• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
White House hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Wednesday released a $2.5 trillion plan to guarantee housing for every American.

Sanders said the plan would "guarantee every American — regardless of income — a fundamental right to a safe, decent, accessible, and affordable home" and would be paid for by a wealth tax on the top one-tenth of 1 percent of income earners.

"There is virtually no place in America where a full-time minimum wage worker can afford a decent two bedroom apartment. At a time when half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, this is unacceptable," he said. "For too long the federal government has ignored the extraordinary housing crisis in our country. That will end when I am president."

Sanders's plan seeks to invest $1.48 trillion over 10 years in the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to build and maintain 7.4 million "quality, affordable and accessible housing units" that he says will eliminate the gap in affordable housing for the lowest-income renters. It would also invest another $400 billion to build 2 million mixed-income social housing units.

He also intends to use the plan to end homelessness by prioritizing 25,000 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund units to house the homeless in his first year in office and provide $500 million to state and local governments to help connect the homeless to case management and social services.

The democratic socialist lambasted "corrupt real estate developers" for jacking up rent prices and President Trump for cutting federal housing programs. He says he would create an office within the Department of Housing and Urban Development to strengthen rent control and tenant protections and make data on evictions and rent increases available to the public.

Sanders's campaign, much like his 2016 bid, has made a benchmark issue of income and advantage disparities between upper-class and working-class Americans. The Vermont Independent first introduced legislation in 2001 to create the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which is now funded through a small percentage of revenues from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored housing agencies.


Calling the right to not be forced out onto the streets a human right is very controversial yet absolutely correct.
 

Deleted member 22490

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
9,237
Hell yeah, a vacancy tax and tenant's unions. Also rent control

Always a good thing to watch regarding this

 

fontguy

Avenger
Oct 8, 2018
16,154
Homelessness is something that never, ever gets the attention it deserves during the election cycle. That we have more homes than we have homeless is a fucking disgrace.

A368-D95-A-8282-4-BB2-B263-D8-D94-DA3408-E.jpg


Fucking spikes are cheaper than human dignity.
 

Shaun Solo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,079
Housing is a human right. We can afford it and accomplish it. Fuck anybody who tells you otherwise.
 
OP
OP
Inuhanyou

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Homelessness is something that never, ever gets the attention it deserves during the election cycle. That we have more homes than we have homeless is a fucking disgrace.

A368-D95-A-8282-4-BB2-B263-D8-D94-DA3408-E.jpg


Fucking spikes are cheaper than human dignity.

This is what we have ended up resorting to. Criminalizing the homeless.

Makes sense in a society that worships capital
 

Orin_linwe

Member
Nov 26, 2017
706
Malmoe, Sweden.
Homelessness is something that never, ever gets the attention it deserves during the election cycle. That we have more homes than we have homeless is a fucking disgrace.

A368-D95-A-8282-4-BB2-B263-D8-D94-DA3408-E.jpg


Fucking spikes are cheaper than human dignity.

A lot political decisions are gross in the abstract, but there is something particularly - and emotionally - disheartening about inhumane ideas being manifested through architecture, in what is ostensibly a shared, public space.

About ten years ago (or some such) my city went through a fundamental refresh of its train-stations, by way of both new and ambitious ideas (many of which were good).

But one aspect of this new, fresh, white, clean and vaguely sci-fi interpretation of a train-station, was benches being angled at a sub 90 degree slope, making it impossible for homeless people to sleep on them.

The actual manifestation of this project - now, many years later - is such that it wouldn't make sense for homeless people to congregate in that area, and try to sleep on these benches (even if they could).

What passengers - like me - are left with though, are uncomfortable benches that - no matter how you try to hold your body - feels like you're perpetually sliding off them.

These benches are not only a failed attempt at solving inconvenient realities of modern life in shared, public spaces, but, through their continous existance, a constant reminder for any supposedly "normal person" that this was their main function, everytime they try to sit on these benches, and get that weird sense of inherent hostility.

I think about it everytime I sit on these benches (to the point that I sometimes childishly stand, as if that would make any difference).
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 35077

Self-requested ban
Banned
Dec 1, 2017
3,999
Homelessness is something that never, ever gets the attention it deserves during the election cycle. That we have more homes than we have homeless is a fucking disgrace.

A368-D95-A-8282-4-BB2-B263-D8-D94-DA3408-E.jpg


Fucking spikes are cheaper than human dignity.
Not surprising, they were already using similar tactics to prevent birds from sitting on in fucking trees. An expected but ugly evolution step.
5a3972a71600002100c50e72.jpeg
 

Tukarrs

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,818
There's prime real estate locations that are underdeveloped because of NIMBY. Wherever these are built they should be near public transit hubs such that people are not punished by lack of transportaiton.

probably the most common are the benches at parks or at transit hubs designed so the homeless can't lie down on them

download-18.jpg

 

Conal

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
2,868
Disgusting. I heard on Fox news he had a 3 million dollar houses but I never knew it was this bad
 
OP
OP
Inuhanyou

Inuhanyou

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,214
New Jersey
Wait. What the hell are you talking about?

He's making a joke about how the centrist and right wing attacks on Sanders historically have been about how he made a million dollars in 2017 by selling his book and how he owns 3 homes(one in DC one in vermont and one his wife's mom left the family after passing)

Something something "your a millionare so your a hypocrite to talk about income inequality", "you participate in the system yet criticize it" ect
 

Deleted member 6230

User-requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,118
Yes, instead of criminalizing homelessness and throwing a tax dollars at hundreds of cops to bully homeless people and have city planners waste their time conceiving traps to deter homeless people from public spaces we can actually solve this very solvable issue by giving people fucking homes.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 48434

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 8, 2018
5,230
Sydney

Kirblar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
30,744
copy/pasting from yesterday cause this combination of efforts has issues:

Bernie: I want to increase stock by reducing zoning restrictions!

