6 ms·

I live in an equity lifestyles mobile home park near denver. My job pays me income in the 87th percentile of all workers in america. Not a sex offender park her

I live in an equity lifestyles mobile home park near denver. My job pays me income in the 87th percentile of all workers in america. Not a sex offender park here. The article does not mention it of course but the reason parks and apartment landlords are able to rip off the poor is because the zoning laws all over america have closed off the opportunity to build more mobile home parks and cheap apartments. The fact that over 50% of all voters live in their own homes means that the politicians are able to sell themselves out to landlords and create zoning laws that prevent developing land that would allow placement of mobile homes. It's all about driving up property values and exploiting those who are at the bottom. America is not really about the american dream of capitalism and entrepreneurship. The american dream of about using the government to put the squeeze on the unprotected ones. I would go further and comment on trailer park demographics, but I don't want to get downvoted.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago
Interesting points, anti-shill. In this vast country which even today is mostly empty land especially in the great Southwest, the West, and many parts of the interior, surely it's possible to do something about this terrible housing problem we have, where tens of millions can't even dream of owning their own homes. I would think that investors could make a reasonable profit building a gleaming new city with thousands of affordable homes, not fancy or luxury but stand-alone structures with garage and yard, what used to be considered the American dream of home ownership, with retail and industrial zones to provide employment. Inexpensive cost of living allows for modest salaries and wages, which allows for lower cost basis for manufacturers and other industries. If I had the money, heck, I'd do it. Driving across Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, I saw millions of square miles of vast, untapped potential. A hundred new cities housing 100,000 each and providing ample employment would go a long way to solving these difficult housing problems, not to mention adding millions of net tax payers to the rolls, providing vast new opportunities for construction and trades, box stores, small retailers, manufacturers, service providers, etc. We need to think a bit outside the box, or in this case outside the fossilized cities that have become poverty traps for so many.
- justinator 11y ago
  > Driving across Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, I saw millions of square miles of vast, untapped potential. Water?
  - logfromblammo 11y ago
    I'd upvote this twice if I could. Human settlements require water more than anything else. No water; no city. If you want to develop more or larger cities in the southwest, that requires a megaproject--several, actually. You burrow a tunnel canal from the Gulf of California into Laguna Salada. From there, you burrow on to the Salton Trough. And you create a similar tunnel canal from the Pacific into Death Valley. That's part A. For part B, you build some new nuclear plants whose energy output goes entirely into creating artificial clouds on the shores of those artificial inland seas, along with Mono Lake, Lake Crowley, Lake Tahoe, Goose Lake, Pyramid Lake, Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, Sevier Lake--anywhere that has enough volume that the cloud generators won't dry it up between rains. For the rains needed to keep the freshwater lakes filled, you will have also build evaporators on the ocean coast. The point is to "bounce" that rainwater over the Rocky Mountains, so that the vast rain shadow east of them gets more precipitation. Though it sounds like an insanely expensive project (it would be), by far the cheapest way to move large amounts of water over long distances is to build a cloud upwind of where you want the water to be, and then collect it from the river for that watershed. The second cheapest way would be to move your water very slowly through an existing aquifer. So for part C, you also pierce the caliche in several places over the Ogallalla aquifer. The rain "bounced" over the mountains can then partially drain into one end of the aquifer.
    - cgrubb 11y ago
      I'm thinking the energy to boil the amount of water which falls naturally on California is about 500 times what the electrical grid currently delivers (300,000 Gwh). Estimating avg rain fall over the state at 15 in = 38.1 cm, so 1.62 x 10^14 liters. http://ponce.sdsu.edu/california_average_annual_precipitation.html http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
shawnee_ 11y ago
Sam Zell’s Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) is the largest mobile home park owner in America, with controlling interests in nearly 140,000 parks. In 2014, ELS made $777m in revenue, helping boost Zell’s near-$5bn fortune. I first read up on Zell when EQR took over my low-income housing in East Palo Alto a few years ago. It's clear that his investment strategy is so unethical it borders on despicable. Zell's entire fortune is built on exploiting the REIT tax loophole: Equity Residential, a real estate investment trust (REIT), engages in the acquisition, development, and management of multifamily properties in the United States. As of December 31, 2007, it owned and invested in 579 properties in 24 states and the District of Columbia consisting of 152,821 units. The company qualifies as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. As a REIT, it would not be subject to federal income tax to the extent that it distributes at least 90% of its taxable income to its shareholders. Equity Residential was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. (sources: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=EQR http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=EQR, http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=ELS http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=ELS) So what happens to a community when all of its wealth is getting funneled out tax-free? To just a handful of ridiculously overpaid executives who get tax-free compensation?
