Biden Out of Race

[UscGhost]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

I have to disagree. Texas has had no state income tax for as long as I remember. Property taxes are higher. And Texas isn't uniquely - 9 states here no income taxes, including Washington.

Relocation is expensive, and a person with a job offer has to weigh all the pros and cons. No state income tax is only one factor in the calculus. I doubt it's the deciding factor for most people. To call it bribery is ridiculous.

Let's take your Tulsa example. There's probably rules and restrictions, and most people aren't relocating unless there are other reasons to be there. Sure, if I wanted to move to Oklahoma, it might be appealing. But who in tf what's to move to OK? Not many. I hate driving across Oklahoma. It's mostly flat and boring.

Tulsa wouldn't offer 10k unless they estimated that it would make a difference.

Yup, no incomes tax is one factor. Funny that its a huge factor when anyone wants to raise income tax (especially for the wealthy) but its suddenly a non factor in other discussions.

There is rarely ever a singular deciding factor. Its the sum of pros and cons

Just like California. The pros are vastly better weather and location. Cons would be cost of living... Taxes probably depends on income level.

A financial incentive is effectively the same as bribery. Again, would it change anything if Texas offered a 10k "relocation" credit, 10k "welcome" incentive, 10k "whatever" or 10k "bribe.

Its all the same money

 

[arkgal]

Not really, guess whose fault that problem is in major American cities?

Enough with this Japan nonsense. Apples to oranges. I was there last month. And I was there last year. Japan's population is mostly urban and has been for decades. There isn't a Silicon Valley bubble driving a large amount of people to move there. And that part of Japan doesn't have the geographical appeal of California. Simply put, the demand is modest. And an apartment in Tokyo, while not Bay Area expensive, still runs 1.5k to 3k USD per month (I looked last year out of curiosity). And it's an island with almost no agriculture. Importing goods makes food more expensive.

As for as governance, there are pros and cons to Japan, most beyond the scope of this conversation. Not all people in Japan are happy with all aspects of the government. We happen upon a woman leading a public protest in a busy part of Tokyo. Large crowd. There is dissent. But Japan, with the exception of Okinawa (different ethnic origin that usually don't identify as Japanese culturally, worth visiting) is virtually a homogenous culture. Dissent manifests differently. California is not a single culture. What works in Japan might not work in California.

I think a better example is Singapore. Conservative and good governance. Some of the highest cost of living in the world. They have a land problem, but it goes to show that a conservative government doesn't necessarily mean a lower cost of living.

But let's go with conservative. Georgia is a red state as a whole. But Atlanta has a housing cost greater than Tokyo. Tell me, if Republican state leadership is so much better at governance, why is Atlanta so expensive?

I get the feeling you haven't visited Japan and at best did cursory research. It's laughable that you keep bringing up Japan when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[arkgal]

A financial incentive is effectively the same as bribery. Again, would it change anything if Texas offered a 10k "relocation" credit, 10k "welcome" incentive, 10k "whatever" or 10k "bribe.

Its all the same money

They just structure their state tax revenue differently. That doesn't make it bribery. It's a plus if you rent, but maybe not if you own. Is Washington state also bribing people to move there? Is a company that offers to pay for relocation as part of a job offer bribing the potential employee? It's a benefit, maybe even an incentive. Bribery has a narrow legal definition and it's a crime. You should look up the definition. But I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse, to borrow a line from Shawshank Redemption.

 

[arkgal]

Yeah, people always ask me if I would move back. My answer is usually “If you handed me $5M so I could isolate myself from the people/traffic and actually live on the water, I’d consider it. Until then, I like where I’m at.”

If I could move to SFO and have a comparable quality of life, I would probably would. But I would take a bit hit. And I like having a yard.

 

[UscGhost]

They just structure their state tax revenue differently. That doesn't make it bribery. It's a plus if you rent, but maybe not if you own. Is Washington state also bribing people to move there? Is a company that offers to pay for relocation as part of a job offer bribing the potential employee? It's a benefit, maybe even an incentive. Bribery has a narrow legal definition and it's a crime. You should look up the definition. But I suspect you're being deliberately obtuse, to borrow a line from Shawshank Redemption.

Wait...so if i bribe my kids with ice cream in order to get them to behave at grandmas house....is that a narrowly defined crime?

Or maybe its, you kno, a term commonly used in everyday language. typically in a lighthearted, hyperbolic, or informal context.

Perhaps folks on here need to lighten up a bit. If someone thought i used the term "bribe" to somehow accuse Texas of literally committing a crime...i think they need to relax a bit.

But good to know that if i get into the world of organized crime, i will make sure not to offer bribes. Instead i will offer a "benefit" or an "incentive". That way i am in the clear.

What about a subtle "wink 😉" is that ok? Asking for a friend

 

[Dragonite7]

Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding celebration was partially funded by Russian oligarch, the couple confirms

Donald Trump Jr.’s new wife, Bettina, is confirming that her May wedding weekend celebration was partially funded by a man with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

apnews.com

 

[skougess]

If I could move to SFO and have a comparable quality of life, I would probably would. But I would take a bit hit. And I like having a yard.

I’m just giving you a hard time, but saying “move to SFO” implies you are moving to the airport. It gave me a good chuckle.

