1008
submitted 2 months ago by stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net to c/memes@slrpnk.net
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Each successive property beyond one should add an additional 10% to the property taxes. The owner may list them in any order, but you pay 110% for the second property and 200% for the 11th

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

A land value tax would be a good idea as well, especially if its the main form of tax collection. Each successive property would automatically, drastically increase the cost.

It would become a defacto tax on the rich, while helping to prevent hoarding. Two birds one stone.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

...And the net result would be that they would charge more on rent. And since taxing at higher rates would deter people from building more rental properties, the housing shortage would get worse.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago

And since taxing at higher rates would deter people from building more rental properties, the housing shortage would get worse.

Housing is a public good and should be funded as such.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

That would be great! Except that cities refuse to do that, and no one wants to put high density housing anywhere near their cute, historic neighborhood.

If you can build the political will to steamroll the NIMBYs, I'm all for it.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

If you can build the political will to steamroll the NIMBYs, I’m all for it.

Any solution to the housing crisis necessarily would require the political will to do that. There's no getting around it.

But yeah, I think we more or less reached a point of agreement. We need to change the culture, it must become more collectivist. We gotta finally start caring for one another.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

The problem isn't political will per se, but specifically steamrolling local NIMBYs. The people with the most political power and will tend to push high density housing out of more desirable areas and into less desirable areas. If you wanted to, for instance, but a 100 unit building in Ukrainian Village or Wicker Park in Chicago, you'd have a really stiff fight on your hands from local property owners who want to keep their neighborhood all brownstones. OTOH, if you want to demo a square block near Garfield Park and build there--and I wouldn't recommend doing that--you'll have the local alderman holding a golden shovel for the groundbreaking.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Developers are not generally landlords. They want to build and are fully capable of setting up building co-ops. (They already do it) So fucking with landlords does not in any way mean less housing available.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Fine. Cap the rents and tie them to inflation. These fuckers are greedier than literal dragons, and I'm down for some dragon slaying.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

Okay, now you have waiting lists like they do in Copenhagen.

Pretty much every economist will tell you that rent control creates disincentives to building more housing.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Then we lift the restrictions that Clinton put on government housing, and increase the supply.

I don't care what the racists trained by the Chicago school of economics say, the real world has only proven them right when the rich are pushing on the scales.

Keynes is correct, and 2020 proved that far too well, to the point that the rich started screaming about their wage slaves.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Great! I'm all for gov't increasing housing supply! But, frankly, most of the pushback from building affordable, high-density housing is coming from the local level. If we build high-density, affordable (e.g., low-income only, versus mixed-income) housing in it's own area, rather than integrating it into existing communities, we're only building the slums of the future. As it stands, well-off communities, even in areas that are heavily Democratic (such as, most of California), have been strongly opposed to locating such housing in their neighborhoods, and do everything they can to prevent it.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

The YIMBY movement is gaining traction in IB and San Diego

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

I'm curious what areas are seeing the gain in YIMBY; I have a hard time thinking that any of it is coming from La Jolla. And yeah, San Diego really needs more high-density housing. I lived there for a few years in the early 90s, and there really wasn't much at the time.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

I live in IB so I don't hear much from La Jolla. We've had several high density low income proposals pass the SD and IB city councils in the last couple years.

this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
1008 points (98.5% liked)

solarpunk memes

2954 readers
225 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS