Biden's Crusade Against Solar Panels and Electric Vehicles

[Politesse]

Random info dump: Seeing a Tesla Cybertruck in the wild is rare, but when I do, it looks like I'm running a high-fidelity video game on a low-end PC. The visual assets haven't fully loaded yet.

I saw two of them get in accident last week. It was like a live-action Tron sequel.

 

[Gospel]

Those things are incredibly heavy. I would hate to be in anything other than a Tesla or a vehicle with equivalent safety ratings if struck by a Cybertruck. I'm surprised there hasn't been a fatality yet, but I suppose the high price range likely reduces the chances of it being in less responsible hands. It's also incredibly nimble for its size—I test-drove one. I literally couldn't feel the difference between a sedan and that truck, except for the awareness that it's enormous.

 

[Politesse]

Those things are incredibly heavy. I would hate to be in anything other than a Tesla or a vehicle with equivalent safety ratings if struck by a Cybertruck. I'm surprised there hasn't been a fatality yet, but I suppose the high price range likely reduces the chances of it being in less responsible hands. It's also incredibly nimble for its size—I test-drove one. I literally couldn't feel the difference between a sedan and that truck, except for the awareness that it's enormous.

Their guts may have gotten a bit scrambled, but I must admit, I saw no obvious damage to either vehicle.

As for "less responsible hands", they seem to be attracted to Teslas like flies to honey.

 

[ZiprHead]

Can you imagine being a pedestrian hit by one of those things?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I live in a town with a high number of re tal properties. It very much DOES matter who owns a property. More local landlords do a much better job of maintaining the rental properties and are much more responsive to problems that may arise and to community standards. Absentee landlords tend to be concerned only with maximizing their profits, often short term. This can lead to deteriorating property abd the decline in the neighboring properties if one is neglected.

Which makes no difference if they are in the next city or the next country.

Persons who purchase property for speculation artificially drive up prices of property which may help those who own property abd who wish to sell or borrow against the value of their property but it contributes to the unaffordability of properties in general and makes more homes—single family or apartments/rentals out of reach for renters and buyers. Sure, it makes money fur bankers but the net effect is decreased affordability of homes for people.

True--and I definitely favor lower tax rates for owner occupied property.

I’ve also seen this happen in popular tourist areas. We’ve been going to the same area almost every year for the past 15 years. What has happened is that the advent of VRBOs has taken many properties out of the market for actual residents because with a modest investment t in making the properties look magazine worthy those same family homes can bring thousands of dollars each week they are re Ted. When those property owners live out of state—as most do, those profits go out of state. AND it contributes to a local labor shortage. Businesses that serve those communities and tourists have a difficult time finding people to work because there is no more affordable housing. I admit to contributing to the problem by staying in these expensive vacation rentals. It doesn’t matter whether the owners live in the state or in the US —except I note in reviews more issues getting a response from overseas owners. But the net effect locally is the same: unaffordable housing. And btw, on a personal note, owning my own lake house has now become totally out of reach in the 15 years or so it has taken me to convince my husband we should do this for our own family and possibly to retire there ( no intention to rent out a property).

Which is actually saying that the land would be more valuable used as hotels/resorts than as houses.

Sure those properties bring in more tax dollars by increasing the value and bring in vacationers like me who are free with their money—but the net effect is to put a huge strain on local residents and businesses.

This is a small example of something I am familiar with. In general the further removed a property owner is from the actual site of the property, the less they care about how their property affects the local neighborhood and environment. Their only concern is profit.

Outside a small town don't expect them to care anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We need people to move back to the cities. Turned out 40+ mile from work suburban life was a really bad idea.

And let the rural/suburban folks and anyone else who wants to, work from home. The government should have pushed back hard against employers pressing people back to the office. To me this was a big mistake as it would have worked toward solving so many problems: traffic, fuel, sprawl, child care, road maintenance, pollution.

Yup, this is the real answer. If you're working a desk you can probably do it remotely. Probably not quite as efficiently, but time that would otherwise be used in commuting would be available to work instead. I think an awful lot of people would be better off with a "10" hour work from home day with 2 hours of break to use as desired rather than the standard "8" + an hour of lunch.