 

[Account1]

Enough with this Japan nonsense. Apples to oranges. I was there last month. And I was there last year. Japan's population is mostly urban and has been for decades. There isn't a Silicon Valley bubble driving a large amount of people to move there. And that part of Japan doesn't have the geographical appeal of California. Simply put, the demand is modest. And an apartment in Tokyo, while not Bay Area expensive, still runs 1.5k to 3k USD per month (I looked last year out of curiosity). And it's an island with almost no agriculture. Importing goods makes food more expensive.

As for as governance, there are pros and cons to Japan, most beyond the scope of this conversation. Not all people in Japan are happy with all aspects of the government. We happen upon a woman leading a public protest in a busy part of Tokyo. Large crowd. There is dissent. But Japan, with the exception of Okinawa (different ethnic origin that usually don't identify as Japanese culturally, worth visiting) is virtually a homogenous culture. Dissent manifests differently. California is not a single culture. What works in Japan might not work in California.

I think a better example is Singapore. Conservative and good governance. Some of the highest cost of living in the world. They have a land problem, but it goes to show that a conservative government doesn't necessarily mean a lower cost of living.

But let's go with conservative. Georgia is a red state as a whole. But Atlanta has a housing cost greater than Tokyo. Tell me, if Republican state leadership is so much better at governance, why is Atlanta so expensive?

I get the feeling you haven't visited Japan and at best did cursory research. It's laughable that you keep bringing up Japan when it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.

Atlantas a blue city, they all pretty much are. In a purple state, so maybe the regulatory problem is less there. All of our cities are inferior to a place like Tokyo in this regard, but it clearly exists on a spectrum with the biggest problems being in the liberal coastal cities.

You can wish away the problems with liberal governance with cities and how they relate to housing shortages, but the point I’m making is that it’s not some automatic “well it’s a high demand place to live therefore it’s IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE VOTE BLUE”

The problem in America is that most cities haven’t even begun to try to build enough housing. They simply REFUSE to do so. Look at the facts man!

Ezra Klein isn’t a maga. He wrote a whole book about how liberal governance sucks at building everything important.

And I guarantee I know Japan, its culture, and its history better than you do. I never made the claim that Japan’s governance is better in all aspects, just that they know how to cram tons of people into a city and have it be livable, affordable, and commutable without being a slum.

 

[Account1]

Rich local people control the local housing.

High rise living is also very expensive

Rich, liberal people, is what you meant to say. The ones who swear they love regular working people.

The problem is coming from inside the houses, not mystical MAGA boogeyman.

 

[Account1]

Yea, you do realize that there are other taxes right...one is called income tax

Your troll jobs suck. Do better.

 

[arkgal]

I’m just giving you a hard time, but saying “move to SFO” implies you are moving to the airport. It gave me a good chuckle.

I'm an aviation buff, I love that airport, and it's how I get to there. I usually go every year. I really love the bay area. Don't care for LA.

 

[UscGhost]

Rich, liberal people, is what you meant to say. The ones who swear they love regular working people.

The problem is coming from inside the houses, not mystical MAGA boogeyman.

Pretty sure rich conservatives dont want to live close to other people either

 

[UscGhost]

Your troll jobs suck. Do better.

Eh..if you make statements that dont even reflect a basic understanding of the topic.. it's doesnt warrant a complex troll job

 

[arkgal]

Back to the real world...Rolling back years of environmental progress.

E.P.A. Will Erase Limits on Climate Pollution From Power Plants

Generation of electricity is the second largest source of carbon dioxide and other planet-warming gases in the United States.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Account1]

Pretty sure rich conservatives dont want to live close to other people either

I’ll just ask you straight up:

Do you believe liberal cities contribute to the problem of their housing shortages through over regulation and governmental gridlock from local communities?

Do you believe that a state like Texas is better than California with respect to those aspects of home construction?

 

[Account1]

Eh..if you make statements that dont even reflect a basic understanding of the topic.. it's doesnt warrant a complex troll job

Which statement did I make that says I don’t get it? Please elaborate your better understanding. You do make a good point, there is limited space in many places!

I’m basically paraphrasing the arguments Ezra Klein makes in his really well researched book Abundance.

Do you disagree with his assessment of the failures of liberal governance laid out in his book?

Summary below:

1. The Core Trap: Subsidizing Demand Instead of Increasing Supply

The "Ladder and Elevator" Analogy: Klein points out that traditional progressive housing policy focuses heavily on subsidizing demand—offering housing vouchers, tax credits, or down-payment assistance.

The Backfire: In a market with a severe housing deficit, pumping more money into the demand side without building new supply simply pushes prices higher. He equates this to building a ladder to reach an elevator that is rising just as fast.

2. "Lawn-Sign Liberalism" and Procedural Bottlenecks

The Progressive Contradiction: Klein critiques "lawn-sign liberalism," where progressive communities champion equity and inclusivity symbolically but operationally block multi-family housing in their own neighborhoods.

Vetoocracy: One generation's solutions have become the next generation's problems. Laws designed in the 1970s to give citizens a voice have created a "vetoocracy," where anyone can weaponize public comment periods, historical designations, and local boards to delay or kill dense housing developments

3. The Weaponization of CEQA

Indiscriminate Delays: A major target in the book is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Originally built to protect nature from industrial pollution, it is now routinely used by NIMBY neighbors and competing labor unions to block transit-oriented, high-density housing.

Perverse Environmental Outcomes: By blocking dense urban housing under the guise of environmentalism, CEQA forces developers to build farther out into the exurbs, creating more traffic, emissions, and suburban sprawl.

