Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

I had atl at least one post specifically breaking down his housing policy in way too much detail to the point where I apologized for derailing the thread. If that was incoherent to you, that’s a personal problem. As Donald Trump should show, simply being loud and insulting does not mean you are right. 

I'd be interested in reading this post, enough that I went back a month but didn't find it.  Did you post it here or Daily Texan?

Posted
3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

I'd be interested in reading this post, enough that I went back a month but didn't find it.  Did you post it here or Daily Texan?

Was extremely brief for the topic, but it was last month (below). As housing affordability is my top political issue, I find the blowback on this thread (not from you) quite amusing. 
 

Quote

That’s interesting - why? I say this from the perspective of a Texpat in San Francisco (a market sometimes more expensive than NY, despite the assertions of some). Not to get too in the weeds on housing policy, but Mamdani’s platform consists of (1) doubling down on rent control, perhaps the most widely panned economic policy besides tariffs, (2) fully subsidized BMR housing (that’s going at around $1.3m per 1k sq ft unit in SF and DC - I’d assume NYC is the same and they need 1 million units in the next decade. The math doesn’t math.) and (3) allowing market rate development only to the extent it is weighed down by interest group concessions to the point it isn’t economically feasible.

My apologies, that was still too much in the weeds, but the upshot is that the progressive approach has a very low likelihood of success because it is simply not realistic regardless of any level of support. More fundamentally, it is not designed to succeed because it is based on a politics of scarcity that favors incumbent residents at the expense of future ones, which is a fair summation of blue city progressive politics overall. I don’t think this scarcity mindset is necessary, so I vote against it. To his credit, Zohran is a very positive guy who, unlike most DSA types, tries to avoid the zero sum class warfare game when it comes to affordability.

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Was extremely brief for the topic, but it was last month (below). As housing affordability is my top political issue, I find the blowback on this thread (not from you) quite amusing. 

OK, let's take a look:

1) doubling down on rent control, perhaps the most widely panned economic policy besides tariffs,

As already pointed out, rent control is a long established thing in New York City.  You say he's "doubling down."  What does that mean?  More of the status quo?

(2) fully subsidized BMR housing (that’s going at around $1.3m per 1k sq ft unit in SF and DC - I’d assume NYC is the same and they need 1 million units in the next decade. The math doesn’t math.) 

Do you know how PPP affordable housing works? If you say "yes" give a brief synopsis (then I'll set you straight)

(3) allowing market rate development only to the extent it is weighed down by interest group concessions to the point it isn’t economically feasible.

Tell me what the 'interest group concessions' are. 

************************************************

This below is all opinion or gibberish or both:

My apologies, that was still too much in the weeds, but the upshot is that the progressive approach has a very low likelihood of success because it is simply not realistic regardless of any level of support. More fundamentally, it is not designed to succeed because it is based on a politics of scarcity that favors incumbent residents at the expense of future ones, which is a fair summation of blue city progressive politics overall. I don’t think this scarcity mindset is necessary, so I vote against it. To his credit, Zohran is a very positive guy who, unlike most DSA types, tries to avoid the zero sum class warfare game when it comes to affordability.

 

 

 

 

Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

OK, let's take a look:

1) doubling down on rent control, perhaps the most widely panned economic policy besides tariffs,

As already pointed out, rent control is a long established thing in New York City.  You say he's "doubling down."  What does that mean?  More of the status quo?

(2) fully subsidized BMR housing (that’s going at around $1.3m per 1k sq ft unit in SF and DC - I’d assume NYC is the same and they need 1 million units in the next decade. The math doesn’t math.) 

Do you know how PPP affordable housing works? If you say "yes" give a brief synopsis (then I'll set you straight)

(3) allowing market rate development only to the extent it is weighed down by interest group concessions to the point it isn’t economically feasible.

Tell me what the 'interest group concessions' are. 

************************************************

This below is all opinion or gibberish or both:

My apologies, that was still too much in the weeds, but the upshot is that the progressive approach has a very low likelihood of success because it is simply not realistic regardless of any level of support. More fundamentally, it is not designed to succeed because it is based on a politics of scarcity that favors incumbent residents at the expense of future ones, which is a fair summation of blue city progressive politics overall. I don’t think this scarcity mindset is necessary, so I vote against it. To his credit, Zohran is a very positive guy who, unlike most DSA types, tries to avoid the zero sum class warfare game when it comes to affordability.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, no. 

1. Doubling down on rent control - yes, maintaining status quo and advocating for more (rent control on all housing regardless of construction date and vacancy control as well). We have decades of research on how disastrous this is, with St Paul providing us with real time data. Pure Left NYMBYism.

edit: you had this absurd notion that rent control being long established it was a good thing - to be clear all data has shown is has not been overall except for the direct incumbent renters who benefited. No HCOL jurisdiction with rent control has maintained affordability over the last few decades. They also usually downzoned. What a coincidence. 

2. lol You’re not going to set me straight with anything. Market rate development is about $1k/sq ft in San Francisco and when the city gets involved it goes to $1.3k/sq ft. Same elsewhere - No one disputes this. No one serious, at least. You cannot spend your way out of the housing crisis. 

3. “Concerned neighbors” and labor unions. Google CEQA and have yourself a time. Still riding high off this victory:

 

Edited by We’reTexas
Posted
3 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Yeah, no. 

1. Doubling down on rent control - yes, maintaining status quo and advocating for more (rent control on all housing regardless of construction date and vacancy control as well). We have decades of research on how disastrous this is, with St Paul providing us with real time data. Pure Left NYMBYism.

2. lol You’re not going to set me straight with anything. Market rate development is about $1k/sq ft in San Francisco and when the city gets involved it goes to $1.3k/sq ft. Same elsewhere - No one disputes this. No one serious, at least. You cannot spend your way out of the housing crisis. 

3. “Concerned neighbors” and labor unions. Google CEQA and have yourself a time. Still riding high off this victory:

Per my previous post, so do you understand the difference between market rate and affordable (and supportive) housing?  Simple "yes" or "no" will do.  I'm assuming you don't.  No one gives a shit about St. Paul or San Francisco. We're talking about NYC here, right?  Also, the "C" in CEQA for California, right? Please don't litter this discussion with sound bite-sounding things like "You cannot spend your way out of the housing crisis."  How would you know?

You need to make a pass at the bolded part above before we can discuss further.  Thanks for your attention to this matter.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

Per my previous post, so do you understand the difference between market rate and affordable (and supportive) housing?  Simple "yes" or "no" will do.  I'm assuming you don't.  No one gives a shit about St. Paul or San Francisco. We're talking about NYC here, right?  Also, the "C" in CEQA for California, right? Please don't litter this discussion with sound bite-sounding things like "You cannot spend your way out of the housing crisis."  How would you know?

You need to make a pass at the bolded part above before we can discuss further.  Thanks for your attention to this matter.

Yes, chief, I just explained the difference to you. You are on the wrong side of history on this one by basically every metric.

edit: lol “how would you know” it’s just math at a very direct point that we in California hone in on every year. lol “but it’s NYC” like 2/2s in Palo Alto don’t go for $2m, GTFO. 
 

IMG_9918.thumb.webp.0ce8839049387575e545de9097f90b16.webp

Edited by We’reTexas
  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...