California Doing California Things

[Politesse]

An improvement is an improvement even if it's not as much as you want.

Improvements only happen if people are working to make them happen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The trouble is, this market situation screws over any landlord who only has one or a few units. Theoretical diversifiability doesn't make him actually diversified -- he doesn't own enough units for that. So the ordinance in effect orders him to sell a high-risk-to-him option for the low-risk price. So it reverses the comparative advantage. In a free market for rentals the small landlord has a comparative advantage over the giant corporation. He's intimately familiar with the local housing market, he can make repairs himself or else knows who will do them at the best price, and he knows his tenants personally. But require him to give tenants an option on extending their stays and the giant corporation has the comparative advantage. Now the economically rational move for the small owner is to sell out to the giant corporation.

B - I can't find support of this, not that it's my job to do so. Got an LAHD link?

This is a totally obvious effect.

 

[Gospel]

We are not seeing large scale speculative buying, we are seeing large scale flight from individuals renting out houses because it has become too risky for them. Same market, but the small fish are mostly driven out in favor of those big enough to be able to average out the risks. And those risks as always show up as an increased cost to the consumer.

Do you have any proof that it's what you say and not what Gospel said below?

Small landlords selling out doesn’t automatically lead to a handful of corporations controlling huge swaths of housing, unless you already have a system where Wall Street money can outbid working families every time. That’s not created by tenant protections, that’s a feature of the current market structure.

Remove the small fish from the pool, of course what's left are big fish!

Whatever, dude. California laws hurt the small fish and help the big fish , you happy now? I don’t give a damn about defending Newsom, and none of my posts were meant to. Every one of your replies seems to assume that. Newsom’s laws don’t scare Wall Street, they scare the little guy. And when the little guy sells, who do you think is standing there with cash in hand? That’s the feature of the current market structure I’m talking about. Maybe I wasn’t clear before: politicians tiptoe around the real enemy to affordable housing. They’ll talk about landlords, tenants, and zoning, but they avoid naming Wall Street, which distorts markets by concentrating in certain neighborhoods, buying in bulk, and treating housing as financial assets.

From what I understand, Wall Street’s role is secondary. The bigger driver of California’s housing crisis is decades of underbuilding, fueled by residents blocking anything but single-family homes in many areas. But I can’t even get to that part of the conversation without first cutting through all the reflexive defenses of Wall Street to get at Newsom. Fuck Newsom.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We are not seeing large scale speculative buying, we are seeing large scale flight from individuals renting out houses because it has become too risky for them. Same market, but the small fish are mostly driven out in favor of those big enough to be able to average out the risks. And those risks as always show up as an increased cost to the consumer.

Do you have any proof that it's what you say and not what Gospel said below?

Small landlords selling out doesn’t automatically lead to a handful of corporations controlling huge swaths of housing, unless you already have a system where Wall Street money can outbid working families every time. That’s not created by tenant protections, that’s a feature of the current market structure.

Remove the small fish from the pool, of course what's left are big fish!

That's not proof.

Well, what else do you get when you remove <small fish> from the set of <fish>?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Whatever, dude. California laws hurt the small fish and help the big fish , you happy now? I don’t give a damn about defending Newsom, and none of my posts were meant to. Every one of your replies seems to assume that. Newsom’s laws don’t scare Wall Street, they scare the little guy. And when the little guy sells, who do you think is standing there with cash in hand? That’s the feature of the current market structure I’m talking about. Maybe I wasn’t clear before: politicians tiptoe around the real enemy to affordable housing. They’ll talk about landlords, tenants, and zoning, but they avoid naming Wall Street, which distorts markets by concentrating in certain neighborhoods, buying in bulk, and treating housing as financial assets.

You have not demonstrated that this is in any way a cause, it sounds like more of the rich = automatically evil position.

From what I understand, Wall Street’s role is secondary. The bigger driver of California’s housing crisis is decades of underbuilding, fueled by residents blocking anything but single-family homes in many areas. But I can’t even get to that part of the conversation without first cutting through all the reflexive defenses of Wall Street to get at Newsom. Fuck Newsom.

I agree about the underbuilding, but I do not see how Wall Street is remotely relevant.

A place is desirable, people move there, land is inherently fixed, so the cost to live there goes up. It's inevitable. The taller the building the higher the cost per square foot, you can't solve the problem by building up. Building up happens when the additional cost of building up is less than the cost of being far enough away not to need to build up.

 

[Elixir]

It was, however, what she demanded.

She got what she demanded because it was a single click on the ratchet. Why can’t you see that?

 

[Politesse]

It was, however, what she demanded.

She got what she demanded because it was a single click on the ratchet. Why can’t you see that?

Wrong. She demanded full and equal rights, and she was right to do so. What she got was several clicks (as well a jail sentence, a 14 dollar fine, and riots in Louisiana).

 

[Elixir]

It was, however, what she demanded.

She got what she demanded because it was a single click on the ratchet. Why can’t you see that?

Wrong. She demanded full and equal rights, and she was right to do so. What she got was several clicks (as well a jail sentence, a 14 dollar fine, and riots in Louisiana).

Not wrong.
She got what she demanded because what she demanded was within the limit of what was attainable at that moment in history.

She didn’t know that, but because that was the case, we remember her name but not the names of other POC who made the same demand earlier and got the shit kicked out of them or worse.
Do you imagine she was omnipotent in that moment? Like she should have demanded an end to racism and equal representation in legislature because she got what she demanded? That’s delusional.

 

[Politesse]

It was, however, what she demanded.

