• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

sailordeac said:
Bernie's got his lakeside dacha and two other homes, he does not need another in a gentrifyed luxury development, although he might be able to trade his private jet frequent flier/carbon footprint miles for a fourth home in one
Click to expand...

my lord those brain worms are firmly embedded in your skull, sailor
 
Strickland33 said:
when you're a YIMBY hammer, everything looks like a NIMBY nail

I work in housing policy at a variety of levels and the recent trend of labeling tenant advocacy-oriented resistance to taxpayer subsidized majority market-rate development as NIMBY is really disturbing.

It's akin to declaring "All Housing Matters" as the poor continue to get squeezed out of cities. I agree with you that the tweet isn't great, but the fact that Sanders is the only candidate (now that Castro is out) who is listening to the tenants movement is what I took from that message.

The day that YIMBY groups work with tenant advocates will be an exciting day towards actually addressing the root policy causes and consequences of the housing crisis (both the affordability crisis faced by tenants and the supply crisis caused by NIMBYs and their politician/policy apologists).
Click to expand...

Yeah that's why I asked, I know you are involved and know way more about this than I do. I wish the debate were framed more in those terms. It very much makes sense to me that we shouldn't be subsidizing these development projects with tax dollars. I just feel like in general, when you see the opposition to projects like that, no one actually mentions the subsidies. They all talk about gentrification, and make dubious claims that increasing market rate supply will drive up rents elsewhere. I did an (admittedly quick and cursory) google search to try to get a sense of the arguments the activists are making, and I don't see anyone making your argument.
 
This seemed relevant:

https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=up_workingpapers

Housing costs have risen rapidly relative to incomes over the past 60 years in the United
States, particularly in large and economically successful cities (Gyourko et al. 2013; Albouy,
Ehrlich, and Liu 2016). This trend has increased rent burdens for low-income households,
reduced regional economic convergence, and slowed national economic growth (Ganong and
Shoag 2017; Hsieh and Moretti 2019). One potential solution is to increase the supply of
housing by allowing more market-rate construction, which both theory and recent empirical
results suggest will reduce regional housing costs (Rosenthal 2014; Mast 2019).

However, new housing developments could counterintuitively increase costs in their
immediate area, raising questions about the incidence of such policies. This could occur
because of amenity or signaling effects—if new units attract high-income households and new
amenities that make the area more appealing, it could raise demand by enough to offset the
increased supply.
Click to expand...

This paper provides new empirical evidence on how the construction of large market-rate
rental apartment buildings in low-income, central city neighborhoods affects nearby rents
and migration. We assemble granular, address-level microdata on new construction and
outcomes for 11 major cities, which allow us to address endogeneity concerns by leveraging
extremely local variation in the timing and location of new construction.3 We find that new
buildings lower nearby rents by 5 to 7 percent relative to trend and increase in-migration from
low-income areas. If there is an endogenous amenity effect, it appears to be overwhelmed by
the standard supply effect. Our results suggest that, unlike in other contexts where diffuse
policy benefits must be weighed against concentrated costs, there is not a trade-off between
the regional and local effects of new housing construction. It benefits both.
Click to expand...
 
tiltdeac said:
Yeah that's why I asked, I know you are involved and know way more about this than I do. I wish the debate were framed more in those terms. It very much makes sense to me that we shouldn't be subsidizing these development projects with tax dollars. I just feel like in general, when you see the opposition to projects like that, no one actually mentions the subsidies. They all talk about gentrification, and make dubious claims that increasing market rate supply will drive up rents elsewhere. I did an (admittedly quick and cursory) google search to try to get a sense of the arguments the activists are making, and I don't see anyone making your argument.
Click to expand...

tiltdeac said:
This seemed relevant:

https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1334&context=up_workingpapers
Click to expand...

Nobody mentions the subsidies because politics is reductive. That's my take at least. Even the more socialist (and crypto-socialist) people in politics and housing policy who care about these issues, that I've dealt with at least, acknowledge the need for increasing supply. The demand-siders (if I may) are mainly focused on getting better deals for their constituents when dealing with these cases. The fact that low % MIH is the standard doesn't mean that it has to or should be this way. Groups like City Life/Vida Urbana advocate for low income tenants from this standpoint and have for decades now.

That paper is fine and I generally like Evan Mast's work a lot, but it's just one side of the debate. You could as easily cite this to substantiate the opposite (in bad-faith, imo). The debate has become so ideological in academia that I think we're getting dangerously close to a point where empirical analysis isn't going to matter in policy development. And it usually does. The housing policy folks I know are really plugged into these debates despite their living in the Ivory Tower.