4. Compounding Rules Drive Up Insane Costs

Feeding the Beast: Klein highlights how building a single unit of affordable housing in cities like San Francisco can take upwards of six years and cost over $700,000 to $1 million.

Regulatory Overload: These astronomical costs are driven by a mountain of mandates, localized construction requirements, and bureaucratic hoops. The process has become so rule-bound that public funds meant to build shelter are mostly consumed by the administrative costs of complying with regulations.

 

[cittykat]

Atlantas a blue city, they all pretty much are. In a purple state, so maybe the regulatory problem is less there. All of our cities are inferior to a place like Tokyo in this regard, but it clearly exists on a spectrum with the biggest problems being in the liberal coastal cities.

You can wish away the problems with liberal governance with cities and how they relate to housing shortages, but the point I’m making is that it’s not some automatic “well it’s a high demand place to live therefore it’s IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE IT AFFORDABLE VOTE BLUE”

The problem in America is that most cities haven’t even begun to try to build enough housing. They simply REFUSE to do so. Look at the facts man!

Ezra Klein isn’t a maga. He wrote a whole book about how liberal governance sucks at building everything important.

And I guarantee I know Japan, its culture, and its history better than you do. I never made the claim that Japan’s governance is better in all aspects, just that they know how to cram tons of people into a city and have it be livable, affordable, and commutable without being a slum.

Shanghai is a better example than Tokyo. The CCP is very good at building housing and infrastructure. Maybe the best in the world. Sometimes authoritarianism works.

 

[UscGhost]

I’ll just ask you straight up:

Do you believe liberal cities contribute to the problem of their housing shortages through over regulation and governmental gridlock from local communities?

Do you believe that a state like Texas is better than California with respect to those aspects of home construction?

I believe crowded urban cities, liberal and conservative do yes.

Huntington Beach, for example is a heavily conservative, expensive and crowded and they have been fighting against the housing expansion initiatives of california.

Pretty much most of the rich areas of Southern California trend conservative

 

[Account1]

I believe crowded urban cities, liberal and conservative do yes

Would you say the top 3 major cities in California and Texas have the same level of local community restrictions and state/environmental regulations on new housing starts?

 

[UscGhost]

Shanghai is a better example than Tokyo. The CCP is very good at building housing and infrastructure. Maybe the best in the world. Sometimes authoritarianism works.

China is its own complex scheme revolving around public funding of ghost infrastructure

 

[UscGhost]

Would you say the top 3 major cities in California and Texas have the same level of local community restrictions and state/environmental regulations on new housing starts?

Thats a vague question. Which cities? What types of restrictions? Who proposed and pushed for the restrictions? Land availability? Land costs?...etc etc etc

The problem inevitably comes down to local influence. If you are wealthy, and live in a wealthy area, will you advocate for a local multifamily to be built in your neighborhood? Probably not

Texas benefits from the idea that you can just build more on the outskirts of the city. Doesn't work in Cali

 

[Account1]

Thats a vague question. Which cities? What types of restrictions? Who proposed and pushed for the restrictions? Land availability? Land costs?...etc etc etc

I cited several of the problems with construction in California in a post previously, allow me to copy and paste them here:

1. The Core Trap: Subsidizing Demand Instead of Increasing Supply

The "Ladder and Elevator" Analogy: Klein points out that traditional progressive housing policy focuses heavily on subsidizing demand—offering housing vouchers, tax credits, or down-payment assistance.

The Backfire: In a market with a severe housing deficit, pumping more money into the demand side without building new supply simply pushes prices higher. He equates this to building a ladder to reach an elevator that is rising just as fast.

2. "Lawn-Sign Liberalism" and Procedural Bottlenecks

The Progressive Contradiction: Klein critiques "lawn-sign liberalism," where progressive communities champion equity and inclusivity symbolically but operationally block multi-family housing in their own neighborhoods.

Vetoocracy: One generation's solutions have become the next generation's problems. Laws designed in the 1970s to give citizens a voice have created a "vetoocracy," where anyone can weaponize public comment periods, historical designations, and local boards to delay or kill dense housing developments

3. The Weaponization of CEQA

Indiscriminate Delays: A major target in the book is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Originally built to protect nature from industrial pollution, it is now routinely used by NIMBY neighbors and competing labor unions to block transit-oriented, high-density housing.

Perverse Environmental Outcomes: By blocking dense urban housing under the guise of environmentalism, CEQA forces developers to build farther out into the exurbs, creating more traffic, emissions, and suburban sprawl.

4. Compounding Rules Drive Up Insane Costs

Feeding the Beast: Klein highlights how building a single unit of affordable housing in cities like San Francisco can take upwards of six years and cost over $700,000 to $1 million.

Regulatory Overload: These astronomical costs are driven by a mountain of mandates, localized construction requirements, and bureaucratic hoops. The process has become so rule-bound that public funds meant to build shelter are mostly consumed by the administrative costs of complying with regulations.



Do you believe Texas has these same sorts of problems at the level of California?



