Seattle's attempt to build condos with minimal parking not working.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by The North One

the faux liberal west coast loves more than anything, the illusion of progressiveness, patting themselves on the back while bending over for mega corporations like Amazon

Court rules SF can tax businesses for homeless funds
By Adam Brinklow Jul 8, 2019, 12:19pm PDT

On Friday, San Francisco Superior Court ruled that Proposition C, the contentious tax law that funnels money from the city’s wealthiest companies toward homeless services, is legal.

Proposition C places an average 0.5 percent gross receipts tax on companies that make more than $50 million in a year and uses the money to fund SF’s homeless relief efforts. The tax passed in November with more than 61 percent of the vote.

The anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued the city, alleging that under California law SF should need two-thirds of the vote to institute new taxes . . . .

Since November (2018), the city has collected Proposition C funds, but afraid of a possible ruling against the law, refused to spend them.

City Hall may continue to hold off even after Friday’s ruling, anticipating future legal challenges . . . .

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/7/8/20686...errera-upholds

I believe a similar ballot prop in Seattle failed, partially due to opposition from Amazon and Microsoft. But in San Francisco it had the support of the city's most powerful tech company and its co-CEO, Salesforce.com, and so it passed with 61% of the vote.

If and when the court challenges are finally won--so far, as the above indicates, the city is winning:

Budget analysts estimate it will raise between $250 million and $300 million a year — nearly doubling the amount already being spent on homeless services and housing.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...0-13369555.php

This annual expenditure of around $600 million is in a city of just under 900,000 people or $667 per person per year (that's $2667 for a family of 4). In 2019, 8011 persons were counted as homeless. So the city is spending roughly $75,000 per homeless person (including housing and services to formerly homeless people who would be expected to be homeless again without such services).

So I think it cannot be argued that there is any "faux liberalism" going on, at least in San Francisco.

And I would note these fact concern the truly HOMELESS. In addition, the city's program of AFFORDABLE (SUBSIDIZED) HOUSING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS adds hundreds of millions more to the annual tab (in 2015 the funds from development fees targetted at AFFORDABLE--not PUBLIC--housing were approximately $111 million).

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by emathias

I'm not sure it's a particularly relevant law in any of the major cities of the West Coast states.

However having a limit on winter-month evictions would make sense in the Upper Midwest/Upper Plains states and/or any city with harsh winters. And I don't believe it would actually create that much burden for a landlord.

Because a) if it's well-known, it's easy enough to plan around. And b) in really cold regions, rental activity plummets in the cold months anyway.

Miami Beach just passed an ordinance banning evictions during Hurricane Warnings or watches. Yes i guess we needed it because it was all over the news when one old lady got evicted and her stuff put in the street on Miami Beach when Hurricane Dorian was bearing down on us (storm turned away)

Here is the story of her eviction. Pretty awful:
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/m...orian-11256812

[Encolpius]

Greer says an entire community of Little Haiti residents was evicted when there was still no electricity after Hurricane Irma in 2017.

One of the things Hurricane Katrina did to New Orleans was that, in the months afterwards when there were no services, no jobs, lots of families badly traumatized, the National Guard went around places like the 9th Ward evicting people who couldn't pay their rent from the few houses that survived in habitable condition.

I saw one of those evictions happen. A whole family, while their neighbors watched. No experience has ever made me feel more humiliated to be an American.

Things should have changed after that, but they haven't.

Originally Posted by mhays

It's an easy, foolproof way to get free rent for a couple months. That will be common.

To make up for that risk, rents will rise, particularly at the low end.

You lose your deposit, you have collections after you for the missing rent, and with an eviction on your record you'll never be able to rent anything but the scummiest shithole apartment for the next seven years. But yeah, easy.

I see you totally understand the psychology of renters, but you don't seem to get the economics. Will renters, particularly at the low end, suddenly have more money to spend on rent? If not, will landlords prefer to keep their properties vacant because there's now a couple months in the year when they can't evict?

[jtown,man]

My dad's first investment home(well, it was just a "home" and then he had to move cities) barely made him more than costs his first few years(since he didn't buy it as an investment...and he probably paid too much). So if someone didn't pay him to rent for two months he would be out somewhere around 4,000 dollars. Fuck him, right? Someone could lose their house to foreclosure in that situation, but again, fuck them right?