This is the best faith description of the debate, imo, and I would hardly consider Been, Ellen, or O'Regan to be NIMBY partisans. In short, you need supply and demand-side reforms to happen in concert. Otherwise, urban policy concerning state-subsidized private development will continue to reproduce inequality in cities.

(I think all of these papers are accessible, but if not, I'll PM anybody the PDFs.)
 
Strickland33 said:
Nobody mentions the subsidies because politics is reductive. That's my take at least. Even the more socialist (and crypto-socialist) people in politics and housing policy who care about these issues, that I've dealt with at least, acknowledge the need for increasing supply. The demand-siders (if I may) are mainly focused on getting better deals for their constituents when dealing with these cases. The fact that low % MIH is the standard doesn't mean that it has to or should be this way. Groups like City Life/Vida Urbana advocate for low income tenants from this standpoint and have for decades now.

That paper is fine and I generally like Evan Mast's work a lot, but it's just one side of the debate. You could as easily cite this to substantiate the opposite (in bad-faith, imo). The debate has become so ideological in academia that I think we're getting dangerously close to a point where empirical analysis isn't going to matter in policy development. And it usually does. The housing policy folks I know are really plugged into these debates despite their living in the Ivory Tower.

This is the best faith description of the debate, imo, and I would hardly consider Been, Ellen, or O'Regan to be NIMBY partisans. In short, you need supply and demand-side reforms to happen in concert. Otherwise, urban policy concerning state-subsidized private development will continue to reproduce inequality in cities.

(I think all of these papers are accessible, but if not, I'll PM anybody the PDFs.)
Click to expand...

Good stuff, thanks
 
Again, I find the Bernie criticism that hes “gotten rich” while being a socialist and somehow this is hypocritical to be pretty comical. He’s been an elected official for like four decades, is married, and has a net worth of just over two million. It would be difficult for him not to be a millionaire with this background right? Similarly, I’d imagine that even in socialist nations a politician at his level would have a decent amount of money. Not to mention his job is in the public sector - an area he constantly pushes for our economy to provide more jobs.

Probably not worth responding to applesauce oldie but since I see the “hypocrisy” point pop up from conservatives a lot regarding Bernie making money, I figured I’d just make a post on the topic.

Back to reality from sailor’s Fox News fueled wet dream, there were only Bernie and warren canvassers outside my precinct today. The precinct went 65-35 for Clinton in 2016 primary (and 93-5 Clinton in the general election) so I’m interested to see what the breakdown is between Biden/Bernie/warren in the neighborhood. I’ve seen a lot of warren signs. My guess would be something around 25–20-20 Bernie winning but it’s hard to tell how many votes came in before the endorsement influx of the last 48 hours for Biden.
 
Last edited:
sailor hasn't made a post in good faith since I can remember

please stop engaging with him
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Again, I find the Bernie criticism that hes “gotten rich” while being a socialist and somehow this is hypocritical to be pretty comical. He’s been an elected official for like four decades, is married, and has a net worth of just over two million. It would be difficult for him not to be a millionaire with this background right? Similarly, I’d imagine that even in socialist nations a politician at his level would have a decent amount of money. Not to mention his job is in the public sector - an area he constantly pushes for our economy to provide more jobs.

Probably not worth responding to applesauce oldie but since I see the “hypocrisy” point pop up from conservatives a lot regarding Bernie making money, I figured I’d just make a post on the topic.

Back to reality from sailor’s Fox News fueled wet dream, there were only Bernie and warren canvassers outside my precinct today. The precinct went 65-35 for Clinton in 2016 primary (and 93-5 Clinton in the general election) so I’m interested to see what the breakdown is between Biden/Bernie/warren in the neighborhood. I’ve seen a lot of warren signs. My guess would be something around 25–20-20 Bernie winning but it’s hard to tell how many votes came in before the endorsement influx of the last 48 hours for Biden.
Click to expand...

Only dumbfucks like sailorboy think you can't become a millionaire in a socialist system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
sailor hasn't made a post in good faith since I can remember

please stop engaging with him
Click to expand...

His post of the frog call video was a actually quite interesting and helpful. I’ve been getting more into “herping”lately cause my daughter is really into salamanders and frogs. I appreciated the chance to learn some frog calls because they are hard to catch in the hand.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top