 

[Toni]

I live in a town with a high number of re tal properties. It very much DOES matter who owns a property. More local landlords do a much better job of maintaining the rental properties and are much more responsive to problems that may arise and to community standards. Absentee landlords tend to be concerned only with maximizing their profits, often short term. This can lead to deteriorating property abd the decline in the neighboring properties if one is neglected.

Which makes no difference if they are in the next city or the next country.

Persons who purchase property for speculation artificially drive up prices of property which may help those who own property abd who wish to sell or borrow against the value of their property but it contributes to the unaffordability of properties in general and makes more homes—single family or apartments/rentals out of reach for renters and buyers. Sure, it makes money fur bankers but the net effect is decreased affordability of homes for people.

True--and I definitely favor lower tax rates for owner occupied property.

I’ve also seen this happen in popular tourist areas. We’ve been going to the same area almost every year for the past 15 years. What has happened is that the advent of VRBOs has taken many properties out of the market for actual residents because with a modest investment t in making the properties look magazine worthy those same family homes can bring thousands of dollars each week they are re Ted. When those property owners live out of state—as most do, those profits go out of state. AND it contributes to a local labor shortage. Businesses that serve those communities and tourists have a difficult time finding people to work because there is no more affordable housing. I admit to contributing to the problem by staying in these expensive vacation rentals. It doesn’t matter whether the owners live in the state or in the US —except I note in reviews more issues getting a response from overseas owners. But the net effect locally is the same: unaffordable housing. And btw, on a personal note, owning my own lake house has now become totally out of reach in the 15 years or so it has taken me to convince my husband we should do this for our own family and possibly to retire there ( no intention to rent out a property).

Which is actually saying that the land would be more valuable used as hotels/resorts than as houses.

Sure those properties bring in more tax dollars by increasing the value and bring in vacationers like me who are free with their money—but the net effect is to put a huge strain on local residents and businesses.

This is a small example of something I am familiar with. In general the further removed a property owner is from the actual site of the property, the less they care about how their property affects the local neighborhood and environment. Their only concern is profit.

Outside a small town don't expect them to care anyway.

Yes, as a matter of fact it DOES matter whether the property owner lives in the next town or a different state or different t continent. Local/close by is much better because their personal property values and personal lives are much more affected the closer they live to a property.

I realize that fur a lot of people, nothing that does not happen in a major city is impirtsnt but a lot of people live in small towns. In fact, generally speaking, resort communities, vacation destination spots are often in or near small towns in scenic areas. People go there to escape their hectic lives and enjoy a slowed down pace. And nature. I’m lucky: my state has a lot of parks within very easy driving distance from my house but I still like to go stay in different areas. So do lots of people. People put up with living in destination spots because of the generally slower pace and beautiful settings, even when it means they earn less money: they choose quality of life over status and stress.

As fior whether housing that is converted to rental properties ( vacation or otherwise) are now being used for their best purpose: Only if you think of housing as something to generate profit for….someone, perhaps in another state or country —and drives the cost of housing for permanent residents up without doing anything to increase wages for local people. It happens when small farmers are taxed off of their land, when college students ( or their parents) are willing to pay stupid amounts of money fur substandard apartments carved out of family homes, displacing residents and removing from the housing market ( rental or to own) homes for local residents, and drives the cost of rent or home ownership past what many local people, people with roots going back generations in the community can afford. People who are forced to move to other places for work or for more affordable housing lose the resource of having family close by. You may not find it important but if you had kids or if you turn 70 or 75, having family close by is an extremely valuable asset.

I think that’s more important than increasing the wealth of landlords and commercial property owners.