POWER TO THE PEOPLE(but only poor people and renters...fuck the middle and upper class!)

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

My dad's first investment home(well, it was just a "home" and then he had to move cities) barely made him more than costs his first few years(since he didn't buy it as an investment...and he probably paid too much). So if someone didn't pay him to rent for two months he would be out somewhere around 4,000 dollars. Fuck him, right? Someone could lose their house to foreclosure in that situation, but again, fuck them right?

POWER TO THE PEOPLE(but only poor people and renters...fuck the middle and upper class!)

Yeah being out 4000 dollars on a second property is the same thing as being homeless. A more equitable solution might be for the city to pay partial rent to the landlord on cases like this, and then try to collect it from the tenant later, if possible. The city would probably still come out ahead; either they'll recover the money eventually or, if the person really doesn't have the money, might avoid paying more for homeless services.

edit: on the other hand, this legislation doesn't really make sense since Seattle doesn't really have an identifiable winter.

[Pedestrian]

^^I am totally opposed to most of these "renters' rights" laws. As far as I'm concerned the rights should go to the owner of the property in a free society. But I must say that if somebody is in the business of rental property, their "business plan" needs to take into account some months here and there when the property is vacant and no rent is coming in.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by mhays

It's an easy, foolproof way to get free rent for a couple months. That will be common.

Here, the state-owned utility that everyone uses for power and heating cannot cut you for non-payment from Nov 30th to April 1st of the following year, and the result is that there are many poor people out there who have a balance due (of one winter's worth of bills) and are now stuck needing to find units where power is included from now on, because they won't be able to get service to their name anymore.

For low-rent units, it's very frequent that I'll get inquiries "would it be possible to have it all-included?" even when the ad says the rent wouldn't include power. Usually the dialog that follows is me "I'd rather not", and then them "thing is, I can't get service to my name 'cause I owe $".

I often accommodate them, because I'm nice (it's also a decent opportunity from a landlording POV) but then I have to charge the projected average cost plus a bit more.

But yeah, the point is, a measure like that, people might abuse it.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by lio45

Here, the state-owned utility that everyone uses for power and heating cannot cut you for non-payment from Nov 30th to April 1st of the following year, and the result is that there are many poor people out there who have a balance due (of one winter's worth of bills) and are now stuck needing to find units where power is included from now on, because they won't be able to get service to their name anymore.

For low-rent units, it's very frequent that I'll get inquiries "would it be possible to have it all-included?" even when the ad says the rent wouldn't include power. Usually the dialog that follows is me "I'd rather not", and then them "thing is, I can't get service to my name 'cause I owe $".

I often accommodate them, because I'm nice (it's also a decent opportunity from a landlording POV) but then I have to charge the projected average cost plus a bit more.

But yeah, the point is, a measure like that, people might abuse it.

Oh, the horror, some poor person will exploit a rule to their own advantage. That's something only rich people are allowed to do.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by lio45

Here, the state-owned utility that everyone uses for power and heating cannot cut you for non-payment from Nov 30th to April 1st of the following year, and the result is that there are many poor people out there who have a balance due (of one winter's worth of bills) and are now stuck needing to find units where power is included from now on, because they won't be able to get service to their name anymore.

For low-rent units, it's very frequent that I'll get inquiries "would it be possible to have it all-included?" even when the ad says the rent wouldn't include power. Usually the dialog that follows is me "I'd rather not", and then them "thing is, I can't get service to my name 'cause I owe $".

I often accommodate them, because I'm nice (it's also a decent opportunity from a landlording POV) but then I have to charge the projected average cost plus a bit more.

But yeah, the point is, a measure like that, people might abuse it.

So even the LIHEAP program isn't enough for them? Frankly, if I were you I wouldn't rent to anyone arrears on any utility bills.

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is a federally funded grant program designed to help low income families meet their heating costs. In 2010, the federal government appropriated $5.1 billion for the program, which is coordinated through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal grants are issued to each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. To be eligible for your state’s LIHEAP funding, your total household income cannot exceed 150 percent of the poverty level or 60 percent of your state’s median income.

https://homeguides.sfgate.com/heatin...ners-8487.html

Oh, by the way, nobody subsidizes the air conditioning in Arizona (and believe me, you don't want to be living on the streets of Pheonix between May and September either--somebody once posted on this very site a video of him literally frying an egg on the sidewalk).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Oh, the horror, some poor person will exploit a rule to their own advantage. That's something only rich people are allowed to do.