I'll make this an open book test for you:

Why Housing Costs More in California Than Colorado or Texas - California YIMBY

California faces a severe housing shortage, with seven of America’s ten most expensive metros. While building more housing is critical to address this shortage, building costs in California far exceed those in other western states. In “The High Cost of…

cayimby.org

"Affordable Housing Premium: California’s affordable housing costs 1.5 times more than its market-rate housing and 4.1 times more than Texas market-rate housing. Fees and wage requirements play a role. Architectural and engineering fees for affordable housing in Los Angeles average $23,249 per unit—twice the market-rate cost and nearly eight times Texas levels. These costs stem from overly prescriptive design standards that go far beyond legitimate safety requirements (cost-of-living differences explain only 10% of this variation). Additionally, prevailing wage requirements on affordable housing can explain 32-56% of hard cost differences between California and Texas. If California had Colorado’s production costs for publicly subsidized affordable housing, the recent $1.25 billion in state funding would have produced more than four times as many affordable homes.

Timeline Penalties: California’s development process is extremely slow, with predevelopment alone taking 27.9 months versus 13.1 months in Texas and 20.9 months in Colorado. CEQA litigation and long waits for sequential inspections contribute to these costly delays. These delays cost money: developers have to make interest payments on their debt, pay property taxes, and cover increasing construction costs while they wait for approvals. California’s extended development timelines directly increase total development costs by about 8%, or $1,284 per unit, per month of delay.

Fee Burden: Municipal impact fees in California average $29,000 per unit compared to under $1,000 in Texas. San Diego developers pay $37,000 per unit—45 times Texas levels. These fees function as exclusionary zoning by other means, pricing out affordable housing and protecting wealthy neighborhoods from development (For more on this, see our report on The Impact of Fees)."

 

[arkgal]

I cited several of the problems with construction in California in a post previously, allow me to copy and paste them here:

1. The Core Trap: Subsidizing Demand Instead of Increasing Supply

The "Ladder and Elevator" Analogy: Klein points out that traditional progressive housing policy focuses heavily on subsidizing demand—offering housing vouchers, tax credits, or down-payment assistance.

The Backfire: In a market with a severe housing deficit, pumping more money into the demand side without building new supply simply pushes prices higher. He equates this to building a ladder to reach an elevator that is rising just as fast.

2. "Lawn-Sign Liberalism" and Procedural Bottlenecks

The Progressive Contradiction: Klein critiques "lawn-sign liberalism," where progressive communities champion equity and inclusivity symbolically but operationally block multi-family housing in their own neighborhoods.

Vetoocracy: One generation's solutions have become the next generation's problems. Laws designed in the 1970s to give citizens a voice have created a "vetoocracy," where anyone can weaponize public comment periods, historical designations, and local boards to delay or kill dense housing developments

3. The Weaponization of CEQA

Indiscriminate Delays: A major target in the book is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Originally built to protect nature from industrial pollution, it is now routinely used by NIMBY neighbors and competing labor unions to block transit-oriented, high-density housing.

Perverse Environmental Outcomes: By blocking dense urban housing under the guise of environmentalism, CEQA forces developers to build farther out into the exurbs, creating more traffic, emissions, and suburban sprawl.

4. Compounding Rules Drive Up Insane Costs

Feeding the Beast: Klein highlights how building a single unit of affordable housing in cities like San Francisco can take upwards of six years and cost over $700,000 to $1 million.

Regulatory Overload: These astronomical costs are driven by a mountain of mandates, localized construction requirements, and bureaucratic hoops. The process has become so rule-bound that public funds meant to build shelter are mostly consumed by the administrative costs of complying with regulations.



Do you believe Texas has these same sorts of problems at the level of California?



I'll make this an open book test for you:

Why Housing Costs More in California Than Colorado or Texas - California YIMBY

California faces a severe housing shortage, with seven of America’s ten most expensive metros. While building more housing is critical to address this shortage, building costs in California far exceed those in other western states. In “The High Cost of…

cayimby.org

"Affordable Housing Premium: California’s affordable housing costs 1.5 times more than its market-rate housing and 4.1 times more than Texas market-rate housing. Fees and wage requirements play a role. Architectural and engineering fees for affordable housing in Los Angeles average $23,249 per unit—twice the market-rate cost and nearly eight times Texas levels. These costs stem from overly prescriptive design standards that go far beyond legitimate safety requirements (cost-of-living differences explain only 10% of this variation). Additionally, prevailing wage requirements on affordable housing can explain 32-56% of hard cost differences between California and Texas. If California had Colorado’s production costs for publicly subsidized affordable housing, the recent $1.25 billion in state funding would have produced more than four times as many affordable homes.

Timeline Penalties: California’s development process is extremely slow, with predevelopment alone taking 27.9 months versus 13.1 months in Texas and 20.9 months in Colorado. CEQA litigation and long waits for sequential inspections contribute to these costly delays. These delays cost money: developers have to make interest payments on their debt, pay property taxes, and cover increasing construction costs while they wait for approvals. California’s extended development timelines directly increase total development costs by about 8%, or $1,284 per unit, per month of delay.

Fee Burden: Municipal impact fees in California average $29,000 per unit compared to under $1,000 in Texas. San Diego developers pay $37,000 per unit—45 times Texas levels. These fees function as exclusionary zoning by other means, pricing out affordable housing and protecting wealthy neighborhoods from development (For more on this, see our report on The Impact of Fees)."

You make some good points. But I don't think comparing Texas to California is fair. Texas cities are able to expand outward in all directions because there is ample relatively flat land that is cheap to purchase. You don't see a lot of large multi-family housing developments in dense urban areas in Texas.