Local owners care about the quality of life in their communities. Distant property owners only care of their property taxes go up. And they are not shy about lobbying local officials to keep their rates down-and their profits up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I realize that fur a lot of people, nothing that does not happen in a major city is impirtsnt but a lot of people live in small towns. In fact, generally speaking, resort communities, vacation destination spots are often in or near small towns in scenic areas. People go there to escape their hectic lives and enjoy a slowed down pace. And nature. I’m lucky: my state has a lot of parks within very easy driving distance from my house but I still like to go stay in different areas. So do lots of people. People put up with living in destination spots because of the generally slower pace and beautiful settings, even when it means they earn less money: they choose quality of life over status and stress.

You have a wildly inaccurate impression of the percent of people who live in small towns.

As fior whether housing that is converted to rental properties ( vacation or otherwise) are now being used for their best purpose: Only if you think of housing as something to generate profit for….someone, perhaps in another state or country —and drives the cost of housing for permanent residents up without doing anything to increase wages for local people. It happens when small farmers are taxed off of their land, when college students ( or their parents) are willing to pay stupid amounts of money fur substandard apartments carved out of family homes, displacing residents and removing from the housing market ( rental or to own) homes for local residents, and drives the cost of rent or home ownership past what many local people, people with roots going back generations in the community can afford. People who are forced to move to other places for work or for more affordable housing lose the resource of having family close by. You may not find it important but if you had kids or if you turn 70 or 75, having family close by is an extremely valuable asset.

I'm thinking of land, not housing per se. And when you force land into a lesser use than ideal society overall bears more costs. The harm you inflict exceeds the benefit you gain--it's just the harm is diffuse.

I think that’s more important than increasing the wealth of landlords and commercial property owners.

Local owners care about the quality of life in their communities. Distant property owners only care of their property taxes go up. And they are not shy about lobbying local officials to keep their rates down-and their profits up.

Distant property owners can't vote, local officials won't be paying much attention to them.

 

[Toni]

I realize that fur a lot of people, nothing that does not happen in a major city is impirtsnt but a lot of people live in small towns. In fact, generally speaking, resort communities, vacation destination spots are often in or near small towns in scenic areas. People go there to escape their hectic lives and enjoy a slowed down pace. And nature. I’m lucky: my state has a lot of parks within very easy driving distance from my house but I still like to go stay in different areas. So do lots of people. People put up with living in destination spots because of the generally slower pace and beautiful settings, even when it means they earn less money: they choose quality of life over status and stress.

You have a wildly inaccurate impression of the percent of people who live in small towns.

As fior whether housing that is converted to rental properties ( vacation or otherwise) are now being used for their best purpose: Only if you think of housing as something to generate profit for….someone, perhaps in another state or country —and drives the cost of housing for permanent residents up without doing anything to increase wages for local people. It happens when small farmers are taxed off of their land, when college students ( or their parents) are willing to pay stupid amounts of money fur substandard apartments carved out of family homes, displacing residents and removing from the housing market ( rental or to own) homes for local residents, and drives the cost of rent or home ownership past what many local people, people with roots going back generations in the community can afford. People who are forced to move to other places for work or for more affordable housing lose the resource of having family close by. You may not find it important but if you had kids or if you turn 70 or 75, having family close by is an extremely valuable asset.

I'm thinking of land, not housing per se. And when you force land into a lesser use than ideal society overall bears more costs. The harm you inflict exceeds the benefit you gain--it's just the harm is diffuse.

I think that’s more important than increasing the wealth of landlords and commercial property owners.

Local owners care about the quality of life in their communities. Distant property owners only care of their property taxes go up. And they are not shy about lobbying local officials to keep their rates down-and their profits up.

Distant property owners can't vote, local officials won't be paying much attention to them.

I actually have an extremely accurate grasp of the number of people living in small towns and rural areas in the USA. Your comment was not responsive to what I wrote. It was just an opportunity for you to attempt to criticize me. And a failure of comprehension.

You are not thinking of land or housing. You are thinking of $$$ because that's much easier for you to grasp than the FACT that people are being pushed out of their communities and into larger urban areas by greedy 'entrepreneurs' who also think only of their own personal bottom line.

Distant property owners absolutely do have an outsized amount of influence over local elections and municipalities' well being. Your naivety or perhaps more accurately, your ignorance is definitely showing.