Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
There's a new bill before federal parliament calling for housing to be considered a fundamental human right.
The bill, introduced by independent federal parliamentarians Kylea Tink and David Pocock, would require the government to create a 10-year National Housing and Homelessness Plan.
One part of the bill states housing should be considered a fundamental human right for all Australians. Here's how this would work.
Since its election in 2022, the Albanese government has had to fight political battles to pass its housing policies.
This includes the Housing Australia Future Fund: a $10 billion fund to provide an annual $500 million for social and affordable rental housing. It passed the parliament last year.
There's also the "Help to Buy" shared equity scheme. Under this scheme, 10,000 households a year would be eligible for a government equity contribution of up to 40% of the purchase price of a new home. It's yet to pass the parliament.
But many in the community continue to struggle with unaffordable rents, barriers to home ownership and rising rates of homelessness.
Housing and homelessness problems are complex because they crossover different areas of policy and different levels of government. There are many agencies that do housing policy.
But so far, the government has not had a clear plan. Its election promise to develop a National Housing and Homelessness Plan is still under development. And at the moment, it does not appear to be addressing important policy areas like tax and finance.
[...] Tink and Pocock have also taken up our research and turned it into the National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill.
The bill would require the housing minister of the day to develop and implement a ten year National Housing and Homelessness Plan. This would mean taking a view of housing policy beyond three-year election cycles.
The legislation would also set some basic directions for the government's plan, including "ensuring that everyone in Australia has adequate housing," and "preventing and ending homelessness." This reflects the legislation's human rights-based approach.
The legislation would also require the housing minister to be collaborative and establish some new sources of information and advice for government. This includes a "consumer council," including people with experience of homelessness. This would operate alongside the existing National Housing Supply and Affordability Council: an independent group providing the government with expert advice. The consumer council would be able to escalate matters directly to the minister to ensure it's heard.
The existing government agency Housing Australia would be nominated as the lead agency assisting the minister with the plan. A new government officer, the National Housing and Homelessness Advocate, would independently investigate housing policy issues and monitor the progress against the plan. The housing minister would also be required to periodically report to parliament on progress.
At the end of the ten years, the minister would be required to review and develop a new plan.
Importantly, it would still be for the government of the day to decide what's in the plan. The legislation sets objectives and directions, but not policy details. The legislation does not say, for example, "thou shalt repeal negative gearing"! One government might devise a more market-orientated plan, while another might plan for greater non-market housing provision.
[...] The bill formally recognizes housing as a human right for two reasons.
First, it serves as the constitutional basis for the legislation. The right to adequate housing is a human right under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which Australia ratified almost 50 years ago.
This brings it within the parliament's "external affairs" power. The parliament relied on this power and the human right to housing when it passed the original legislation establishing the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (now Housing Australia). Basically, it gives the government the legal authority to make such a plan.
Secondly, an effective plan that's going to work across different policy areas and bring in the range of institutions needs a place to start. Human rights provides a way to organize the policy across all the different branches of government that need to be involved.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday July 09 2024, @02:38PM (28 children)
Here in the US, government provides an awful lot of "low income housing", or "projects". From my experience in construction, I can pretty confidently say that much, or even most, of that housing is pretty well constructed. The homes aren't horrid, they are actually quite adequate. But, much like apartments and rental properties anywhere, the residents have no equity in the homes, and don't do much, if anything, to ensure that the homes are maintained. Worse, the criminal element seems to gravitate toward those low income housing properties. As a sixteen year old kid, I watched the construction of one of those projects, I watched the grand opening, then I watched the news reports of copper being ripped out to be sold at the junk yard. It took about five years for the project to take on a run down ghetto appearance, despite what seemed reasonable efforts by government to maintain the homes. There were plenty of news articles of vandals simply destroying stuff, with no possible profit motive.
Having watched that process pretty close-up, I have to ask what level of housing can be considered a "right"? Does the "right to housing" begin with a bare concrete slab, bare concrete walls, and a couple shatter proof windows with a door? That's pretty indestructible, but it seems more like a barn for livestock than a home. On the plus side, such housing is dang near fireproof! Or, is there some level of - shall we call it "luxury" - that must be met?
If a government establishes a right to housing, I do NOT envy them the task of setting standards. Or, the task of enforcing standards, however high or low those standards may be.
Note that this is not a comment on homelessness in general. I am only pointing out that some people are going to destroy whatever you offer them.
It may sound harsh and cruel, but I can't help wondering if some poeple really deserve nothing more than a patch of bare ground down by the river, where they can pitch a tent. If they can find the wherewithal to acquire a tent.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edinlinux on Tuesday July 09 2024, @02:58PM (3 children)
Basically built like a prison, but being able to go in and out of it freely.
You get a concrete room with a bed, desk, toilet, shower, sink and stove, fridge and AC built indestructibly, like in jails.
Thats it, its the bare minimum, and if you want to go up from there, get a job..etc
For criminality, that is a different issue I'm afraid, as dealing with effectively with criminal elements Singapore style in western countries will just get the enforcement labeled as 'racist' (even though usually its not) and cancelled. I have no idea what the solution to that is, society needs to accept things as they actually are and society is just not ready to do that yet..
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 09 2024, @05:43PM (2 children)
Denmark has effectively had a basic right to housing for a long long time now.
https://www.spur.org/news/2022-08-31/housing-for-everyone-the-danish-way [spur.org]
Back in the 1980s near Copenhagen there was a large community of "tiny houses" each with a TV (aerial reception antenna outside) heat, bed, bathroom, and a basic kitchen.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2024, @01:24AM (1 child)
If too many people are crap, it doesn't matter how well the houses are built. You might have difficulty building the houses in the first place - the people involved might all be trying to figure out ways to siphon money away whether legally or illegally - so the project takes years longer, costs more etc.