You also need a good public transport system to increase urban density. DFW has a decent system but it's not ideal. Houston's light rail doesn't even go to the airport. Austin doesn't have light rail at all. San Francisco and Chicago have good public transit.

 

[UscGhost]

I cited several of the problems with construction in California in a post previously, allow me to copy and paste them here:

1. The Core Trap: Subsidizing Demand Instead of Increasing Supply

The "Ladder and Elevator" Analogy: Klein points out that traditional progressive housing policy focuses heavily on subsidizing demand—offering housing vouchers, tax credits, or down-payment assistance.

The Backfire: In a market with a severe housing deficit, pumping more money into the demand side without building new supply simply pushes prices higher. He equates this to building a ladder to reach an elevator that is rising just as fast.

2. "Lawn-Sign Liberalism" and Procedural Bottlenecks

The Progressive Contradiction: Klein critiques "lawn-sign liberalism," where progressive communities champion equity and inclusivity symbolically but operationally block multi-family housing in their own neighborhoods.

Vetoocracy: One generation's solutions have become the next generation's problems. Laws designed in the 1970s to give citizens a voice have created a "vetoocracy," where anyone can weaponize public comment periods, historical designations, and local boards to delay or kill dense housing developments

3. The Weaponization of CEQA

Indiscriminate Delays: A major target in the book is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Originally built to protect nature from industrial pollution, it is now routinely used by NIMBY neighbors and competing labor unions to block transit-oriented, high-density housing.

Perverse Environmental Outcomes: By blocking dense urban housing under the guise of environmentalism, CEQA forces developers to build farther out into the exurbs, creating more traffic, emissions, and suburban sprawl.

4. Compounding Rules Drive Up Insane Costs

Feeding the Beast: Klein highlights how building a single unit of affordable housing in cities like San Francisco can take upwards of six years and cost over $700,000 to $1 million.

Regulatory Overload: These astronomical costs are driven by a mountain of mandates, localized construction requirements, and bureaucratic hoops. The process has become so rule-bound that public funds meant to build shelter are mostly consumed by the administrative costs of complying with regulations.



Do you believe Texas has these same sorts of problems at the level of California?



I'll make this an open book test for you:

Why Housing Costs More in California Than Colorado or Texas - California YIMBY

California faces a severe housing shortage, with seven of America’s ten most expensive metros. While building more housing is critical to address this shortage, building costs in California far exceed those in other western states. In “The High Cost of…

cayimby.org

"Affordable Housing Premium: California’s affordable housing costs 1.5 times more than its market-rate housing and 4.1 times more than Texas market-rate housing. Fees and wage requirements play a role. Architectural and engineering fees for affordable housing in Los Angeles average $23,249 per unit—twice the market-rate cost and nearly eight times Texas levels. These costs stem from overly prescriptive design standards that go far beyond legitimate safety requirements (cost-of-living differences explain only 10% of this variation). Additionally, prevailing wage requirements on affordable housing can explain 32-56% of hard cost differences between California and Texas. If California had Colorado’s production costs for publicly subsidized affordable housing, the recent $1.25 billion in state funding would have produced more than four times as many affordable homes.

Timeline Penalties: California’s development process is extremely slow, with predevelopment alone taking 27.9 months versus 13.1 months in Texas and 20.9 months in Colorado. CEQA litigation and long waits for sequential inspections contribute to these costly delays. These delays cost money: developers have to make interest payments on their debt, pay property taxes, and cover increasing construction costs while they wait for approvals. California’s extended development timelines directly increase total development costs by about 8%, or $1,284 per unit, per month of delay.

Fee Burden: Municipal impact fees in California average $29,000 per unit compared to under $1,000 in Texas. San Diego developers pay $37,000 per unit—45 times Texas levels. These fees function as exclusionary zoning by other means, pricing out affordable housing and protecting wealthy neighborhoods from development (For more on this, see our report on The Impact of Fees)."

1. Demand is separate from supply in terms of absolute numbers of units built
Lowering demand for a house doesnt increase supply of the house. It would just have people become renters instead of owners.

2. So wages contribute 30-50% of the hard costs and land is 3x more expensive. Pretty much explains most of it. Texas pays ****ty

3. California has strict earthquake and fire requirements... expensive

4. Fee burden. Ways for the cities to get tax money since property taxes are low. Money comes from someone.

5. NIMBY is not a uniquely conservative or liberal issue. Nobody wants to live in a more congested area. The rich can afford to influence that more than the poor. Most rich communities in southern California are predominantly conservative

 

[UscGhost]

You make some good points. But I don't think comparing Texas to California is fair. Texas cities are able to expand outward in all directions because there is ample relatively flat land that is cheap to purchase. You don't see a lot of large multi-family housing developments in dense urban areas in Texas.

Its cheap to build in the outskirts of the nice areas in California.

Bakersfield, corona, Victorville, all cheap haha

 

[arkgal]

Its cheap to build in the outskirts of the nice areas in California.

Bakersfield, corona, Victorville, all cheap haha

Relatively cheap. Still more expensive than Texas.

 

[Account1]

1. Demand is separate from supply in terms of absolute numbers of units built
Lowering demand for a house doesnt increase supply of the house. It would just have people become renters instead of owners.

