231d
@AverageJoe1 saidThat'll be the day. In fact, I do not, because I am a rational human being and you two are fantasists.
Good morning, Suzianne. What is your perspective on what I just wrote? We need to hear all sides. Do you agree with Wajoma and myself?
231d
@Suzianne saidIt is rational that if you build cheap homes next to expensive homes, that the value of the expensive homes will go straight down. It would result in less tax revenue for that neighborhood.
That'll be the day. In fact, I do not, because I am a rational human being and you two are fantasists.
This is common sense, and logic, AND, rational!
So why will you not say that that this is rational, since it is? Sonhouse would say you are being obtuse. Not nice to be obtuse on the forum....at least, so says Sonhouse.
Spruce is kinda off track today, too.
231d
@AverageJoe1 said
It is rational that if you build cheap homes next to expensive homes, that the value of the expensive homes will go straight down. It would result in less tax revenue for that neighborhood.
This is common sense, and logic, AND, rational!
So why will you not say that that this is rational, since it is? Sonhouse would say you are being obtuse. Not nice to be obtuse on the forum....at least, so says Sonhouse.
Spruce is kinda off track today, too.
It would result in less tax revenue for that neighborhood
Why would homebuilders care about tax revenue for the neighborhood?
Of course that's why the homes aren't built. Rich folks use political donations to rig the housing market to keep inventory low in their neighborhoods.
You're arguing in favor of goobermint regulation?
231d
@AverageJoe1 saidAvJoe: "I Worry about his [Ted Turner's] Freedom."
I Worry about his Freedom.
I think that's really the point. Ted Turner has 100's of 1000's of acres and if he wants to build a flat for his mother-in-law, he can do it - no one will say no. If he wants to re-furbish a ranch (e.g. Vermejo) into a guest house, he is free to do that. Why? Because he is a huge land owner and a billionaire. This is the kind of person Avjoe worries about protecting the rights of.
But in town, if I want to do the same? NO, says the Town Council. NO granny flats. NO Airbnb. And why? Because "property values." So I don't have freedom because I'm not big enough - and that's exactly the way Avjoe likes it.
Billionaires have all the rights and freedoms they want, but little people do not. Why?
Because AvJoe believes in the notion of an aristocracy. He thinks there are upper class people who matter, and lower class people (who live in ghettos among gunshots and arguments and gangs) who don't matter. Since those people don't matter, why should they have decent lives?
AvJoe's idea is to restrict capitalism so that his rich cronies benefit and everyone else is impoverished. That is his entire philosophy. He doesn't believe in freedom unless you are rich. He doesn't believe you matter - unless you are rich.
When there is competition, capitalism produces many good things for all.
When there is no competition, crony-capitalism produces good things mainly for the rich.
AvJoe is a crony-capitalist. He is afraid of an unrestricted free market, so he proposes to use government to force the market to produce good things mainly for those who already have a good life.
I, on the other hand, am for freedom. Lift government restrictions on zoning, increase the supply of housing, and to heck with protecting AvJoe's property values because THAT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
And definitely mix poor and rich areas together - why not? We have all been poor students at one time or another. We were all poor starting out. Why should we be forced to live in a ghetto? It doesn't have to be in a strictly planned fashion like Vienna's Hofs (which are spread out through the city even in the 'nice areas'; one of the reasons Vienna has no 'bad neighborhoods' ), but there are plenty of opportunities like converting elementary schools into apartments and building ADUs that could be used if government didn't constantly bow to the will of NIMBY homeowners ike AvJoe.
230d
@spruce112358 saidYou're confused about what rights are versus having the resources to do something.
AvJoe: "I Worry about his [Ted Turner's] Freedom."
Billionaires have all the rights and freedoms they want, but little people do not. Why?
230d
@Wajoma saidNo confusion. I don't accept rights being conditional on resources.
You're confused about what rights are versus having the resources to do something.
If everyone has the right to live, then everyone has the right to live somewhere. Resources have nothing to do with it.
When people are on the street with "no right to live anywhere" that says that their rights are being violated. That has to be fixed.
230d
@spruce112358 saidLook at my concern for Ted's freedom this way: I just want the government, and you , to leave him alone. He is enjoying what he has PLANNED (libs don't plan) for and reaped after all his years. He may build a swimming pool. Can you just leave him the hell alone>. That is what I worry about.
AvJoe: "I Worry about his [Ted Turner's] Freedom."