How to have fewer crap people while still preserving freedoms? That could be a difficult problem but I suspect that many parents do want to do a good job raising children but can't. So perhaps the government should take advantage of known science-based education stuff, and taxpayer money (better to pay for this than pay more for prisons?), etc to help such parents out.
It's not concrete that's the foundation of a country but its people.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @05:59PM
Absolutely it's the people, but if you read the article: Denmark actively mixes their socioeconomic classes, rich and poor (and every other contrast) in the same neighborhoods. That goes a long way toward erasing "fear of going over there" and of believing that certain behaviors are acceptable in your own neighborhood. The US made a half-hearted effort at school busing, which went a very long way toward eroding racism (at its root: fear of people of a different color), but lately school integration is looking more and more like Trump's cabinet: one token black guy just to prevent people saying it's all white.
Some people can maintain a nice home without stainless steel toilets and poured concrete walls. They get to live in those neighborhoods they choose. People who don't learn how to maintain themselves in "polite company" houses will find themselves with progressively fewer choices in housing, but even then just because they end up in a "high strength / low maintenance" structure doesn't mean they should be socially isolated in an island of only people who have their issues.
> the people involved might all be trying to figure out ways to siphon money away whether legally or illegally - so the project takes years longer, costs more etc.
In the US public housing is financed from a quiltwork of funding sources, many projects use up to 20 sources of financial support. In Denmark there is just one. Which method do you think takes years longer, costs more, and is more ripe for fraudulent use of the funds?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Tuesday July 09 2024, @03:52PM
Back in the '50s and '60s (I think), in the UK, quote a lot of social housing was built. Much of it was brutalist tower blocks, but some of it, in smaller towns and cities, was developments of 2-storey duplexes (using US terminology here -- in the UK, they would be semi-detached houses). Those houses were built to higher standards than a typical privately built house. The rent was very much dependent on income, so the local authority could make a profit on the houses where the tenants had increased their income after qualifying for the social housing. Margaret Thatcher forced the sale of much of this housing, perhaps leading to the housing problems that are now endemic in the UK.
(Score: 3, Touché) by VLM on Tuesday July 09 2024, @04:07PM
A wide spectrum of gang violence.
(Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Tuesday July 09 2024, @04:58PM
In mainland Europe, I believe, the model is to have a regular landlord/tenant relationship also for the low income houses. There is also explicit development of low income housing but that is done by private companies. Not that it's perfect but it seems to prevent that kind of tragedy of the commons.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday July 09 2024, @05:02PM
--Said the Earth to its' inhabitants
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Informative) by Tokolosh on Tuesday July 09 2024, @06:30PM (6 children)
Any "right" that requires infringing the rights of others, is not a right.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2024, @10:11PM
Haven't you been paying attention? Might makes rights.
Are you saying that I can't use my right life by killing others? Fuck that.
I'll kill you and your sons, then take your wife and daughters and impregnate them with my (obviously) superior seed.
Don't like it? Too bad. You'll be dead, so what are you going to do about it? Nothing, that's what.
So STFU.
(Score: 5, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 09 2024, @11:36PM (4 children)
What right do you have that is infringed upon by homeless being housed?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday July 10 2024, @04:48AM (3 children)
My right that is being violated is my right to my own property, property that is stolen from me to pay for somebody else's housing.
Generally, the only proper function of government is to protect rights, and the only instance it is acceptable for a government to violate a person's rights is to protect an even more important right. The fundamental and highest right is the right to life, upon which all other rights depend. Note that the right to life means the right not to be prevented from living; it does not mean a right to have your life supported by others. This applies to adults.
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2024, @11:47AM
What "property" might that be? Taking your house? Your land? Ohhh..you mean taxes. Pay up you cheap bastard! Want to live in a civilized country? [quoteinvestigator.com] That's what taxes buy you, assshole.
As for your "rights":
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @12:33PM
>My right that is being violated is my right to my own property, property that is stolen from me to pay for somebody else's housing.
O.K. John G, let's just put you on your own tax-free continent and see how you do without any government services.
>highest right is the right to life
Yes, and h. sapiens: hairless apes, require shelter in most climates of the Earth or they will die. Most countries if you are prevented from having shelter, or the ability to fashion your own shelter due to the "property rights" of others, you will be dead within the year.
Back "in the day" when h. sapiens could strike out from the village and make their own way in the woods, they could effectively build their own housing. Today that is impossible in most any country that enforces "quiet enjoyment" property rights for land owners, ergo: those land owners and their government are killing their homeless countrymen by denying them access to their land.
Would you rather pay some (more) tax to house the homeless, or permit them to squat on your lawn in a tent?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday July 11 2024, @03:05AM
I (the generic I, I personally am doing OK) have the right to food. I can hunt for it, but you probably don't want me doing that in the neighborhood. If fact, it's illegal. So you owe me some other way. That could be enough decent paying jobs that are at least as respectful of me as a human being as hunting is combined with cheap enough groceries. Or it could be a free grocery store, or an adequate monthly check. Or you could drop the whole no hunting in the neighborhood and stop destroying wildlife habitat. Note, many areas also frown on keeping chickens and cows in the back yard or planting crops instead of lawn. Your choice.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2024, @07:48PM
Except even that can be denied to folks, with a referral to "other accommodations" [npr.org], at least here in the US.
Oh, and "referral to other accommodations" means being incarcerated, in case you were confused about that part.
How does the old saw go again? A nation should be judged based on how it treats its weakest members.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday July 09 2024, @10:11PM (7 children)
Some numbers I think are relevant here:
A. Number of homeless people in Australia on any given night, per Australia government study: ~120,000.
B. Monthly rent in Australia, per analysis by Forbes: $2600.
C. Number of vacant homes in Australia on any given night, per Australia government study: ~1,000,000.
D. Cost to house every homeless person in Australia at the average rental price, for 1 year: A x B x 12 = ~$3.6 billion
That's around half of the money allocated towards alleviating homelessness. And without building anything, and compensating owners at market rates.