Also Bernie: I want to decrease housing stock by introducing rent control nationwide!

Yglesias points out an incentives problem -(copying cause he deletes em regularly)

Under Bernie's rent control plan, landlords would be allowed to do larger inflation-adjusted rent increases the higher the inflation rate is, turning them into a pro-inflation lobby.
Yglesias pointing out another contradictory issue in the housing proposal- https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1174361914346024960?s=20

The interaction between these ideas is kind of weird and I don't really understand what taxing house-flipping is supposed to accomplish.

EEwrzIxXYAAj1PQ.jpg:large

Like, a reason people like me do not trust him on actually interacting with our economy is that stuff like this betrays a fundamental contempt of people making money off of doing things like *checks notes* improving a house and putting it back up on the market quickly in order to make money off of the value added to the home. The visceral hatred that sometimes pops up on the left when the word "landlord" gets uttered is coming through loud and clear here.

House-flipping is not a bad thing. It's speculative business, yes, in that you're buying a house, improving it, and then re-selling it. But that's a positive- that house is not going to be sat on long term. It's also a speculative risk as a business investment. If the house doesn't sell you may be eating some of the costs. And what makes this interaction really bad is that Bernie's proposal here incentives house flippers to sit on the property for five years to wait out the flipping tax.

That's insane.
The vacant properties tax (aimed at foreign investment primarily) isn't a bad one. But penalizing people for profiting off of improving housing stock is all kinds of f'd up.
Why you're getting "More Housing + Rent Control" "Anti-Flipping Tax to.... make you sit on an empty property longer" contradictions-
The big issue generally is that people who don't understand this are conflating two separate things as "Gentrification" and are blaming the entirely wrong thing for the cause of it because it fits their ideological priors.

There's "Gentrification" , as in a neighborhood becoming a nicer place to live which slowly attracting people from higher income brackets. And then there's "Gentrification" where a large amount of people from the class above start pouring into a neighborhood because there's a housing shortage, resulting in increased amenities in the area as a response. The issue is that the former situation is a positive that occurs when there's not a housing shortage in the area, so there's no real pressure on prices, allowing for changes to take place naturally in a way that is usually a net positive for local residents, as a combination of better amenities and relatively light housing costs increases is a fine tradeoff. The amenities and housing improvement are coming from the bottom up, slowly attracting in the next income level. The latter situation is a negative, where a shortage of affordable housing for upper-middle class people causes them to move into middle class housing, raising the price and causing a chain reaction down the income ladder. The amenities and housing improvement here are driven not by natural neighborhood improvements making it a better place to live, but by new residents demanding them to suit their expectations as they were unable to move into places that would have met their expectations. It's a top->down driven situation.

And the problem with this comes from the lack of understanding that neighborhood improvements are a positive in the former scenario, and a symptom of the problem, not a cause, in the latter. But if you view the symptom as the cause because you believe that business/greed is the real issue, you get this sort of incoherent policy positions that work at cross purposes with each other. It's why you see people decrying landlords and rent increases while at the same time they won't oppose stuff designed to protect and enrich existing property owners - it's not just that all are greedy, many miss that the people producing and improving housing are not the interest group whose personal incentives are massively misaligned with new development.
 

FeliciaFelix

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,778
I always understood that the real problem is local regulations driving up the prices so only residential luxury developers can pay the lawyers, so only lux condos can pay the bills.

Anyway I'm meh on rent control because I dont like the idea of a perpetual renter class, which will always be conveniently poor. As long as these people never own, they'll always be someone's bitch.

When I'm elected queen, I'll do instead this: https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/half-a-house/

You give the people a cheap half made house. One half is completely done, the other part is up to them. A new room? A little business selling food and stuff? A garage? Whatever they want. I thought it was brilliant.
 

Bronx-Man

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,351
We need rent control everywhere ASAP. Great plan from Bernie but I wish local politicians would do their part to help the homeless as well.

You know what this makes me think of?
t8l7y5iIc9vZDeXeeDMQOlzRaqlcWao96ahc_maa2Pk.png


Except it's slowly becoming real.
I refuse to believe someone from /pol/ could make something this funny and politically intelligent.
That's from the New Yorker
www.newyorker.com

L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in.
Aha!
 

Spinluck

▲ Legend ▲
Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
28,467
Chicago
By little knowledge I have about american politics, this guy really does not want to be elected

You understand enough. He won't be.

The number of people that are seemingly nice on the surface turn to instinctually selfish creatures the moment you suggest a cut of taxes should go into proving humans were some decency like having a home to sleep in.

They sleep sound at night knowing that it does into bombing brown people overseas though.

And that goes no matter who the president is.
 

Giant Panda

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,689
copy/pasting from yesterday cause this combination of efforts has issues:



Why you're getting "More Housing + Rent Control" "Anti-Flipping Tax to.... make you sit on an empty property longer" contradictions-
Thanks for compiling this Kirblar. These proposed policies are making me really uneasy.
 
Aug 16, 2019
844
UK
You understand enough. He won't be.

The number of people that are seemingly nice on the surface turn to instinctually selfish creatures the moment you suggest a cut of taxes should go into proving humans were some decency like having a home to sleep in.

They sleep sound at night knowing that it does into bombing brown people overseas though.

And that goes no matter who the president is.
Yes, but he is overdoing it anyway. As you said people resist any offer involving more taxes or less money and he had like 5 proposition , very expensive ones. Pure madness