- harryh 11y ago
  Unless there is something I'm not understanding here, the income isn't tax free. It's just taxed at the individual rather than corporate level.
  - girvo 11y ago
    IANAAmerican, but would that change where the tax goes? Would that mean the city receives less tax that would help the poor that are the ones at the centre of it? I'm honestly curious, I don't know enough about how US tax works.
    - harryh 11y ago
      No, probably not. There are both corporate and individual taxes at both the federal and state level.
    - 11y ago
stegosaurus 11y ago
Same deal in the UK. Consider that zoning laws in the UK make agricultural land incredibly cheap. This means people with means can basically wander around buying the countryside. So even if the laws are ever repealed or changed, it doesn't matter - you've just given a windfall to those with wealth. I have kind of always had this thought that the real world has to eventually turn into a late stage game of Monopoly in which some people just own everything. If you have the resources to buy a large portion of e.g. all property in London, you can basically set the market rental rate because it's inelastic. The only option people have is to move away and try to jump start another city. I actually think that a reasonable way to think of inequality is that it is bad because it produces negative feedback loops. Firstly, it's a lower competition environment; those with less money are generally not able to become landlords or business owners etc, so the original owners win more and more. Secondly, the fact that this happens results in more inequality and results in... even less competition. Hence there is no need to invoke moral arguments; inequality, at least beyond some reasonable level, is simply inefficient. It prevents markets from operating well and allows economic rent.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't get why would there by less business owners. Sure, monopolistic landlords can raise prices, but if there are (say) 200k places to set up small businesses in -shops, factories, offices, etc- presumably those still get rented, only at an higher price, so there should be the same amount of new small business being created, no? Or are you saying that there are many such places left not rented?
  - lucaspiller 11y ago
    It's improved now, but after the financial crisis most high streets had a lot of empty shops. A lot of businesses went bust and the landlords raised the prices of the remaining tenants which forced more out. In poorer parts of the country it's still the case. Even the Starbucks in my hometown shut down!
    - learnstats2 11y ago
brandon272 11y ago
> "I would go further and comment on trailer park demographics, but I don't want to get downvoted." Who cares if you get downvoted? Please share your insight.
vorg 11y ago
Using city governments to tighten the supply of accommodation via zoning laws is only half the story. Using the national government to boost the demand for it via increased immigration is the other half. Countries like Australia and Canada have mastered this, and the parts of the US that didn't experience falls in the price of residential accommodation after 2008 were the places popular with immigrants, particularly those from Asia, like from Seattle down to San Jose. One city currently with high rental costs and property prices is Auckland New Zealand, where the city and the country are almost the same entity, if you get what I mean. Because of onerous zoning laws and a high influx of immigrants and international students, the supply is restricted and the demand is boosted, resulting in skyrocketing rental and sale prices for residential property.
- anti-shill 11y ago
  yes, the overclass is hitting us with a one-two punch--restrict supply and increase demand.... the key is that we cannot control our own government... I am at my core anti-libertarian because I realize that man is a social animal. But if libertarianism were to truly be applied at the national level, then the fed govt would have little power, and the local govt is more amenable to control by the people. Which might make things a little better. Another problem however is propaganda control of the masses via the educational curriculum, which has warped the worldviews of young americans. That problem will not go away for a long time. I speak here of fake leftism.
wodenokoto 11y ago
> The article does not mention it of course but the reason parks > and apartment landlords are able to rip off the poor is > because the zoning laws all over america have closed off the > opportunity to build more mobile home parks The article does in fact mention this, but it probably should have dwelled on it some more. > ... tells his students they can easily increase the rent even at > parks that are already charging market rates, because there is > so much demand for affordable housing and local authorities > are very reluctant to grant permission for new parks.
- anti-shill 11y ago
  good point--I missed those few words buried in the article, which successfully hides that crucial idea by using the idea that trailer parks are for sex offenders. The "trailer parks are for sex offenders" idea will hide the real truth. The media never busts a money scam of the overclass until there is no money left in it. After all, it is the money scams of the overclass that provide much of the media ad revenue.