These kinds of numbers regularly show up when you look at the issue. The reason we have homelessness has a lot less to do with a lack of buildings, and more to do with businesses that own buildings trying to hoard them to force rents up.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday July 10 2024, @05:06AM (5 children)
I don't know about Australia, but in the U.S. one of the major causes of homelessness is the use of mind-degrading drugs. The drug use goes hand-in-hand with behavior that makes placing them in ordinary homes impossible. They'll trash the home.
Look at it from an economic standpoint. As a rough rule of thumb, monthly rent for a house is a bit under 1% of the market value of the house. If that $2600/month rent is for a house worth $300,000, and the junkie destroys it within a year, the owner is out $268,800.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 10 2024, @11:12AM (2 children)
OK, so which plan do you have for dealing with that: Put them in a rehab facility (which they or their family can't pay for), or are you suggesting that the way you deal with that is to hope that they die as quickly as possible?
Another factor that I'm reasonably sure you are ignoring: According to a lot of people who study this stuff, a lot of street junkies weren't junkies when they wound up on the street, and turned to drugs as the only available relief for the problems that come from living on the streets.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @07:07PM (1 child)
>the way you deal with that is to hope that they die as quickly as possible?
This is at the root of a lot of social services arguments. Whether it's housing, healthcare, rehab, disabilities services, special needs education, or whatever - the first question that should be asked and answered is: "are we just going to shoot them to put them out of our misery?" If you answer no, then the vast majority of arguments against funding for services must be directed at making their lives as miserable - and expensive - as possible.
This is easily explained if those arguing against social services need to have a population they are "better than" so they can feel better about themselves.
Personally, I'd rather be taken out and shot than tortured and ridiculed for decades, but since we mostly don't go for mercy killings: it's both more humane, and cheaper, to invest in social services at the root causes of need than it is to deny that funding and then deal with the tortured bodies and souls that result from such lack of funding.
Paying $8000 per year for basic shelter plus $2000 per year for a social worker to come check on a previously homeless person is 10x cheaper than fixing healthcare problems that never would have happened if they had shelter, dealing with them in the criminal justice system because they can't hold a job, and the loss of productivity from them spending all their time dealing with being homeless. So, reducing the above argument further: homeless don't die 10x faster, only about 2x faster than people who have consistent reliable shelter, so overall you might expect to save 80% of the cost of the homeless by simply providing them shelter in the first place.
https://community.solutions/research-posts/the-costs-and-harms-of-homelessness/ [community.solutions]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 11 2024, @02:33AM
And thus you've uncovered the basis of "conservative" "thought" on the subject: they will pay more, and actively harm themselves, so long as "those people" suffer more. I am really mystified as to how anyone with two functioning brain cells can't see this about them.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2024, @11:55AM
Except that ain't true. Here's some actual data [nationalhomeless.org] for you, rather than what you pulled out of your ass.
Don't take my word (or the particular study I linked above) for it either. Go and find the data for yourself. And you'll see you're talking out of your ass. And it stinks!
But I won't hold my breath, as you don't want facts or data, you just want your trained-in prejudices to taken for the laws of nature. Which makes you narrow-minded and foolish enough to spout the ridiculous (and more importantly, unsupported by facts or evidence) bullshit you're going on about.. You probably even believe it. And for that, I pity you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @06:55PM
>in the U.S. one of the major causes of homelessness is the use of mind-degrading drugs.
Myth: Most people experiencing homelessness have a substance use and/or mental health disorder.
Fact: While rates of homelessness for people with severe mental health or substance use disorders are high, the majority of people with no home also have no mental health or substance use disorder. Furthermore, the large majority of Americans with mental health or substance use disorders do not experience homelessness, demonstrating that mental health and substance use disorders do not cause homelessness.
https://www.usich.gov/guidance-reports-data/data-trends [usich.gov]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @07:21PM
>more to do with businesses that own buildings trying to hoard them to force rents up.
Yep. The free market is anything but free.
Now, even in your direct rental scheme, toss another 25% on top for social workers to manage homeless placement and the occasional issues that will come up, but that really should be all it takes.
The trick is in convincing the owners of vacant properties to offer them up for rent, and convincing the homeless to accept placement where properties are available.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Wednesday July 10 2024, @04:23PM
Better to setup the mandate in law THEN find the best implementations over time.
1 solution isn't best for everybody.
Some people are angry at society and take it out on the government, some shoot children/schools which is the ultimate statement against the society. I'd rather they get away trashing government housing. I think biometric IDs should be required and people rated on their treatment of government housing. If you deserve a prison-cell like indestructible place that is what you'll get. Along with some kind of punching bag that is cheap to replace. Hell, it could be a test/decoy that gets you a bad rating in the 1st place. Some opportunity to improve the place could be another test, a way to dig yourself back out again... could be maintenance jobs given to people within the housing system.
Also, you shouldn't have to be proven in court to be guilty of the damage. If you want to avoid blame, then you fix the damage (unless there is clear proof who did it and it's not you.)
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Friday July 12 2024, @01:37AM (2 children)
It may sound harsh and cruel
It certainly does. Did you have a mother?
There were no homeless when I was young, but civilized countries had a living wage as a minimum wage.
There were also no billionaires.
A man legally forbidden from possessing a firearm is in charge of America's nuclear arsenal. Have a nice day.
(Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 12 2024, @03:09AM (1 child)
Really? https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/item/143853306-1940s-group-homeless-men-eat-soup-kitchen-salvation-army-san [pond5.com] You and I aren't that far apart in age. When I was a child, a homeless man was referred to as a hobo, or a bum, or a tramp, generally in a derogatory manner. I didn't see many such people, but now and then I did meet a tramp down by the railroad tracks. I never did see a hobo camp. As a kid, I thought the idea of a hobo camp was really cool, and would have jumped at the chance to visit one. Of course, western Pennsylvania's climate and weather would be inhospitable to homeless, in general. It wasn't until the mid-70s when I got to San Diego, and started meeting homeless people. Of course, none of them were as interesting as I had previously thought hobos to be.
In short, I think you are mistaken. I believe that there have always been homeless people in the United States, starting with runaway slaves and bond servants.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Saturday July 13 2024, @06:48PM
Hoboes, tramps, and bums were depression-era, and a hobo or a tramp was offended by the term "bum," a bum was a beggar. Hoboes and tramps are shown as those who wanted travel and refused handouts.
What I should have said was that I saw my first bum at age 23 in California, a hippie I bought lunch for. Not homeless, his commune buddies would collect twenty bucks a day, a lot in the 1970s. It was this century before I saw any more beggars or homeless people, and there are encampments of them everywhere now.
And a video of a soup kitchen shows poverty. It doesn't necessarily show homelessness. There was no SNAP or food stamps until 1964, and then you had to be unemployed to get food stamps. Now you have to work to get food assistance, making it welfare for the wealthy, who no longer are forced to pay a living wage for full-time work.
However, I'm sure there was a lot of homelessness before WWII, especially before 1900.
A man legally forbidden from possessing a firearm is in charge of America's nuclear arsenal. Have a nice day.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by acid andy on Tuesday July 09 2024, @03:02PM (1 child)
Aren't these Help to Buy schemes essentially a loan from the government that has to be paid back? All that does in the long term is prop up inflated prices. In the UK, "affordable housing" is anything but. Betting it is the same in Australia. Calling housing a human right might make you a bit more popular for a couple weeks, but if it is only a label for a supposed longer term policy direction, rather than giving Australians the right to challenge the government when not housed, then smells like spin to me.
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday July 10 2024, @08:41AM
Couldn't they pass this on to the Nation Building Authority? They're responsible for overseeing infrastructure projects aren't they?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday July 09 2024, @04:16PM (4 children)
10.9 million houses in Australia and they're going to middleman a complicated scheme to "help" 0.09% of them. The other +99% of Australians can F themselves and pay even higher prices to make up for it. What matters is empire building, they'll have to hire at least 1000 government "servants" to administer a program of that size.
It is a typical big government program.
It will be interesting to see how they handle addiction. Right-to-housing always turns into right-to-crack-den or right-to-meth-lab in the USA.
Its interesting that they'll try anything other than lowering demand by decreasing immigration or increasing supply by building more.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bloodnok on Tuesday July 09 2024, @05:10PM (3 children)
In a wealthy nation it should not be acceptable that anyone has to live on the streets.
To take those statistics and look at them another way, the cost for those 10,000 households if paid by the 10.9 million would be less than 0.1% of their own housing costs. That hardly seems like an unfair burden. And given the significant costs to healthcare, policing, community services, etc that are directly attributable to the state of homelessness, there would be savings elsewhere.
And of course this is a big government program. Just like policing, healthcare, public education, roads, etc. That is what government is for - to pay for stuff that is valuable to society that otherwise would not happen.
__
The major
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday July 10 2024, @12:41PM (2 children)
My point is 100% of Australians are overpaying, so they're helping the 0.09% best politically corrected ones by taxing the other 99.9% then declaring victory, when nothing has been fixed and mostly a lot of money and effort will be wasted.
Fix the supply side issues, fix the demand side issues, something, anything other than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 11 2024, @04:03PM
vague answer is vague.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2024, @11:02PM
Not your business, you aren't paying any taxes to the Australian govt, are you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Tuesday July 09 2024, @05:17PM (49 children)
I'll tell you how it'll go: private owners will not offer properties for rent anymore, because rents will be capped, it will become exceedingly difficult to evict bad tenants and the state will have the right to seize the properties and put people in need of housing in them if they keep the properties empty.
How do I know that? Because France has laws like that and it's happened to me. I rented my house for 20 years. The little money I made (not a lot, since rents are capped) was wasted on smart tenants who knew all the tricks to avoid paying rent without getting evicted.
And finally, when I tried to sell it and it didn't sell rightaway in the summer, the state seized my house in the winter (which was empty since I was trying to sell it) and put homeless people in it. Do you know what homeless people who can pay for electricity or water do in a house that you give them? They camp out. They light fires in the living room to stay warm, and I'm not even going into the state of the bathrooms without running water. Do you think the state compensated me for the damage the people it put in my house did? Not a fucking centime.
FInally I sold the house. Finally! Good riddance. If there's one country I'll never, EVER buy a property ever again - much less put it out for rent - it's France. The fucking place is totally anti-landlords. I'll take my money elsewhere thank you very much.
That's what's going to happen in Australia.
Meaning most rented properties will have to be built by the state. Which means the landlords in Australia will be the taxpayers. And if the taxpayers don't want to pay for social housing, well... tough cookie: they'll have to pay up anyway.
The human right to housing sounds like a noble idea untill you drill down into the details. And then it doesn't seem so great anymore, for property owners or for the taxpayers, and ultimately for tenants too because nobody wants to live in social housing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 09 2024, @06:02PM (19 children)
>The fucking place is totally anti-landlords
Is that an entirely bad thing? Of course, those who don't own their own property do need their housing managed / maintained somehow... if not rent seeking private sector, perhaps there could be a workable solution with government oversight. Don't like the government checking to make sure your electric outlets are safe and that your plumbing is working properly? Then suck it up and get your own home.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 09 2024, @08:32PM (18 children)
If you have to ask that, you are on the wrong side of the argument. There is nothing so terrible that someone doesn't gain from it and hence, makes it not entirely bad. Here. some politicians probably got reelected by being tough on landlords.