2. So wages contribute 30-50% of the hard costs and land is 3x more expensive. Pretty much explains most of it. Texas pays ****ty

3. California has strict earthquake and fire requirements... expensive

4. Fee burden. Ways for the cities to get tax money since property taxes are low. Money comes from someone.

5. NIMBY is not a uniquely conservative or liberal issue. Nobody wants to live in a more congested area. The rich can afford to influence that more than the poor. Most rich communities in southern California are predominantly conservative

These are all excuses for sure, but you haven’t really explained why someone should prefer these detrimental things over say, not having them. You instead seem intent on flexing about the terrible policies that have led to all the excuses you made.

Like why would you say “this turns people into renters” when California has the third lowest home ownership rate in the country? It’s clearly contributing to the cost of home ownership and preventing buying, not helping it.

Ditto to the wage thing, the state taxes are a huge portion of the increased wage requirements. Policy choice, not happenstance.

The regulations you cite are a fig leaf for nimbyism. Most homes in California DO NOT meet those standards currently (<10% from what I see!). Just nimbyism masquerading as safetyism.

So fees come from people trying to build houses and move to the area, while property taxes remain low for the incumbents, and this is a GOOD way of doing things? Protect the rich, **** the new people? Wtf, you’re supposed to be the liberal

On your last thing, I guess MAGA was the real villain all along? Just conservative rich white folks in enclaves gumming up the Cali housing system. A total shirking of responsibility of government. That would play well in the gubernatorial primary…not


I have to admit your refusal to yield any ground on anything related to this is pretty impressive, if also very embarrassing. Very fanatical of you. Hiroo onoda would be proud.

 

[UscGhost]

These are all excuses for sure, but you haven’t really explained why someone should prefer these detrimental things over say, not having them. You instead seem intent on flexing about the terrible policies that have led to all the excuses you made.

Like why would you say “this turns people into renters” when California has the third lowest home ownership rate in the country?

Ditto to the wage thing, the state taxes are a huge portion of the increased wage requirements.

The regulations you cite are a fig leaf for nimbyism. Most homes in California DO NOT meet those standards currently. Just nimbyism masquerading as safetyism.

So fees come from people trying to build houses and move to the area, while property taxes remain low for the incumbents, and this is a GOOD way of doing things? Protect the rich, **** the new people?

I guess MAGA was the real villain all along. Just conservative rich white folks in enclaves gumming up the Cali housing system.


I have to admit your refusal to yield any ground on anything related to this is pretty impressive, if also very embarrassing. Very fanatical of you. Hiroshima onoda would be proud.

Not sure what you are referring to by preference.

Taxes are a huge contributor to wages? Wages are primarily labor supply and demand. Most low income folks don't pay much in taxes

All new homes meet those requirements. Not sure what you are talking about.

Fees from new homes instead of existing homes is the system voters wanted. Its good for some, bad for others. In texas, property tax sucks for an existing homeowner. In California, it doesnt.

I am just explaining reality to you. You dont have to like it

 

[arkgal]

These are all excuses for sure, but you haven’t really explained why someone should prefer these detrimental things over say, not having them. You instead seem intent on flexing about the terrible policies that have led to all the excuses you made.

Like why would you say “this turns people into renters” when California has the third lowest home ownership rate in the country? It’s clearly contributing to the cost of home ownership and preventing buying, not helping it.

Ditto to the wage thing, the state taxes are a huge portion of the increased wage requirements. Policy choice, not happenstance.

The regulations you cite are a fig leaf for nimbyism. Most homes in California DO NOT meet those standards currently (<10% from what I see!). Just nimbyism masquerading as safetyism.

So fees come from people trying to build houses and move to the area, while property taxes remain low for the incumbents, and this is a GOOD way of doing things? Protect the rich, **** the new people? Wtf, you’re supposed to be the liberal

On your last thing, I guess MAGA was the real villain all along? Just conservative rich white folks in enclaves gumming up the Cali housing system. A total shirking of responsibility of government. That would play well in the gubernatorial primary…not


I have to admit your refusal to yield any ground on anything related to this is pretty impressive, if also very embarrassing. Very fanatical of you. Hiroo onoda would be proud.

Touch some grass. You're the one sounding fanatical.

 

[arkgal]

The Supreme Court held the injunction blocking Trump's sweeping voting by male reform which would have made it logistical impossible to implement for 2026. The result would keep millions of voters from voting by male. 7 to 2. This is an emergency hearing but what the courts ruling has a lot of durability and is unlikely to change. Trumps plan to steal this election was stopped by the legal system. In another federal district court, Washington DC, a republican Trump appointee rules that the pleading as it is violates the law. Only congress can change voting laws.

Gifted article

Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Restrictions on Mail-In Ballots: Live Updates

The ruling is a major loss for the Trump administration, which wanted to dramatically change how Americans vote by mail in the midterm elections.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Account1]

Not sure what you are referring to by preference.

Taxes are a huge contributor to wages? Wages are primarily labor supply and demand. Most low income folks don't pay much in taxes

All new homes meet those requirements. Not sure what you are talking about.

Fees from new homes instead of existing homes is the system voters wanted. Its good for some, bad for others. In texas, property tax sucks for an existing homeowner. In California, it doesnt.

I am just explaining reality to you. You dont have to like it

You imply that the housing shortage is only caused by preference of people to live in a limited space, and of course blaming conservatives for the problem.

10% of existing homes meet those requirements. The reality of that is it makes it hard to build and doesn’t add to safety in a meaningful way.

