this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
339 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19241 readers
2862 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm in agreement. Also in Seattle. The median house price in Seattle is over $800,000. Down a whopping 2%. This means you'd have to make over 200k a year to afford your mortgage. How many more apartment units will trickle this down the other 50% or 75% to make it affordable to everyone? People need to be realistic. Bans on for-profit home ownership need to be part of the mix here, not just more supply.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Not everyone wants to own, even when housing was affordable there was still a bit more than 30% renting.

At the point we're at there's more competition to own because renting is so expensive that it's way more logical to purchase, flood the rental market to crash prices there and people won't buy at a ridiculous price, they'll simply rent instead, lowering pressure in the whole market.

It's one of the many ways to lower prices!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I could see a private ownership of an actual person being allowed 2 homes in Seattle. Corporations and any lateral, upwards, or subsidiary companies attached to the same board can only own up to 5 units or something for airbnb type situations. Anything over that, they have to register as a hotel and follow hotel rules.

China seems to be having some of their own real estate issues and are maybe pulling out of the US, some of our rent decreases might be because of that too. A little of it might take care of itself? Just a guess, but I hope we continue to look at everything. No one can afford to live in Seattle doing the low level jobs, so stop complaining about the lack of workers you shitty person at the grocery checkout. We were becoming San Francisco and I don't think anyone wants that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've got similar ideas!

One to four units can only be privately owned, 5 to 8 units can only be owned by a registered company, more than that must be run as a non profit (ideally a state corporation).

People are only allowed to own one property in a 50km radius (meaning that if you own a 4 unit you pretty much have to live in it unless you live in the next city over).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how you would do the non-profit since a lot of corporations already own high rises with "luxury" apartments. Are you saying they would be grandfathered in?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it's rental then it's non profit, they can convert them to condos if they don't agree.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think I agree. All those real estate greeds are going to switch to non-profits then. There are ways to abuse that system and they surely would.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well they can, it just means that the building management needs to show that all the money they get gets reinvested in the building or put aside for repairs. Non profits are much easier to investigate than private companies because they need to be able to justify everything they spend so they don't overcharge. If it's a state corporation? Even better, profits get sent to the government coffers to spend on services and you're sure that the charges are lowered the next year. That's how our health protection works for anything related to roads where I live and there's a pretty good reason why it's the province where it's the cheapest to insure a vehicle!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

they need to be able to justify everything they spend so they don’t overcharge.

I don't think you've worked with non-profits before. Justify to the government or to the board? I've only worked with a couple and the salary of the people running it can be very high, look at Goodwill. Non-profits are just quiet enough and loose enough for them to take advantage. That's a nope on my side.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Implying that the salary of the people currently owning rental units isn't very high...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Implying that the salary of the people currently owning rental units isn’t very high…

You've just showed your hand, have a great weekend.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not the one who's against alternatives for reasons that apply even more to the status quo, at least I'm proposing a solution and even mentioned that it's even better to have it under a state corporation 🤷