The you have folks that simply do not want to try.
Repeating lies doesn't make them true.
So how about you trying, for once...
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo North America Mods
The you have folks that simply do not want to try.
wat0n wrote:Why would they do anything like that if there were no rent controls? It would seem it was more profitable to them, at the time, not to redevelop and just charge the market price.
But in some cases, governments may let them run amok until they aren't small. For instance, they may prefer to charge low rents and dedicate the resources that would be used for maintenance to other ends, and let a future administration deal with the problem when it arises.
That is, there is a similar problem to the one you mention between private developers and owners, but this is between present and future administrations. You can also see it with the GOP's "starve the beast" strategy, leaving it to the Democrats to clean the mess.
No, it's not relevant if the present administration will leave all the consequences arising from a lack of maintenance to the next one.
...Except when the inspectors come from the same city government that is also a landlord. That's why in that case you need the enforcement of maintenance regulations of public buildings to be carried out by a higher level of government (e.g. State/Provinces enforcing regulation on the cities).
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, this is not how public building projects work.
Elected officials can choose to defund infrastructure, but all that means is that the government bodies who pay for construction and maintenance have less money. It does not mean that these bodies do lower quality work or use less stringent regulations. They just fire a bunch of people and do less.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. The inspectors are hired by a different group of people who ask for and maintain buildings.
This entire argument seems to be based entirely on an ignorance of how public building projects are run, the different bodies involved, and who is liable to who.
Another thing you should know, then, is that this all a matter of public record. The city would also have to hire crooked accountants to cook the books. The number of people needed for this to work quickly makes it unfeasible and simply easier to actually do decent work.
This system even works in construction in places where there is a lot of organised crime in construction, like Quebec.
wat0n wrote:That's now how public projects work... Until they do work like that, as shown by NYC's example.
It just needs to shirk on maintenance, perhaps even claiming (and often with reason) that it has no funding to that effect, and that voters are not willing to accept tax hikes for maintaining public housing.
The homeless capital of the USA is San Francisco. It is a gorgeous city with incredible weather and controlled by the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party. Yes, they attract the homeless. At the same time San Francisco is home to wealthy people that see themselves as saviors of the disenfranchised. That is what SF is all about, the rich and the homeless. There is little room in that city for the middle or upper middle class. The situation worsens from year to year. The more they try the worse it gets. You are offering some of the same solutions. A new paradigm is needed.
The problem of homelessness in SF was somewhat under until 2015 .
The woke lefties are part of the elite wealthy. They serve the SF wealthy and engage in massive virtue signaling when it comes to homelessness. You are correct in describing the massive hypocrisy of the American left. There are no Republicans in SF and yet the blame the Republicans for the homeless situation. Very clever.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No one knows what NYC example you are talking about.
But even if NYC is an example of something bad, it does not contradict my claims.
Pants-of-dog wrote:What is “it”?
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does “it” shirk whatever it is supposed to be shirking?
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please be specific which department. Thanks.
Rancid wrote:I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that SF attracts the homeless, or that they are creating homelessness?
Godstud wrote:@Julian658 Get educated. Your knowledge on homelessness is pathetic, and inhuman in its lack of empathy.
jimjam wrote:I don't want to sound like a moronic left wing commie but ….. I love you man and I respect your opinions ….. now please excuse me, dude, but have to get back to reading Das Kapital……
Rancid wrote:When it comes to pubic projects. Many of them are approved by corrupt sons of a bitches that have numerous conflicts of interest. Most of the members of my county commission and city council are either real estate developers or have direct ties to real estate developers. COrrupt sons of a bitches! FIRE THEM ALL!!!
I think a rule to join the city council should be that you are only allowed to own one residential property, which is the one you live in. That would put a bigger dent in the housing crisis than just about any other thing. What I"m saying is that city councils are exactly aligned with making the housing problem worse, because it makes them rich.
Julian658 wrote:I am not an social justice warrior. You are one!Yes, but only if knowledge and intellect are beyond your ken.
We finally agree!
Julian658 wrote:Thank you for your sincerity.
You are reaching for comic relief because you are a bit lost with your pseudo-arguments. I suggest you keep repeating the platitudes of the SJWs.
jimjam wrote:Yo Dude !! Meet me in TLTE. I need to discuss the politics of toe nail fungus with someone who thinks outside the box and I think you are up for the challenge.
Socialism vs Capitalism is hardly a black and white debate. In many ways young people are way more astute than old people. Their thinking process has not yet been fully corrupted by the highly aggressive propaganda apparatus fielded by the capitalist system to protect a self serving corrupt system. Capitalism and predatory capitalism are two distinctly different animals.Myself , and perhaps some young folks, see a need to adapt a degree of socialist theory to neutralize the inherently extreme greed driven aspects of predatory capitalism.
Godstud wrote:@Julian658 NO one is asking for 100% Socialism. They are talking about a mixed economy, with private industry and some government ones. eg. Government run healthcare and education. People want a balance, which is perfectly achievable.
You always say "left" and "socialism" as if they are some evil Bogey-Man, but you understand neither.
I have said many times that the analysis of Karl Marx
OK, that would be the ideal world. But, in this […]
Although it needs to be said that inflation is cu[…]
I'm probably allowing my own (rural) bias to clou[…]
Why is Okishio's Theorem one-sided and why doesn't[…]