We call this regulatory thrashing. In the days of yore, this was covered by landlords. Now that the economic ecosystem has been wrecked, the band-aids come out. Government will be your landlord now.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 09 2024, @08:56PM (17 children)
>Government will be your landlord now.
There are some who would prefer that.
Most who would not prefer that would rather own their own residence anyway.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 10 2024, @07:43PM (16 children)
Of course they do. So what?
Let's consider Rosco's story. He had a rental property for 20 years, dealing with renters who knew the tricks for avoiding rent payments. Then when he's trying to sell his property, the state steps in and puts random, destructive squatters in his house. Sure, if you're a renter looking to get out of paying rent, a homeless person who destroys anything they live in, a politician tough on landlords, or maybe a virtue-signaling, voting citizen who isn't directly threatened by the landlord apocalypse. In those cases, you might well prefer the current situation in France. But anyone else?
I doubt you'd be so sanguine about a not entirely bad thing that only benefited billionaires or rapists at the expense of everyone else.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @08:09PM (15 children)
>the state steps in and puts random, destructive squatters in his house
They have altered the deal, pray they do not alter it further.
The French more than anyone should be aware that blithely parading their superior wealth ("then let them eat cake!") has potentially dire consequences. While I believe that "landlording" is a sucker's game, more work than the income is worth, it is nonetheless widely perceived as fat-cats with "ownership" raking in money for nothing. If you're there making "passive income" on your real-estate holdings while the country is rioting in the streets for higher minimum wage, earlier retirement and all sorts of other social programs - do you think the writing might be on the wall? There are probably still some walls with spatter-patterns from the last time the aristocracy tested the people past their limits.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2024, @01:04AM (14 children)
Would Rosco agree with you that he's been blithely parading his superior wealth? Instead I think this a case where the narrative has once again outpaced reality.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11 2024, @01:55AM (13 children)
>Would Rosco agree with you that he's been blithely parading his superior wealth?
Of course not, but a majority of French voters do.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2024, @04:57AM (12 children)
We'll see if that majority stays a majority.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11 2024, @12:09PM (11 children)
The pendulum always swings, but clearly, in France, it has swung far enough to guillotine landlord profitability.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2024, @01:29PM (10 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11 2024, @02:07PM (9 children)
The rest of us... landlords? What percentage of the population is landlords? What percentage of the population actively hates landlords?
I'm not saying the US should follow France closely in this change, France's swings to the Left are historically overly abrupt, sharp, and lead to a fair amount of chaos - but also social progress both in France and abroad after the chaos has settled.
The US has been slowly following France for over a century in this regard... yes, we are somewhat of a backward / retarded offspring of Europe in this regard, but historically we do follow them - even if we are laggy about it.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday July 12 2024, @05:51AM (8 children)
You have in the past stated that you own your own home. That makes you your own landlord. Imagine if you had to deal with the risk of official squatters every time you moved to a new home. It's stupid policy even when the state is acting in good faith.
Rather this shows an area where France is ridiculously lagging the US by centuries - the Third and Fourth Amendments. The US has a body of law against uncompensated seizure of property by the state with the core established over 200 years ago. It's not perfect, there's still a variety of well oiled exploits like zoning law, rent control, illegally legal asset seizure, etc, but at least when US-based governments do stuff this brazen, the issue can be settled in the courts.
Further, "social progress" sounds like yet another example of a phrase where the noun is neutered by the use of "social". Two examples: zero sum strategies involving wealth redistribution and social programs with built in infinite growth assumptions (particularly public pensions where several workers are required to support a retiree). But I guess I shouldn't be surprised to get so many social wood [soylentnews.org] arguments here.
Here's my take on all that. In a normal market situation (with regulation against fraud, use of force, etc), landlords and renters enter into mutual agreements. Every time the state throws bullshit into these relationships, it harms them. Here, typically by reducing the supply of rental property. Somehow that helps the homeless. Needless to say, I'm not buying it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday July 12 2024, @12:23PM (7 children)
> That makes you your own landlord.
Stretching far for even you.
> Imagine if you had to deal with the risk of official squatters every time you moved to a new home. It's stupid policy even when the state is acting in good faith.
Well, then, I won't be buying any rentals with squatters in them, just like the rental I bid on (to convert for personal ownership use) after, and only after, the squatters had been evicted.
> at least when US-based governments do stuff this brazen, the issue can be settled in the courts.
Unless it's eminent domain, or pushing out existing land use with overdevelopment: https://www.npr.org/2024/03/16/1236266122/florida-man-refused-sell-home-developer-coral-gables [npr.org]
> uncompensated seizure of property by the state
Unless you're accused of drug possession, or harassment of protected wildlife, or any other number of offences which allow your property to be seized and auctioned.
> zero sum strategies involving wealth redistribution
There you are again, focused on money like the only meaningful measure of it is the grand total. Distribution matters. Giving every waitress in America a 100% salary increase is meaningless if there are still the same number of waitresses working - the job is the same, the hours worked are the same, oh, but now they're getting more pay and maybe they can afford to pay their car mechanic and plumber? Only if the car mechanic and plumber don't also get raises.
The meaningful measure of wealth is in its distribution, relative levels, the absolute numbers are meaningless.
> landlords and renters enter into mutual agreements
Like hell they do. The one time I rented a house for the family there was a "standard contract" that all landlords within 50 miles of my job used, it was written by the landlords and very tenant unfriendly. Sure, we could have refused to rent anything at all and the four of us could have tried to live in the pickup truck, maybe on one of the unused floors of my office's parking garage? Not.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 13 2024, @05:18AM (6 children)
I forget that we have to set the evil bit first. /sarc
Rosco didn't do that either. But it happened just the same - because the state put them there.