I think that's really the point. Ted Turner has 100's of 1000's of acres and if he wants to build a flat for his mother-in-law, he can do it - no one will say no. If he wants to re-furbish a ranch (e.g. Vermejo) into a guest house, he is free to do that. Why? Because he is a huge land owner and a billionaire. This is ...[text shortened]... Us that could be used if government didn't constantly bow to the will of NIMBY homeowners ike AvJoe.
AirBNB has its limits. I live in a family-driven neighborhood, same life for my kids everyday. Then, too many homeowners lease their houses willy nilly, and it becomes a commercial project, weekenders parked all over, 12 occupants, leaving trash, blah blah. Party while my babies sleep.
Now you get it. Whew.
Billionaires and little people have the same rights. Maybe they don't have the same money, you may wish to make your point more clear?
I'm offennnded that you say I think little people don't matter. Hmmm, this paragraph has a hint of money envy, why do you write about money all the time? Obviously the rich plan for their styles, the less rich plan their types, which are different. YOu are having a hell of a time explaining yourself.
Don't get your 'competition' paragraph.
Your crony-capitalist para ....Please do a thread on that one. I want an unrestricted free market. And note in this para, that you once again mention that rich have fancier lives. Would you please tell us what you think our society should be like?
You are wrong about zoning. Imagine a town with no zoning. Jesus. Yes, allow for developers to increase housing supply, subject to zoning. I don't want a 7/11 across from the house. Neither do you. I have not suggested that govt 'protect property values'. The effect of proper zoning for all RESULTS in an affect on prop values, good or bad. Geez.
Again, a separate thread please, on 'mixing poor and rich'. You are quite the manipulator. I have a feeling that you would move a migrant who is ILLEGAL in next door to me. Wow...talk about prop value and loss of tax revenue. Hey.......that is not in the constitution.
230d
@spruce112358 saidspruce said:
No confusion. I don't accept rights being conditional on resources.
If everyone has the right to live, then everyone has the right to live somewhere. Resources have nothing to do with it.
When people are on the street with "no right to live anywhere" that says that their rights are being violated. That has to be fixed.
"No confusion. I don't accept rights being conditional on resources."
That's what I said, and I'm consistent about it. What you also said was:
"Billionaires have all the rights and freedoms they want, but little people do not. Why? "
Which makes you self contradictory, inconsistent and confused.
230d
@wildgrass saidHomebuilders factor everything into their projected profit. Certainly you are aware that potential prop taxes are important, weighing on a prospect's interest in buying. Like, you tell a prospect what their taxes might be??It would result in less tax revenue for that neighborhood
Why would homebuilders care about tax revenue for the neighborhood?
Of course that's why the homes aren't built. Rich folks use political donations to rig the housing market to keep inventory low in their neighborhoods.
You're arguing in favor of goobermint regulation?
As to gov regulation, I believe in little, and only necessary, government regulation, Like Trump does.
Your casual meant-to-be-factual empty comment about rich folks rigging the market is just too much for me to bear. You are all over the place......but, hmmm. like, you keep mentioning rich folks.
What is your end game. Some people are average,.. plan different than the rich, some people are well off, some people are rich, some people are real rich, some are wealthy as Croesus. So there are all these people to balance, from people who throw darts, to people who have taken risks all their lives, planning to be like Croesus.
Really, what is the ideal set-up in your mind? Please don't say what Kamala said, that at the end of the day we all end up in the same place.
230d
@AverageJoe1 saidDid Lord Joe (or is it Emperor Joe)? order me to create 2 new threads?!?
Your crony-capitalist para ....Please do a thread on that one.
Again, a separate thread please, on 'mixing poor and rich'.
Yes, m'lord! Right away, Your Grace! {tugs forelock}
Btw, how should we lowly common folk (who matter little because we have no resources) address your Royal Highness-ness?
😀 😀 😀
230d
@Wajoma saidC'mon, man....(source: Biden). C'mon, Spruce, You ask why don't little people have the same rights and freedoms!?!? They do. They might not have the same money and resources, but you conveniently omit that factoid from your post..
spruce said:
"No confusion. I don't accept rights being conditional on resources."
That's what I said, and I'm consistent about it. What you also said was:
"Billionaires have all the rights and freedoms they want, but little people do not. Why? "
Which makes you self contradictory, inconsistent and confused.
I'm getting a headache cleaning up your posts today. 😕