Higher taxes mean you have to pay people more. Business taxes are higher, payroll taxes are higher, costs to do anything are higher. If you didn’t pretend like anything not explicitly stated cannot be assumed then I wouldn’t have to explain that to you. Legitimately embarrassing for you. This even applies to people at the lower end of the distribution.

You’re not just explaining reality though, I know why housing is expensive in California. You’re pretending policy has no detrimental impact on Californias housing shortage more than anywhere else, while there’s half a dozen contributors we named right there.

Set prop 13, the most regressive property tax system in the nation, aside. Californians also voted for a multi billion dollar railway system that has not produced a railway system. To fall back on the wonders of democracy for the failings of your state and then act like that’s just how things ought to be is just plain weird.

You’re defending a system that rewards incumbents and hurts young and low income people all over the place. That’s what old school conservatism looks like. Like Reagan stuff.

Like honestly man, California leads the nation in homelessness due to the housing problem. Are you legitimately fine with that? No need for policy reform?

All this to end with the original point: liberal housing policy is creating a lot of the problem in California and other liberal places, not solely some unassailable specter of supply and demand.

The democratic gubernatorial candidate has declared that housing in California is in a state of emergency, and implies that the government can fix this problem. Should I assume, since you think this is all just supply and demand, that you disagree with him and will consider voting republican? He’s gonna waste an awful lot of money trying to fix an economic problem.

 

[Account1]

Touch some grass. You're the one sounding fanatical.

When in doubt, attack the man.

 

[arkgal]

When in doubt, attack the man.

You don't have any trouble attacking others. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

[UscGhost]

You imply that the housing shortage is only caused by preference of people to live in a limited space, and of course blaming conservatives for the problem.

10% of existing homes meet those requirements. The reality of that is it makes it hard to build and doesn’t add to safety in a meaningful way.

Higher taxes mean you have to pay people more. Business taxes are higher, payroll taxes are higher, costs to do anything are higher. If you didn’t pretend like anything not explicitly stated cannot be assumed then I wouldn’t have to explain that to you. Legitimately embarrassing for you. This even applies to people at the lower end of the distribution.

You’re not just explaining reality though, I know why housing is expensive in California. You’re pretending policy has no detrimental impact on Californias housing shortage more than anywhere else, while there’s half a dozen contributors we named right there.

Set prop 13, the most regressive property tax system in the nation, aside. Californians also voted for a multi billion dollar railway system that has not produced a railway system. To fall back on the wonders of democracy for the failings of your state and then act like that’s just how things ought to be is just plain weird.

You’re defending a system that rewards incumbents and hurts young and low income people all over the place. That’s what old school conservatism looks like. Like Reagan stuff.

Like honestly man, California leads the nation in homelessness due to the housing problem. Are you legitimately fine with that? No need for policy reform?

All this to end with the original point: liberal housing policy is creating a lot of the problem in California and other liberal places, not solely some unassailable specter of supply and demand.

The democratic gubernatorial candidate has declared that housing in California is in a state of emergency, and implies that the government can fix this problem. Should I assume, since you think this is all just supply and demand, that you disagree with him and will consider voting republican? He’s gonna waste an awful lot of money trying to fix an economic problem.

Lol. Alot of crazy statements in there.

When did i blame conservative? You were the one that seems to think NIMBYs are uniquely liberal for some reasonm. I simply said it includes both.

Earth quake building codes dont make buildings safer in earthquakes???? Lol ok. I wonder if they think the same in Venezuela when the buildings started collapsing in the last earthquake. Thats as dumb as it gets

Taxes are waaaay down the list of the important factors in determining wages

Housing is always a supply and demand problem. Duh

Disagree with what? The idea that the government can fix the problem? Sure they can. Just depends on how and at what cost and who pays for it and if they want to pay for it.

But guess what, you wont be able to cram more people into the rich coastal areas. Isn't any available land to build. Doesnt matter who the governor is

 

[Gern Blansten]

If I could move to SFO and have a comparable quality of life, I would probably would. But I would take a bit hit. And I like having a yard.

SFO is a nice airport, but why would anyone consider living in an airport?

 

[arkgal]

Set prop 13, the most regressive property tax system in the nation, aside. Californians also voted for a multi billion dollar railway system that has not produced a railway system. To fall back on the wonders of democracy for the failings of your state and then act like that’s just how things ought to be is just plain weird.

Said railway is already under construction and multiple segments are complete.

Like honestly man, California leads the nation in homelessness due to the housing problem. Are you legitimately fine with that? No need for policy reform?

It's more complex than that. A lot of the homeless in California migrated there, because of the favorable government policies and warm weather most of the year. It's rare for a person to become homeless due to difficulty finding housing unless they are using heavy drugs or untreated mental

 

[Gern Blansten]

Wait...so if i bribe my kids with ice cream in order to get them to behave at grandmas house....is that a narrowly defined crime?

Or maybe its, you kno, a term commonly used in everyday language. typically in a lighthearted, hyperbolic, or informal context.

Perhaps folks on here need to lighten up a bit. If someone thought i used the term "bribe" to somehow accuse Texas of literally committing a crime...i think they need to relax a bit.

But good to know that if i get into the world of organized crime, i will make sure not to offer bribes. Instead i will offer a "benefit" or an "incentive". That way i am in the clear.