blisterpeanuts 11y ago

Interesting points, anti-shill. In this vast country which even today is mostly empty land especially in the great Southwest, the West, and many parts of the interior, surely it's possible to do something about this terrible housing problem we have, where tens of millions can't even dream of owning their own homes. I would think that investors could make a reasonable profit building a gleaming new city with thousands of affordable homes, not fancy or luxury but stand-alone structures with garage and yard, what used to be considered the American dream of home ownership, with retail and industrial zones to provide employment. Inexpensive cost of living allows for modest salaries and wages, which allows for lower cost basis for manufacturers and other industries. If I had the money, heck, I'd do it. Driving across Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, I saw millions of square miles of vast, untapped potential. A hundred new cities housing 100,000 each and providing ample employment would go a long way to solving these difficult housing problems, not to mention adding millions of net tax payers to the rolls, providing vast new opportunities for construction and trades, box stores, small retailers, manufacturers, service providers, etc. We need to think a bit outside the box, or in this case outside the fossilized cities that have become poverty traps for so many.

justinator 11y ago
> Driving across Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, I saw millions of square miles of vast, untapped potential. Water?
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  I'd upvote this twice if I could. Human settlements require water more than anything else. No water; no city. If you want to develop more or larger cities in the southwest, that requires a megaproject--several, actually. You burrow a tunnel canal from the Gulf of California into Laguna Salada. From there, you burrow on to the Salton Trough. And you create a similar tunnel canal from the Pacific into Death Valley. That's part A. For part B, you build some new nuclear plants whose energy output goes entirely into creating artificial clouds on the shores of those artificial inland seas, along with Mono Lake, Lake Crowley, Lake Tahoe, Goose Lake, Pyramid Lake, Great Salt Lake, Utah Lake, Sevier Lake--anywhere that has enough volume that the cloud generators won't dry it up between rains. For the rains needed to keep the freshwater lakes filled, you will have also build evaporators on the ocean coast. The point is to "bounce" that rainwater over the Rocky Mountains, so that the vast rain shadow east of them gets more precipitation. Though it sounds like an insanely expensive project (it would be), by far the cheapest way to move large amounts of water over long distances is to build a cloud upwind of where you want the water to be, and then collect it from the river for that watershed. The second cheapest way would be to move your water very slowly through an existing aquifer. So for part C, you also pierce the caliche in several places over the Ogallalla aquifer. The rain "bounced" over the mountains can then partially drain into one end of the aquifer.
  - cgrubb 11y ago
    I'm thinking the energy to boil the amount of water which falls naturally on California is about 500 times what the electrical grid currently delivers (300,000 Gwh). Estimating avg rain fall over the state at 15 in = 38.1 cm, so 1.62 x 10^14 liters. http://ponce.sdsu.edu/california_average_annual_precipitation.html http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

shawnee_ 11y ago

Sam Zell’s Equity LifeStyle Properties (ELS) is the largest mobile home park owner in America, with controlling interests in nearly 140,000 parks. In 2014, ELS made $777m in revenue, helping boost Zell’s near-$5bn fortune. I first read up on Zell when EQR took over my low-income housing in East Palo Alto a few years ago. It's clear that his investment strategy is so unethical it borders on despicable. Zell's entire fortune is built on exploiting the REIT tax loophole: Equity Residential, a real estate investment trust (REIT), engages in the acquisition, development, and management of multifamily properties in the United States. As of December 31, 2007, it owned and invested in 579 properties in 24 states and the District of Columbia consisting of 152,821 units. The company qualifies as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. As a REIT, it would not be subject to federal income tax to the extent that it distributes at least 90% of its taxable income to its shareholders. Equity Residential was founded in 1966 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. (sources: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=EQR http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=EQR, http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=ELS http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=ELS) So what happens to a community when all of its wealth is getting funneled out tax-free? To just a handful of ridiculously overpaid executives who get tax-free compensation?