The obvious rebuttal is what happens when everyone has the same wealth - but it's not enough to feed themselves? Absolute numbers that are a measure of what needs and wants can be provided are far more meaningful than relative levels that can be arbitrarily calibrated to generate grievance.
I didn't mention money even once (aside from quoting someone at one point who did use the term "money"). You've mentioned it several times. The person with the erroneous focus on money is not me.
You just did in the above example. And I bet if we go through your life, we find several other times you've done the same.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 13 2024, @06:58PM (4 children)
>>Well, then, I won't be buying any rentals with squatters in them, just like the rental I bid on (to convert for personal ownership use) after, and only after, the squatters had been evicted.
>Rosco didn't do that either. But it happened just the same - because the state put them there.
No, Rosco had an "extra house" in France, and these recent changes in French laws and enforcement mean that many people like Rosco will be divesting of that dubious asset - possibly buying in Florida: https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-homeowners-fight-squatters-new-law-ends-scam-desantis-says [fox35orlando.com] Note, I'm not exactly cheering DeSantis on, just pointing out: different conditions in different countries. Just like you might purchase an "extra house" for cheap in South Sudan, but you probably wouldn't want to.
>>The meaningful measure of wealth is in its distribution, relative levels, the absolute numbers are meaningless.
>The obvious rebuttal is what happens when everyone has the same wealth - but it's not enough to feed themselves?
Are we anywhere near such a situation? I mean, when ADM gives up growing food for profit and nobody else wants to work the fields, maybe - but that's far off fantasy at this point in time.
>Absolute numbers that are a measure of what needs and wants can be provided are far more meaningful than relative levels that can be arbitrarily calibrated to generate grievance.
Nothing arbitrary about the top 2% having a net worth 12x (and higher than) the median and 50% of all wealth being controlled by the top 2.5%.
>>There you are again, focused on money like the only meaningful measure of it is the grand total. Distribution matters. Giving every waitress in America a 100% salary increase is meaningless if there are still the same number of waitresses working - the job is the same, the hours worked are the same, oh, but now they're getting more pay and maybe they can afford to pay their car mechanic and plumber? Only if the car mechanic and plumber don't also get raises.
>I didn't mention money even once (aside from quoting someone at one point who did use the term "money"). You've mentioned it several times. The person with the erroneous focus on money is not me.
Oh, I think you did even without using the word. Look at the logic behind your statements.
>>> landlords and renters enter into mutual agreements
>>Like hell they do. The one time I rented a house for the family there was a "standard contract" that all landlords within 50 miles of my job used, it was written by the landlords and very tenant unfriendly. Sure, we could have refused to rent anything at all and the four of us could have tried to live in the pickup truck, maybe on one of the unused floors of my office's parking garage? Not.
>You just did in the above example. And I bet if we go through your life, we find several other times you've done the same.
Laid off from a 12 year job with my wife 4 months pregnant, out of work looking for 4 months finding nothing within a 300 mile radius, finally land a job with benefits in Houston - where exactly was my negotiating power with the rental market there? Take it or leave it is not a negotiation. Taking such an offer is not a mutual agreement, it is a necessity.
When I put a gun to your head and demand you sign a quit-claim deed to your home, does your signature represent mutual agreement between us?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Sunday July 14 2024, @06:37AM (3 children)
It wasn't dubious before the state made it so. Funny how the social progress of France makes Florida with all its glaring drawbacks such an attractive investment option for actual human beings.
We aren't need such a situation where we can't feed ourselves because we aren't near a situation where relative wealth is considered more important than absolute wealth.
It's clearly irrelevant to your argument what numbers you use. The top x% will have net worth higher than y% people who don't bother to collect wealth at all. Also you're clearly ignoring wealth from future earning power which is the classic part of wealth traditionally ignored by the broken measures of wealth today.
I do look at my logic and I'm just not interested in your straw man building.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14 2024, @11:52AM (2 children)
My ancestors were successful farmers in Tennessee in the early 1800s, they also held significant value in dubious assets which the government forced them to divest, in the 1860s. Many of them diversified into the ship building industry, one descendant later became Secretary of the Navy. For better or worse, (mostly worse) my direct ancestor on that side became a school teacher, then died of tuberculosis around age 30.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 14 2024, @03:43PM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14 2024, @08:39PM
Can't pick your ancestors.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14 2024, @02:09PM
>The obvious rebuttal is what happens when everyone has the same wealth - but it's not enough to feed themselves?
Meanwhile: Making Ends Meet: Nearly half of Florida families can't afford expenses - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtfLor0Eq0w [youtube.com]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by namefags_are_jerks on Wednesday July 10 2024, @02:03AM
It's been proposed by two Independent MPs. Omae wa mou shindeiru.
Note that Australia's generally in a slight majority "Liberal Party" (not to be confused with the actual meaning of the word) very much believe in "The Right To Make Capital". If the non-Conservatives push this, it'll just be them winning election after election on being "anti-Communist" and 'giving the right to Real Australians With Actual Jobs to own two Ford Rangers paid for by their tenants'. It was their winning tactic for almost all the 20th century. I can't see Labor supporting the bill for that reason.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday July 10 2024, @03:16AM (27 children)
Very few can afford not to rent their properties, the Ozzie banks want their mortgage paid with around/over 8% interest today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Wednesday July 10 2024, @12:58PM (26 children)
When the choice is between not earning anything because you don't put the property up for rent (i.e. losing money) or earning rents that are capped and eventually get overtaken by inflation, or you have to pay for damage done by tenants - not to mention a lawyer to have them thrown out (i.e. losing even more money), then you choose the lesser evil. Or you decide to live in the property. Or you sell the property yourself. But you sure as hell don't want to deal with tenancies anymore.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @07:16PM (25 children)
Being a landlord is a job. It's a risk-reward situation plain and simple. You had some excess capital, you converted it to rental property, you take a risk that the property won't rent, you take a risk that the renters won't pay, you take a risk that the renters will damage the property more than usual, you take a risk for everything your insurance doesn't cover, and you give away your profits for every bit of insurance you purchase. Real-estate values don't only go up, anymore. There's a risk your equity will decline, there's a risk your financing will become more expensive... if you hire a manager to deal with the day to day operations, not only are you giving away profits to the manager but you are taking a risk that the manager will do a poor job costing you far more than their salary.