The point is that rules (laws) should not be written that encourage exploitation by any class. Mostly the rules rich people use are not exploitation--they are doing what the law was written to encourage. You can, of course, argue that it's "corporate welfare" and shouldn't be the way it is and you might be right. I'd probably agree with that more often than not. But nevertheless they are doing what those who drafted the law intended.

Actually, it's quite possible that so would poor people who could, but simply don't, pay their rent or utility bills in winter. At least where I live, these days the predominant philosophy is that poor people (and minorities etc etc) can do no wrong and it's just fine for government to scr*w other classes to benefit them. "Fairness" to all citizens is not in vogue.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Oh, by the way, nobody subsidizes the air conditioning in Arizona (and believe me, you don't want to be living on the streets of Pheonix between May and September either--somebody once posted on this very site a video of him literally frying an egg on the sidewalk).

lol. wow.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The point is that rules (laws) should not be written that encourage exploitation by any class. Mostly the rules rich people use are not exploitation--they are doing what the law was written to encourage. You can, of course, argue that it's "corporate welfare" and shouldn't be the way it is and you might be right. I'd probably agree with that more often than not. But nevertheless they are doing what those who drafted the law intended.

Actually, it's quite possible that so would poor people who could, but simply don't, pay their rent or utility bills in winter. At least where I live, these days the predominant philosophy is that poor people (and minorities etc etc) can do no wrong and it's just fine for government to scr*w other classes to benefit them. "Fairness" to all citizens is not in vogue.

Well give all of your money away and be poor so that you too can be of the privileged class. It's your choice to have money and be oppressed.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Encolpius

You lose your deposit, you have collections after you for the missing rent, and with an eviction on your record you'll never be able to rent anything but the scummiest shithole apartment for the next seven years. But yeah, easy.

I see you totally understand the psychology of renters, but you don't seem to get the economics. Will renters, particularly at the low end, suddenly have more money to spend on rent? If not, will landlords prefer to keep their properties vacant because there's now a couple months in the year when they can't evict?

Some landlords will. This is a proven behavior with renter-rights law expansions. Who suffers then...renters, who now have to compete for fewer apartments, which are therefore more expensive.

As for the renters, your spreadsheet ideas don't seem to work at the bottom of the market...people make decisions outside their own long-term best interest. Welcome to the real world.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by mhays

Some landlords will. This is a proven behavior with renter-rights law expansions. Who suffers then...renters, who now have to compete for fewer apartments, which are therefore more expensive.

As for the renters, your spreadsheet ideas don't seem to work at the bottom of the market...people make decisions outside their own long-term best interest. Welcome to the real world.

One perverse effect is that people who due to some unforeseen problem in late fall could manage to continue to pay their rent but barely (requiring sacrifices) would thanks to this measure be encouraged to not pay it for the time being, unrealistically optimistically hoping to somehow find a way to climb back out of this financial hole in the next few months (basically pushing the problem forward), and end up evicted at the end of the winter.

So it could very well end up increasing the number of total evictions per year, by encouraging people to neglect keeping rent current in late fall/early winter if they have other financial emergencies that at the time seem more pressing.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The point is that rules (laws) should not be written that encourage exploitation by any class. Mostly the rules rich people use are not exploitation--they are doing what the law was written to encourage. You can, of course, argue that it's "corporate welfare" and shouldn't be the way it is and you might be right. I'd probably agree with that more often than not. But nevertheless they are doing what those who drafted the law intended.

Actually, it's quite possible that so would poor people who could, but simply don't, pay their rent or utility bills in winter. At least where I live, these days the predominant philosophy is that poor people (and minorities etc etc) can do no wrong and it's just fine for government to scr*w other classes to benefit them. "Fairness" to all citizens is not in vogue.

Preach on!

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Well give all of your money away and be poor so that you too can be of the privileged class. It's your choice to have money and be oppressed.

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Preach on!

I'm not oppressed. I have "white privilege" and take every advantage of it I can.

To ease back onto the topic, as I said, if I were a landlord (a condition I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy), I would never rent to anyone who has a history of taking advantage of these laws by skipping rent payments or utility payments.

And I ultimately expect most of them to be tossed out as unConstitutional "takings".