What about a subtle "wink 😉" is that ok? Asking for a friend

The issue is that you suggested that the economy and cost of living is equal to a bribe. Even if you were just trying to make a joke, the effort was so far off base that it was not only not funny, it didn’t even make sense. I was trying to figure out what you meant by “bribing” and could not figure it out. When you said the economy and cost of living was what you meant, then I just thought you had no idea how to make a proper analogy. Now, you still defend it, so I wonder if you’re just really stubborn or maybe you don’t have any insight.

 

[rowsdower88]

One of* Trumps plan(s) to steal this election was stopped by the legal system.

ftfy

Let's not count our chickens before they hatch.

 

[arkgal]

SFO is a nice airport, but why would anyone consider living in an airport?

LOL

 

[Gern Blansten]

ftfy

Let's not count our chickens before they hatch.

Uh oh…if your candidates don’t win, you’re going to cry stolen election? That should be interesting to watch.

 

[arkgal]

ftfy

Let's not count our chickens before they hatch.

Sure, anything can happen. But a dew days ago the Supreme Court upheld a Missouri state Supreme Court ruling invalidating the republican's redistrictin map passed by the state government. It's been a good week.

I subscribe to democracy docket emails and YouTube. The lawyer who does it is the lawyer in charge of litigating most of these cases. The details he provides are things you don't get in the news.



I think the SC has had enough of trumps shenanigans.

 

[UscGhost]

The issue is that you suggested that the economy and cost of living is equal to a bribe. Even if you were just trying to make a joke, the effort was so far off base that it was not only not funny, it didn’t even make sense. I was trying to figure out what you meant by “bribing” and could not figure it out. When you said the economy and cost of living was what you meant, then I just thought you had no idea how to make a proper analogy. Now, you still defend it, so I wonder if you’re just really stubborn or maybe you don’t have any insight.

Its not that complex.

I didnt say the economy is equal to a bribe. Economy is a vague concept

Tulsa offering 10k "incentive"...Texas offering low taxes, are all forms of financial incentives to entice people to do something. A bribe is a financial incentive used to entice people to do something

Do you not understand that the word bribe is a commonly used figure of speech? Its a bit shocking that you think someone would accuse the state of Texas of committing illegal bribery (last i checked, the state of Texas cant actually commit a crime) instead of realizing that its a commonly used term.

As i said, if i bribed my kids with ice cream, do you also take that literally?

 

[cittykat]

In our city the local government eased building restrictions to help the housing shortage. One thing they did was to get rid of parking requirements if a project is located within half a mile of a public transit route. In the past, builders were required to build 0.5-1 parking spot/bedroom. Now they don’t have to build any. Everyone knows that the vast majority of these units will be occupied by somebody who drives a car. God help them find parking.

 

[arkgal]

Do you not understand that the word bribe is a commonly used figure of speech? Its a bit shocking that you think someone would accuse the state of Texas of committing illegal bribery (last i checked, the state of Texas cant actually commit a crime) instead of realizing that its a commonly used term.

I've never heard the word used colloquially in this way. It's weird.

As i said, if i bribed my kids with ice cream, do you also take that literally?

That's definitely bribing! 😁

 

[cittykat]

Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding celebration was partially funded by Russian oligarch, the couple confirms

Donald Trump Jr.’s new wife, Bettina, is confirming that her May wedding weekend celebration was partially funded by a man with close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

apnews.com

Bettina claims Kremlev is a “dear friend”. Yet Kremlev barely speaks any English and she and Jr don’t speak any Russian. Maybe they bond via Google Translate at their Thanksgiving table.

 

[arkgal]

In our city the local government eased building restrictions to help the housing shortage. One thing they did was to get rid of parking requirements if a project is located within half a mile of a public transit route. In the past, builders were required to build 0.5-1 parking spot/bedroom. Now they don’t have to build any. Everyone knows that the vast majority of these units will be occupied by somebody who drives a car. God help them find parking.

How does a 0.5 parking space work? Haha. Isn't the purpose to make/encourage people to use mass transit?

 

[cittykat]

How does a 0.5 parking space work? Haha. Isn't the purpose to make/encourage people to use mass transit?

Sometimes a 2br condo will come with 1 parking spot. Problem is that mass transit in my city sucks. Takes a minimum of 2-2.5 hrs to get anywhere. Now builders can put up a 10 story tower with no parking if it’s within half mile to a bus or trolley stop. Everyone knows they are creating a QOL disaster but they’re gonna make $$$$. It’ll be good for Waymo, people will be able to Waymo or take an electric scooter to their parked car.

 

[rowsdower88]

Uh oh…if your candidates don’t win, you’re going to cry stolen election? That should be interesting to watch.

Trump has a history of election subversion via unorthodox means, that's all my post was suggesting.

Sure, anything can happen.

Exactly. Your optimism is nice, but premature imo.

 

[arkgal]

Sometimes a 2br condo will come with 1 parking spot. Problem is that mass transit in my city sucks. Takes a minimum of 2-2.5 hrs to get anywhere. Now builders can put up a 10 story tower with no parking if it’s within half mile to a bus or trolley stop. Everyone knows they are creating a QOL disaster but they’re gonna make $$$$. It’ll be good for Waymo, people will be able to Waymo or take an electric scooter to their parked car.

Could the parking lot be a deck underground?

 

[arkgal]

Trump has a history of election subversion via unorthodox means, that's all my post was suggesting.



Exactly. Your optimism is nice, but premature imo.

I'm sure Trump will come up with something else, but it's a nice victory.

Rigging the postal system to implement a process that wouldn't work in time for the November is rather unconventional.