She got what she demanded because it was a single click on the ratchet. Why can’t you see that?

Wrong. She demanded full and equal rights, and she was right to do so. What she got was several clicks (as well a jail sentence, a 14 dollar fine, and riots in Louisiana).

Not wrong.
She got what she demanded because what she demanded was within the limit of what was attainable at that moment in history.

She didn’t know that, but because that was the case, we remember her name but not the names of other POC who made the same demand earlier and got the shit kicked out of them or worse.
Do you imagine she was omnipotent in that moment? Like she should have demanded an end to racism and equal representation in legislature because she got what she demanded? That’s delusional.

Yes, she fucking did know that. Jesus Christ, plenty of the people lynched, bombed, knifed, and raped were personal friends of hers who she had known for decades. What the hell are you even talking about, she didn't know? Obviously she was not omnipotent, they nearly lost more than they gained in the immediate sense, and she was in prison a few hours after.

Let's see what Rosa Parks said about her own aspirations:

"People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically... No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.."

"You spend your whole lifetime in your occupation, actually making life clever, easy and convenient for white people. But when you have to get transportation home, you are denied an equal accommodation. Our existence was for the white man's comfort and well-being; we had to accept being deprived of just being human... I have never been what you would call just an integrationist. I know I've been called that... Integrating that bus wouldn't mean more equality. Even when there was segregation, there was plenty of integration in the South, but it was for the benefit and convenience of the white person, not us."
"I talked and talked of everything I know about the white man's inhuman treatment of the Negro."

"Whites would accuse you of causing trouble when all you were doing was acting like a normal human being instead of cringing."

Yeah, she was not asking for incremental change. She was demanding every last right of the American citizen, and accepted nothing less. She was more than aware of the dangers she faced, and nevertheless organized a cohesive response to the evils of her day. If you'red scared of me, you would have hated Rosa.

 

[Elixir]

Support for Rosa Parks is insanity?

Nobody said that Poli. You don’t have to do that crap. Especially if you have a valid points

 

[Politesse]

Support for Rosa Parks is insanity?

Nobody said that Poli. You don’t have to do that crap. Especially if you have a valid points

Well, her example is what I was writing about. If that accusation of insanity wasn't relevant to my post, then it was just a random personal attack.

 

[Elixir]

Yes, she fucking did know that.

Bullshit. Nobody who steps out on a limb knows what will happen. The result Rosa achieved was a product of vast courage, not a rote following of a process known to have a certain result.

 

[Politesse]

Yes, she fucking did know that.

Bullshit. Nobody who steps out on a limb knows what will happen. The result Rosa achieved was a product of vast courage, not a rote following of a process known to have a certain result.

I'm confused as to what you're even talking about. Who claimed that civil rights are a ?rote following of a process known to have a certain result"? Not me, certainly.

 

[Elixir]

Support for Rosa Parks is insanity?

Nobody said that Poli. You don’t have to do that crap. Especially if you have a valid points

Well, her example is what I was writing about. If that accusation of insanity wasn't relevant to my post, then it was just a random personal attack.

Whatever, dude. I’m not interested in your personal offense at what was said, because I did not see it as a personal attack. You seem to arrive at this point in a lot of discussions, where you advocate for moon shots that have little or no chance to achieve anything notable. Not even a single click of the ratchet.

 

[Elixir]

Who claimed that civil rights are a ?rote following of a process known to have a certain result"

You claimed she knew her protest would work. I said she didn’t, and you flatly contradicted me.
It appears that you just want to vent. Have at it then, but don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re making any kind of cogent argument.

 

[Politesse]

Support for Rosa Parks is insanity?

Nobody said that Poli. You don’t have to do that crap. Especially if you have a valid points

Well, her example is what I was writing about. If that accusation of insanity wasn't relevant to my post, then it was just a random personal attack.

Whatever, dude. I’m not interested in your personal offense at what was said, because I did not see it as a personal attack. You seem to arrive at this point in a lot of discussions, where you advocate for moon shots that have little or no chance to achieve anything notable. Not even a single click of the ratchet.

What, genocide is bad? The Civil Rights movement was good and necessary? The Constitution should be defended? What "moon shot" are you even referring to here?

 

[Politesse]

Who claimed that civil rights are a ?rote following of a process known to have a certain result"

You claimed she knew her protest would work. I said she didn’t, and you flatly contradicted me.
It appears that you just want to vent. Have at it then, but don’t fool yourself into thinking you’re making any kind of cogent argument.

No, I said she knew she was taking a grave risk for an important cause.

 

[Elixir]

An improvement is an improvement even if it's not as much as you want.

Improvements only happen if people are working to make them happen.

That doesn’t mean they have to “solve the problem” unless “the problem” is broken down into single ratchet clicks. Like, equal access to seats on buses. The “problem” that caused unequal access to bus seats. WAS NOT SOLVED BY ROSA PARKS.

 

[Elixir]

No, I said she knew she was taking a grave risk for an important cause.

Bullshit.
I said

She got what she demanded because what she demanded was within the limit of what was attainable at that moment in history. She didn’t know that ..

You flatly responded

Yes, she fucking did know that.

… which would more than imply that no courage was needed to do what she did.
She was COURAGEOUS, not knowledgeable of the outcome in advance.

I’m done trying to keep you on the rails Poli. For all the brilliance you show at times, it’s ridiculous that you choose to argue by intentional misconstruction. Just stop.

 

[Politesse]

She was COURAGEOUS, not knowledgeable of the outcome in advance.

No one said otherwise.