If all that risk is too much for you, don't invest in rental property.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Wednesday July 10 2024, @07:45PM (24 children)
It's not the state's duty to make a job suck or to increase the risk and cost of the job.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @08:11PM (17 children)
>>Being a landlord is a job.
>It's not the state's duty to make a job suck or to increase the risk and cost of the job.
Neither is it the state's job to coddle all the poor helpless landlords who can't deal with the changing social climate. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you can't make money "landlording" find another job for yourself and your capital.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2024, @12:53AM (16 children)
I typically consider it the state's job to uphold laws of the land, such as property rights. Having said that, you've already indicated an unintended consequence. If renting French property has this sort of drawback, then less people will bother - after all Rosco left the market. I get that there's a bunch of people of the opinion that France doesn't need landlords. Those people are insane and haven't thought through the consequences. I think we're already seeing some of that in the growth of the far right faction in recent years.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11 2024, @01:53AM (15 children)
>I think we're already seeing some of that in the growth of the far right faction in recent years.
Current election cycle notwithstanding?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2024, @04:29AM (14 children)
Given that the RN (Rassemblement National) and allies went from 89 seats in the French National Assembly to 125 [msn.com], that would be unwise. But then again, would the RN being in charge be an "entirely bad thing"? Eh, Joe?
If you can't be bothered to understand why not entirely bad things happen, then they happen more often.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 11 2024, @12:07PM (13 children)
Change doesn't happen all at once, but there is a clear trend in France recently:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/world/europe/france-election-maps.html [nytimes.com]
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 13 2024, @05:29AM (12 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday July 13 2024, @06:38PM (11 children)
Funny, wasn't paywalled to me, and I sure as hell don't subscribe.
Basically, the "far left" exceeds the "far right" by a significant margin in France, even after Marcon's bone headed snap elections which decimated his centrist party's influence.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 14 2024, @06:24AM (10 children)
You are merely making a comment about the present state - no trend. If we look at that trend instead, we see that the significant margin has shrunk significantly over recent years.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14 2024, @11:44AM (9 children)
Just like global population will peak "some time this century" unless it doesn't, according to the best predictions.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday July 14 2024, @03:30PM (8 children)
Indeed. I think a few decades from now will be very educational. I don't see actual negative global population growth until some point around 2060-2100. But it will become increasingly obvious that the narrative of uncontrolled population growth is obsolete.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday July 14 2024, @08:38PM (7 children)
Except that 8 billion people livin' 1980s US large is already catastrophic. And we're adding all kinds of energy usage like AI that apparently needs nuclear power to feed its needs..
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 16 2024, @05:52PM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 16 2024, @07:47PM (5 children)
Well, everything is a matter of taste... h. sapiens could very well manage through to a bug-paste utopia of 20 billion people with fuck-all for biodiversity.
I prefer how things were when we had seals in the Caribbean... not so very long ago.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 16 2024, @10:54PM (4 children)
Not reality.
Why I prefer 8 billion developed world humans rather than 20 billion BPU enthusiasts. But please pray continue with all the nightmare scenarios that would happen, if we were to listen to JoeMerchant.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 17 2024, @12:02AM (3 children)
We are at 8 now, peak is predicted "some time this century". 20 is as good a guess as any. More developed (consumptive per capital) is a virtual certainty, whether via peaceful progress or the chaos of war. Surprisingly few people die in wars
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 17 2024, @12:55AM (2 children)
Unless, of course, you want to guess better. Then lower is better.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 17 2024, @01:40AM (1 child)
Optimistic thinking doesn't have influence reality.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 17 2024, @02:14AM
Sure, but reality does influence itself.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2024, @01:45AM (5 children)
Not state job to make a job easier, either. That is, unless is a state for landlords, tenants be damn'd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2024, @04:33AM (4 children)
Is that a problem here? The crazy situation where some homeless people were stuffed in Rosco's rental property without his permission and then the state refused to compensate for damage caused is not a case of the state merely merely refusing to make the job easier.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2024, @06:40AM (3 children)
The laws allowing the state to do that were public, weren't they?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2024, @06:34PM (2 children)
Consider this hypothetical scenario: a real estate mogul teams up with the locals to pack vacant real estate in valuable locations with a team of homeless saboteurs. Once the place is trashed, buy at a discount and tear it down. Build new rental property with a much higher cap than what was there before (possibly with some help from those same locals)and sell it to a new owner.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2024, @10:17PM (1 child)
Meaning: information contributing to the risk of being a lessor in France was known in advance. The important thing is one is not excused based on the "I didn't know the law" argument.
France has a particular flavor of welfare state [wikipedia.org] and this flavor goes back to 1830.
This flavor may drive you ranting, but your rant is inconsequential, as you aren't a French citizen.
I'll consider it when/if I'll buy a property in France. Until then, I have better things to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Friday July 12 2024, @04:35AM
I'm fine with them being an educational moment for the rest of us. But to turn one's back on that lesson and copycat them?
Such as make that empty pretense? I doubt you had a better thing to do when you wrote that post!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2024, @05:23PM (4 children)
Pretty simple, build more prisons and internment camps out in the desert, and garnish the income of the residents.
I mean, this is how the republicans will do it here is in the US
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2024, @07:54PM (3 children)
Not sure why that's modded down.
