balfizan.bsky.social
109 posts
43 followers
35 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Looking forward to the TTC they were probably recording here.
comment in response to
post
Thank you for putting so much behind the scenes content on YT that could easily have been KS or Patreon exclusive.
comment in response to
post
Who is the one who is coping and seething?
comment in response to
post
Once again what evidence do you have that a conservative state government would have drastically different concerns? I have evidence that must state government nearly left tax payers with a billion dollar debt they didn't have before the ONE time they got involved in zoning. So no sorry I didagree
comment in response to
post
To go back to your earlier suggestion how would moving zoning up to the state level make anything better?
comment in response to
post
But you repeatedly suggested that we move zoning to the state level and when I said "that would make things worse" you told me to look at the Japanese model. So youve moved the goalposts in this discussion like Three times.
comment in response to
post
Also it's called an EXAMPLE I don't know if you've ever heard of such a thing but it's not the only time such things happen.
comment in response to
post
Because they had the political will to make that happen. Which format quick google wasn't by handing more power over to an already for reaching conservative state government that has repeatedly proven they shouldn't be trusted with the power they already have.
comment in response to
post
Yeah I love the idea of a world with no restrictions on where people can build things that's going to get you exactly the future you want and wouldn't lead directly to slums, tenements, and polluters unhealthily close to low income neighborhoods
comment in response to
post
Whereas here in Florida a liberal local government at least used zoning leverage against Universal to get an affordable housing development out of them in exchange for permission to build their new park. And right in the area it's most needed. Without that local leverage there would be a hotel there
comment in response to
post
I would love for you to tell how exactly you expect a red state government would do anything different than what you're saying your red local government is doing.
comment in response to
post
In many states sending zoning power to the state level would lead to a mishandling both intentional and unintentional of zoning changes. It's no more likely to liberalize there because those people want to stay in their jobs as well.
comment in response to
post
So like I said you just think the politics would be better at a higher level tell that to Ron DeSantis who almost stuck a bunch of Florida tax payers with a 1 billion dollar bind debt to Disney. (Not that I think the deal Disney has is good but he mishandled that SO badly)
comment in response to
post
Trust me when I tell you that where I am and in so many other places giving zoning over to conservative state governments would be SO MUCH WORSE
comment in response to
post
Again regardless I wouldn't want state level legislators in control of zoning. What about this model would require it to be at the state level. Because if it's political will we wouldn't get it in a thousand years under the current govt of Florida.
comment in response to
post
I've done plenty of research and while I think you are right some of the time. Its far from universal and we need a great many of the regulations we have to ensure places that get built are livable. I'm not dismissing what you're saying because I don't like it. You could do the same.
comment in response to
post
your argument dpends on the problem actually being over regulation though. As such I see it as a flawed argument because I think your premise is flawed.
comment in response to
post
I was more making a point that an exemption in zoning policy contributed to that disaster. If the zoning rules in place when Avalon Park was built as a subdivision were exercised the housing and school in that area wouldnt have been able to be built in the area that got contaminated.
comment in response to
post
Ron DeSantis run the supermajority in the state house. They said they wanted to move zoning control to the state level. That would be nightmarish here. There isn't a one size fits all solution.
comment in response to
post
not everywhere is NYC whats true there isn't true everywhere. Maybe they need a different solution. But I guarrantee one exists. Just difficult. Deregulation isn't generally the answer though we already have enough substandard housing in the US. Not saying its never the answer just not generally.
comment in response to
post
It was one of the first few Desert Buses like 3 or 4
comment in response to
post
a bunch of kids got brain cancer its a tragedy and it got basically zero news coverage. That said at the same time we also need the political will, when we really NEED a certain type of development to much mor often say YIYBY. Hopefully just in a way that doesn't endanger people.
comment in response to
post
You guys are great. Like the real answer lies somewhere in the middle here. Just difficult to find the political will for it. Like we need zoning so we dont get high density housing next to a coal ash dump. (oops Orlando did that. Allowed an exemption to build luxury housing near a toxic dump)
comment in response to
post
the Missouri GOP from what I've seen is anti-"quality housing for brown people" not exactly anti-housing in general. But I take your point.
comment in response to
post
this is a pretty good video about the benfits and pitfalls during the history of the program in the UK youtu.be/jZpLiJdIGbs?...
