Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Housing is a BASIC human right, and I never proposed this.
You can repeat yourself all you want, but the fact remains that we are in a MASSIVE affordable housing crisis.
Housing is a basic human right.
What do YOU propose to address the MASSIVE affordable housing crisis?
The term ‘government’ used here is a joke. Dems watch as blm-antifa baboons loot and burn the infrastructure and the POSPOTUS calls the family of a fentanyl eater. Many government employees are enjoying consistent paychecks to buffer from the schizoid delirium and violence of rental situations elsewhere, an elsewhere they are mostly immune to. Yes it is relevant.Housing: BASIC human right.
Sure.
Irrelevant spewing.
What? (This doesn't make sense to me.)
ACCESS to guns is a fundamental right. Just like ACCESS to food, a place to live and basic healthcare is a right.Good grief man, you want guns to be a fundamental right but not food, a place to live, and basic healthcare?
We need to address the MASSIVE affordable housing crisis.
What do you propose?
This is definitely on track. For example, every dollar invested in materials that go towards an owner-built tiny home is money that appreciates in value. It’s not a traditional sprawling venture, though the philosophy is powerful. ‘Home ownership is a profoundly American idea.’ (Desmond, Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City)Let me try to clarify her statement: If there are no profits involved in owning rental property, there is no use in having rental property. If I can't make money as a landlord, then I don't want it and neither will anybody else. If government is going to control how much profit I can make, again, my money is going to be put to better use in different investments where there are no limits on what my money can make.
In some places, they're packing 5+ people into 1BR apartments. THAT doesn't create huge problems...
It's not the 60s.
I've lived in slum homes...first as a poor teenager, but then later I paid out the nose to rent a slum vacation rental that I had to pay to fix just so it wouldn't kill me because of a housing shortage during the winter here in florida....government control of housing will not lower rent. It regulates and subsidizes it which both raise rent. Overpopulation and government spending leading to inflation are what is pushing up rent...............really think getting rid of illegals and their anchor offspring citizenship would be best to make housing affordable.,Reading all the arguments. Still torn.
Living in both worlds...I can relate to not being able to afford a roof. I also can relate to NOT being able to "move" just anywhere else. That takes money.
Rentals charge THREE TIMES the amount of the rent in order to qualify. Plus deposit. Plus utilities. Plus now they charge monthly rent for your dog if you have one unless it is an ESA (emotional support animal).
On the other hand, the nicer places, better neighborhoods, cleaner areas, less crime, more self respect is found in the higher rental areas. Those who want those things, that are not druggies or drunks or losers who refuse to work. They are middle class..or WAS middle class...they are seniors...they are people who one of them got sick and the bills mounted so badly they had no choice but to become homeless. They just don't make THREE TIMES the rent in their SS or jobs or whatever.
As I said...I lived in both worlds. So...torn. If you bought the house and rent it out...then its yours to do with as you wish concerning rent. On the other hand, you could also be a slum lord...or not, and just too damn greedy.
You do a market analysis to see what the going rents are. I never understood if the area fetches 2500 per month per unit....and that unit (house or apt) sits empty for months because nobody can fucking afford it..that is money lost FOREVER. But if you rent it for 1500 per month...you are not getting what it could get, but you aren't out ZERO dollars either. and asking THREE TIMES the amount of rent as your income is ludicrous.
Anyway....torn. And this whole subject upsets me. So...........
/thread
That argument doesn't work anymore.
It never really did, actually, as the jobs are where the rents are highest - that's why the rents are highest.
Some do, most don't.
Housing is a BASIC human right nonetheless.
You presume I haven't?
The only problem is that housing is a BASIC human right.
Like food, water and healthcare.
Maybe invest in something else?
You're working really hard to avoid defining that. On purpose?Agree 100%. That might even solve the ENTIRE problem, including spiking wages.
Agree.
Housing is a BASIC human right, and I never proposed this.
Exactly.You keep parroting housing is a basic human right but have yet to define it. You said you don't have a right to a castle. Then what, EXACTLY, do you mean by housing. A cardboard box I would assume would not fit your definition.
The problem here is that there is no universal definition because to call housing a right is to misunderstand rights entirely. You have a right, through free exchange, to seek a home or build one yourself. That right is entirely intact. Nothing has changed.
Double exactly.Finally, you realize that it is the asinine mantra that housing is a 'right' that directly causes skyrocketing rents, right? To declare a good is a right is just a veiled attempt to demand that someone else MUST, regardless of your ability to earn it yourself, provide it for you. That causes, and it is painfully obvious, those that have homes to refuse to rent them out and those that can build more to provide that lower cost to stop building them as their work will simply be stolen or undervalued.