harryh 11y ago
Unless there is something I'm not understanding here, the income isn't tax free. It's just taxed at the individual rather than corporate level.
- girvo 11y ago
  IANAAmerican, but would that change where the tax goes? Would that mean the city receives less tax that would help the poor that are the ones at the centre of it? I'm honestly curious, I don't know enough about how US tax works.
  - harryh 11y ago
    No, probably not. There are both corporate and individual taxes at both the federal and state level.
  - 11y ago

stegosaurus 11y ago

Same deal in the UK. Consider that zoning laws in the UK make agricultural land incredibly cheap. This means people with means can basically wander around buying the countryside. So even if the laws are ever repealed or changed, it doesn't matter - you've just given a windfall to those with wealth. I have kind of always had this thought that the real world has to eventually turn into a late stage game of Monopoly in which some people just own everything. If you have the resources to buy a large portion of e.g. all property in London, you can basically set the market rental rate because it's inelastic. The only option people have is to move away and try to jump start another city. I actually think that a reasonable way to think of inequality is that it is bad because it produces negative feedback loops. Firstly, it's a lower competition environment; those with less money are generally not able to become landlords or business owners etc, so the original owners win more and more. Secondly, the fact that this happens results in more inequality and results in... even less competition. Hence there is no need to invoke moral arguments; inequality, at least beyond some reasonable level, is simply inefficient. It prevents markets from operating well and allows economic rent.

icebraining 11y ago
I don't get why would there by less business owners. Sure, monopolistic landlords can raise prices, but if there are (say) 200k places to set up small businesses in -shops, factories, offices, etc- presumably those still get rented, only at an higher price, so there should be the same amount of new small business being created, no? Or are you saying that there are many such places left not rented?
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  It's improved now, but after the financial crisis most high streets had a lot of empty shops. A lot of businesses went bust and the landlords raised the prices of the remaining tenants which forced more out. In poorer parts of the country it's still the case. Even the Starbucks in my hometown shut down!
  - learnstats2 11y ago

brandon272 11y ago

> "I would go further and comment on trailer park demographics, but I don't want to get downvoted." Who cares if you get downvoted? Please share your insight.

vorg 11y ago

Using city governments to tighten the supply of accommodation via zoning laws is only half the story. Using the national government to boost the demand for it via increased immigration is the other half. Countries like Australia and Canada have mastered this, and the parts of the US that didn't experience falls in the price of residential accommodation after 2008 were the places popular with immigrants, particularly those from Asia, like from Seattle down to San Jose. One city currently with high rental costs and property prices is Auckland New Zealand, where the city and the country are almost the same entity, if you get what I mean. Because of onerous zoning laws and a high influx of immigrants and international students, the supply is restricted and the demand is boosted, resulting in skyrocketing rental and sale prices for residential property.

anti-shill 11y ago
yes, the overclass is hitting us with a one-two punch--restrict supply and increase demand.... the key is that we cannot control our own government... I am at my core anti-libertarian because I realize that man is a social animal. But if libertarianism were to truly be applied at the national level, then the fed govt would have little power, and the local govt is more amenable to control by the people. Which might make things a little better. Another problem however is propaganda control of the masses via the educational curriculum, which has warped the worldviews of young americans. That problem will not go away for a long time. I speak here of fake leftism.

wodenokoto 11y ago

> The article does not mention it of course but the reason parks > and apartment landlords are able to rip off the poor is > because the zoning laws all over america have closed off the > opportunity to build more mobile home parks The article does in fact mention this, but it probably should have dwelled on it some more. > ... tells his students they can easily increase the rent even at > parks that are already charging market rates, because there is > so much demand for affordable housing and local authorities > are very reluctant to grant permission for new parks.

anti-shill 11y ago
good point--I missed those few words buried in the article, which successfully hides that crucial idea by using the idea that trailer parks are for sex offenders. The "trailer parks are for sex offenders" idea will hide the real truth. The media never busts a money scam of the overclass until there is no money left in it. After all, it is the money scams of the overclass that provide much of the media ad revenue.