comment in response to
post
Like you're right and to the second half o fmy original point here its not like the people voting in alot of places had a demonstrably better option. Like even left leaning local politicians are often beholden to NIMBY interests.
comment in response to
post
My argument was less that there weren't local politicians that were bad for housing policy. It was that they aren't 'anti-housing' There are just a WAY to many politicians who are pro-housing but in the worst ways possible. Like I have yet to see a politician who would frame new building as for STRs
comment in response to
post
sorry that was unkind. I don't know if the regulatory costs are the issue here. price of materials is still too high because prices on materials are really sluggish to come back down post pandemic. we need to find other alternatives in the mean time. repurposing and refurbishing existing structures.
comment in response to
post
theres more but it goes beyond "just build more and costs will go down, supply and demand its not that complicated" because it is much more complicated than that. I think that more housing is better than less but more housing doesn't always have an in-kind decrease in price because of other forces.
comment in response to
post
But having clean well-built low cost housing where the payments were tied to the actual costs of the buildings construction and maintenance. Could go a long way. We need more things like the place I work with. That refurbishes former hotels into low cost housing. Especially if that was also public.
comment in response to
post
Something akin to inter-war and post-war UK council housing and slum clearance. Not as ubiquitous as that because the US has too strong a desire for home ownership for that to work at the level it did in the UK.
comment in response to
post
Hoestly as far as solutions go I think we need kind of spaghetti meet wall approach. We definietly need more building. But the right kind of building in the right place. Which means we do need zoning but for actual need not current homeowner desire. I'm also a proponent of new public housing.
comment in response to
post
being anti-corporate landlord isn't whats stopping building. Building is happening. Its just not meeting demand in a way that has the greatest positive effects it could. Because the investment money for that building comes from moneyed interests many of whom were using that app or smthing similar
comment in response to
post
Real competition would get us closer to how you think the relationship works but it isn't working that way right now. Because people have their thumbs on the scale.
comment in response to
post
its called government regulation. There were a bunch of cartels and monopolies in the US for awhile. We regulated them out of existence for awhile. It was actually really good for the economy for awhile there. Which is why I'm glad the AG brought that case against that app company.
comment in response to
post
So you're pro slum then. Good to know. Thanks for your input.
comment in response to
post
so maybe the more accurate way to say it would be fuck with the natural state of that relationship but I'm working with limited characters here.
comment in response to
post
but in almost every market on earth not everything is held equal. There are outside forces to artificailly effect supply or demand or both. because sometimes altering the natural state of that relationship can make you a bunch of money.
comment in response to
post
no you see the whole idea of as you put it the "law of supply and demand" is that all other things held equal there is a natural point where prices should be based on how much supply and demand there is in a certain market. And that the market will trend towards that point.
comment in response to
post
especially if you restrict supply in a market where demand is relatively fixed and purchasers can't realistically do without the product being sold?
comment in response to
post
and if you restrict supply what happens?
comment in response to
post
but with this app (and toher similar relationships between landlords) they colude to not compete so they can artificially increase prices over where the natural S/D point would be. Thats how a cartel/monopoly works.
comment in response to
post
also to your point of 1) the people on the app are the landlords. they are the members of the cartel. and the whole idea is if they were competing prices would already be lower because I could find a 2 bedroom house at a lower price and another landlord might be forced to lower their price
comment in response to
post
It might. It also might have them say use some of them as short term rentals to defray costs while waiting for real estate prices to rise. Or to hold them as a store of wealth.
comment in response to
post
They are buying up large amounts of new developments and in alot of places those developments are aimed at them because builders know they have a sure buyer.
And no it doesn't but in the real world supply and demand arent always perfect little scrossing curves on a flat map
comment in response to
post
THE WHOLE POINT OF GETTING A MONOPOLY IS TO CONTROL SUPPLY TO FUCK WITH THE S?D REALTIONSHIP. How are you this dumb?
comment in response to
post
the beginning of the text book definition of the law of supply and demand in basically every text book is 'holding all else equal' a thing that often goes out the window in the real world. You can't always hold all else equal and the real world is full of situations where S/D is complex
comment in response to
post
Like the whole idea is they are using the app to form a cartel. And yeah you could try and build more to out compete that cartel. But if they are cartelling correctly they will buy up new supply to maintain their hold on the market. Unless you regulate them. So ya it fucks with that relationship
comment in response to
post
The price fixing app is SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to fuck with that relationship because for S/D to work you need competition between suppliers. This is high school economics man please.