisThe1st 10mo ago
        The line I quoted from you concerned people who don't consider that renters should be involved in local decision making. I'm asking you what difference it makes what they consider, when they are not actually able to enact any barriers to participating in local decision making? I mean, sure, they make think that renters should stay out of the planning meetings, but if they do not stop them, what difference does it make what they think? Renters vote too ....
        epistasis 10mo ago
        If I understand you correctly, you're saying that because renters can vote, they have equal impact on planning decisions, and therefore a bloc of voters that do not consider renters' needs as being valid for the city is OK. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I have two objections to that. 1) Local planning decisions are not made on the basis of democratic votes, they are political decisions made by a tiny number of people that are highly susceptible to influence. In particular, money and local political power has a huge effect on who gets elected, who is paying attention to what happens, and who benefits. There's very little attention paid to these matters except those with highly conflicted interests, which means that highly conflicted decisions are the most common outcome. Which leads to suboptimal results over longer periods of time, as happens in any system that appears to be democratic but is actually corrupt. 2) Even in democracy, one bloc deciding that another bloc's interests can be ignored and don't matter to the functioning of government is an extremely toxic environment which results in awful outcomes. I view any system where there are second-class citizens as a fundamentally un-American idea and counter to the goals of our nation. Those who wish to exclude an entire economic class from their community are trying to create precisely that sort of second-class citizen.
immibis 10mo ago
Are you concerned about physical DVD purchases shifting to subscription-based websites?
- tptacek 10mo ago
  Not remotely. As someone who came of age in the 1990s, I can say with complete confidence that it has never, ever, in the whole of human history, been easier for ordinary people to access more film content than it is today. If I had to pay every single time I watched a film, as opposed to opting to "buy" (say) Big Night, I'd still take that in preference to going to a fucking video store. But either way this has nothing at all to do with housing affordability.
  - immibis 10mo ago
    My point is that the rent vs own model is taking over every industry and it's never good long-term. If you had to watch the same movie every day, and you knew that fact in advance, and your only option was pay-per-view, wouldn't that suck?
    - tptacek 10mo ago
      You're doing my job on this thread for me by trying to set rental up as some kind of second-class residency we should be skeptical of. I agree, that's the subtext of this corporate investment stuff: that renters are bad.
      - immibis 10mo ago
        > renters are bad Uh, no, don't equivocate "forced rent" with "renters". That's bad faith.
        tptacek 10mo ago
        No, it isn't. This is literally the subtext behind the policy. You see it all over this thread: the idea that converting an owner-occupied unit to a rental, even though it lowers area median rent, is a bad thing. There's no other interpretation. If reading that makes you uncomfortable, recheck your priors on the policy itself!