That the units are stationary makes them susceptible to predatory capitalism and changing markets. Costs of living will be reduced in many places as society moves toward micro-mobility and their accompanying structures, which will include tiny homes that can be made at least quasi-mobile. At this time, the real estate Gestapo includes those whom the “landlord” (a ridiculous term) depends on: building-code legislators and enforcers. This mobility will affect local economies because of its increased ability to go elsewhere, i.e., to choose another “landlord.” When one can move their structure several hundred yards away to get away from a smoker of anything, or a noisy neighbor, that micro-mobility will come to have increasing value and clout. Arguing for more flexibility and choices should see competition for “parking sites” and serious changes in traditional rent-gestapo overconfidence in believing everyone is buyIng their definition of “dwelling.”In that statement alone I can tell you have no idea what you're talking about. Years ago a mother and son came here from New York. Her son wanted to attend motorcycle school here and of course needed a place to live. I couldn't rent to him (he had no job) so I rented the unit to her and he lived in it. He got out of school and ended up getting a job and staying here. While he was here, he told me our cost of living was unbelievable. He said if I could move my rental units to the outside of NYC, I could not only easily charge three times what I was getting for my rental units here, but I'd have a waiting list a mile long.
I think you need to get out a little more. Rental prices do not reflect where the jobs are because there are jobs everywhere in the US. Rental costs are proportional with the cost of living of an area.
This is based on an assertion that is simply not in evidence. Mobile and quasi-mobile housing has existed as long as housing has existed and yet people have preferred to establish permanent homes in pretty much any instance that was possible. Until basic human nature changes, and that is not happening soon, this will not change.That the units are stationary makes them susceptible to predatory capitalism and changing markets. Costs of living will be reduced in many places as society moves toward micro-mobility and their accompanying structures, which will include tiny homes that can be made at least quasi-mobile. At this time, the real estate Gestapo includes those whom the “landlord” (a ridiculous term) depends on: building-code legislators and enforcers. This mobility will affect local economies because of its increased ability to go elsewhere, i.e., to choose another “landlord.” When one can move their structure several hundred yards away to get away from a smoker of anything, or a noisy neighbor, that micro-mobility will come to have increasing value and clout. Arguing for more flexibility and choices should see competition for “parking sites” and serious changes in traditional rent-gestapo overconfidence in believing everyone is buyIng their definition of “dwelling.”
The elimination of the bank pimp is another aspect of future, saner living. Psychologically rewarding will be the practice of modular ownership, whereby every piece that goes into constructing the dwelling will have been completely paid for from the very beginning. At each step, an important paradigm is to (own everything [italics]) as one goes along.
The pathologies to study, critique and expose, will include those already-in-place job-security factors of the Code and Regulations Gestapo, friend of the Rent Pimp.
Highly doubtful; rents in the Seattle area are skyrocketing in the 30% - 50% range; it's a crisis.Sure it does as I can look up rental prices right now and see that they are affordable if you do not demand that it must fit exactly what you want.
I've parroted nothing; housing is housing.You keep parroting housing is a basic human right but have yet to define it.
Obviously.You said you don't have a right to a castle.
See Websters; I won't play the "define what you mean by what" game.They what, EXACTLY, do you mean by housing.
Obviuously not.A cardboard box I would assume would not fit your definition.
Housing is a basic human right.The problem here is that there is no universal definition because to call housing a right is to misunderstand rights entirely.
Great.You have a right, through free exchange, to seek a home or build one yourself. That right is entirely intact. Nothing has changed.
Bizarre comment.Finally, you realize that it is the asinine mantra that housing is a 'right' that directly causes skyrocketing rents, right?
Nonsense.To declare a good is a right is just a veiled attempt to demand that someone else MUST, regardless of your ability to earn it yourself, provide it for you.
More nonsense.That causes, and it is painfully obvious, those that have homes to refuse to rent them out and those that can build more to provide that lower cost to stop building them as their work will simply be stolen or undervalued.
Irrelevant; housing is a basic human right.If you do not mean that it must be provided and instead mean that it is a right in the same manner that the right to bear arms is then you have to accept that there is nothing whatsoever or even remotely implied in any sense that such a thing be 'affordable.'
Irrelevant/derailing.If you cant purchase a gun, no one is going to be forced to ensure you are provided one.
Housing is a basic human right.The right concerns your actions and nothing more.
You've lost me - sorry.Housing has become unaffordable across the planet, and Ray from Cleveland made a point: the Castle Doctrine. That is a good starting point in the project to boycott the very pimps that made housing unaffordable. You start by taking away the pimp’s means of producing exorbitant housing costs via boycott. Where do the prisoners go and what do they do during this boycott? First-cause philosophy considers that the pimp already has the prisoners accepting as normalcy the fact they they pay to inhabit the pimp’s space while they are horizontal and unconscious. The pimp is not about to pro-rate this habitation of space.