The recent Supreme Court ruling [npr.org] makes it very clear that being homeless is a crime. And one that should be punished harshly at that.
(Score: 4, Touché) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday July 10 2024, @05:24AM (2 children)
NPR is a badly biassed source, yet it is not so bad that you still needed to misread it to make your point. The Supreme Court made it possible for municipalities to prohibit people from from setting up camp in specified public places, e.g. a maintained city park. The Supreme Court did NOT make being homeless a crime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2024, @12:03PM (1 child)
Are you claiming the article I linked had false information about the SCOTUS ruling or the Oregon statute at issue?
Here's a different source, which also corroborates my point:
>blockquote>Grants Pass, a city with just under 40,000 people, has as many as 600 people experiencing homelessness on any given night. In 2013, the city decided to increase enforcement of existing ordinances that bar the use of blankets, pillows, and cardboard boxes while sleeping within the city.
Violators face steep fines: $295, which increases to $537.60 if it is not paid. When individuals receive two citations, police in Grants Pass can issue an order banning them from city property; anyone who violates such an order can be convicted on criminal trespass charges, which carry penalties of up to 30 days in jail and a $1,250 fine.
[emphasis added].
As such, SCOTUS upheld a criminal statute making it a *crime* to sleep on the street with a blanket or a pillow. Fuck off jerk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2024, @12:06PM
Oops. Messed up the link above:
It's https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-uphold-laws-targeting-homelessness-with-criminal-penalties/ [scotusblog.com]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 09 2024, @05:43PM (4 children)
UBI (Universal Basic Income) should also be considered a fundamental human right.
(Score: 2, Touché) by ChrisMaple on Wednesday July 10 2024, @05:46AM (2 children)
And you should be able to enforce that right against anybody near you the same way the government does, by force of arms.
See any problem with that?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @07:26PM (1 child)
Others getting something they need means you wouldn't feel as superior to them as you used to feel? Yeah, that's a real problem for some people.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday July 11 2024, @04:50AM
That's not a real problem for anyone here even if there were people here who felt as you claim in the first sentence. Sorry, making stupid straw man arguments won't urge us to support stupid ideas.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Thursday July 11 2024, @11:33PM
In the words of the great Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by namefags_are_jerks on Wednesday July 10 2024, @01:52AM (1 child)
I'd like this "right" to mean I don't get kicked out of a free camping ground after 2 nights, or Rangers not going nasty if I shack up in a State Forest...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 10 2024, @07:25PM
I think one of the root causes of the whole social situation surrounding homelessness is: people with homes wanting to feel superior to someone else. If there aren't homeless, or the homeless aren't openly kicked around, then those with homes don't get to feel smugly superior due to their fortunes of birth circumstance and luck in life while they tell themselves it's all about their hard work.
I would imagine shacking up in a State Forest is as much, if not more, work than holding down a 9-5 by commuting in from the burbs.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 10 2024, @12:09PM
Every scheme they have proposed won't work. The fundamental problem is building permits. They have become a cash cow for local governments to the point that the market is being strangled. Excluding land, the actual build cost of a very nice 4 or 5 bedroom/two bathroom house is around AU$300,000. The permit fees to do that start at $50,000. That's just the permit - a piece of paper that says "you have permission to build a house".
Simple economics will tell you that the fees will suppress building until the price of existing houses is driven up to match that.
That is then exacerbated by state governments using "stamp duty" as a their cash cow. 4% of sale price sounds small until you realise it's $40,000 on the average city home. There is a strong incentive not to sell, reducing liquidity in the market.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday July 11 2024, @02:47AM (3 children)
Start from the top. No corporation is allowed to own single-family or small (size of "small" TBD) residential properties, period, full stop: owners of the same must be individual humans. This alone will do wonders for the housing situation.
Then unfuck the zoning laws. It's clear the residential zoning categories exist mostly to ease white flight from the cities; they turn into a real dog-in-the-manger situation once a plat is filled up with those hideous fucking cookie-cutter McMansions. Goddess almighty forbid we build anything like dense apartment housing!
Get the best civil engineers and urban planners you have *specifically from low-income and racial minority backgrounds.* These are the people who have actual, high-minded reasons to fix things, not just some airy pie-in-the-sky philanthropic impulse, or worse, a base desire to make money off taxpayers while providing less than the bare minimum. They have seen what works and what does not, and have lived in it, mostly the latter.
Get them involved not just in designing healthy, functional buildings, but in actual urban planning: accompany the housing with a neighborhood's worth of social services and amenities, including at least one grocery store, one pharmacy, and one urgent care center, and make sure a bus route runs to and from on a regular basis. Make sure there's also a drug detox clinic and at least one mental health crisis center too, and that all these entities are coordinating with one another and with the local hospital(s). And don't just make it some brutalist concrete hellscape; make sure there's trees planted regularly and some green space. Encourage community initiatives, especially things like community gardens and tool-swapping/sharing meets.
The solutions to this are not technological or logistical; they are moral. The problem is the people who need a permanent suffering underclass to feel superior to, and to use to browbeat their subordinates with (i.e., "do you wanna be like THEM? No? Then shut the fuck up and work harder!").
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 11 2024, @11:15PM
Personally, I hated living like that for more than half on my life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday July 13 2024, @05:36AM (1 child)
Is a corporation allowed to build such housing? Will it be illegal for a bank to repo such a property as the collateral on a defaulted loan? Because in those situations they will own it until they sell it. Second, what problems really exist with corporate-owned small residential properties? They don't own most such real estate in the first place.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday July 13 2024, @01:45PM
It should be illegal for a bank to come into possession of a property via defaulting on a loan. In fact I think it might be in Australia. The correct way is for the bank to get a court order for the Sheriff to take possession of the house and to sell it at auction. The bank gets paid only what they are owed and the rest, if any, goes back to the owners.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.