"Eat The Landlords" - housing reform partisans target Brooklyn Housing Court overnight

[AltWorlder]

There's already co-living spaces and experiments like tiny houses and housing built from shipping containers being worked on, so it's not as if there isn't "innovation" being done anyway.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Innovation in housing is gimmicky, yes. That doesn't change the facts that the problems in the housing markets in America's top cities come from overregulation and it's mostly the fault of Democrats.

[John Dule]

This prevents new and innovative building designs from being tested (say, with shared communal cooking areas or bathrooms)

no what prevents these from being tested is that literally no one would ever want to live in a house with a toilet or kitchen: those things are terrible enough in university accommodation or large house shares as it is: just imagining how much worse it'd be with 20 people sharing a kitchen and no clear idea who would be responsible for actually cleaning it.

Its the sort of pie-in-the-sky concept that idiots that haven't actually lived in the real world propose without actually talking to the people that need housing.

I'd rather live in a 100 square foot micro-unit with a fold-in bedpod that has a cafeteria downstairs, a bathroom and showers down the hall, and a community kitchen than in a cardboard box. If you would simply allow developers to provide housing at prices that people can afford, then homelessness could be nearly eradicated. But as usual, leftists insist on "guaranteeing" certain standards for housing, which ensures that a significant chunk of people can never afford decent accommodations.

And for the record, I have lived in a dorm that functioned like this. It isn't fun. It isn't my preference. But for many people, this would be a massive step up from the streets.

[John Dule]

Hmm... isn't it a strange coincidence that California and New York are the two states with the most notorious housing crises in the nation? Also, habitability warranties don't just demand that properties be brought up to code-- they also establish that a rentable property must possess certain features, which drives up costs. This prevents new and innovative building designs from being tested (say, with shared communal cooking areas or bathrooms) and ultimately drives up the cost for the renter.

There is nothing "new and innovative" about a boarding house. Why is it necessary to delude people in this way? Whatever merit there is to the case for alternate housing arrangements, this makes a mockery of the English language.

I'm not talking about a boarding house.

[John Dule]

This prevents new and innovative building designs from being tested (say, with shared communal cooking areas or bathrooms)

no what prevents these from being tested is that literally no one would ever want to live in a house without a toilet or kitchen: those things are terrible enough in university accommodation or large house shares as it is: just imagining how much worse it'd be with 20 people sharing a kitchen and no clear idea who would be responsible for actually cleaning it.

Its the sort of pie-in-the-sky concept that idiots that haven't actually lived in the real world propose without actually talking to the people that need housing.

Nonsense, Comrade Dule is onto a fantastic idea. Who could forget the extraordinary success of communal apartments in the Soviet Union?

Communal spaces are almost always destroyed through negligence. However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent. Security cameras could also catch angry commies in action if they decided to destroy things for their own sick entertainment.

[Devout Centrist]

Communal spaces are almost always destroyed through negligence. However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent. Security cameras could also catch angry commies in action if they decided to destroy things for their own sick entertainment.

That's not what worries me. I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of sharing a kitchen or a bathroom with several different families.

[John Dule]

Communal spaces are almost always destroyed through negligence. However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent. Security cameras could also catch angry commies in action if they decided to destroy things for their own sick entertainment.

That's not what worries me. I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of sharing a kitchen or a bathroom with several different families.

I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of living under a freeway overpass than I am about sharing a toilet with the Armenian guy down the hall.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Communal spaces are almost always destroyed through negligence. However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent. Security cameras could also catch angry commies in action if they decided to destroy things for their own sick entertainment.

That's not what worries me. I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of sharing a kitchen or a bathroom with several different families.

Why? Roommates are fun. That seems like a weird critique and certainly not significant enough to warrant policy action.

[John Dule]

Communal spaces are almost always destroyed through negligence. However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent. Security cameras could also catch angry commies in action if they decided to destroy things for their own sick entertainment.

That's not what worries me. I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of sharing a kitchen or a bathroom with several different families.

Why? Roommates are fun. That seems like a weird critique and certainly not significant enough to warrant policy action.

Socialists think that sharing and cooperation are intrinsic aspects of the human experience-- unless, of course, they're happening inside a capitalist system, in which case they stink.

[Estrella]

This prevents new and innovative building designs from being tested (say, with shared communal cooking areas or bathrooms)

Ah, you mean like the old Soviet kommunalka! Such a great, individualist, libertarian solution!

[AltWorlder]

But as usual, leftists insist on "guaranteeing" certain standards for housing, which ensures that a significant chunk of people can never afford decent accommodations.

The argument that overregulation is preventing housing construction from being expedited is potentially convincing, but California's housing shortage is definitely not driven by something as specific as leftists hemming and hawing about basic livability regulations, and more by anti-development NIMBYs. Sure, some of them may be liberal hypocrites and you may denounce them as leftists standing in the way. But as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's not their leftism that motivates their NIMBYism.

However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent.

You were literally just bemoaning about how hard it is to find good tenants in San Francisco.

I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of living under a freeway overpass than I am about sharing a toilet with the Armenian guy down the hall.

False dilemma, easily

[John Dule]

But as usual, leftists insist on "guaranteeing" certain standards for housing, which ensures that a significant chunk of people can never afford decent accommodations.

The argument that overregulation is preventing housing construction from being expedited is potentially convincing, but California's housing shortage is definitely not driven by something as specific as leftists hemming and hawing about basic livability regulations, and more by anti-development NIMBYs. Sure, some of them may be liberal hypocrites and you may denounce them as leftists standing in the way. But as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's not their leftism that motivates their NIMBYism.

True, it's not just the overregulation, it's the HOAs as well-- which are essentially apolitical.

However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent.

You were literally just bemoaning about how hard it is to find good tenants in San Francisco.

Good tenants are hard to find because they know that once they're in the unit, they can essentially trash the place and refuse to pay rent, and the landlord will have no recourse due to the byzantine nature of the eviction process. Make evictions easier, balance things out so that the law doesn't blatantly favor tenants over owners, and you will restore trust to the system.

[John Dule]

This prevents new and innovative building designs from being tested (say, with shared communal cooking areas or bathrooms)

Ah, you mean like the old Soviet kommunalka! Such a great, individualist, libertarian solution!

One great thing about capitalism is that if you want to purchase some land collectively with a few other people, build a few units, and live in it together cooperatively, you are free to do so.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

But as usual, leftists insist on "guaranteeing" certain standards for housing, which ensures that a significant chunk of people can never afford decent accommodations.

The argument that overregulation is preventing housing construction from being expedited is potentially convincing, but California's housing shortage is definitely not driven by something as specific as leftists hemming and hawing about basic livability regulations, and more by anti-development NIMBYs. Sure, some of them may be liberal hypocrites and you may denounce them as leftists standing in the way. But as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, it's not their leftism that motivates their NIMBYism.

I count restrictive zoning as overregulation. And yeah, it comes from a place of NIMBYism but linking NIMBYism to conservatism is an easy way to avoid self-introspection over this problem. We know who's writing these laws in CA.

[AltWorlder]

I count restrictive zoning as overregulation. And yeah, it comes from a place of NIMBYism but linking NIMBYism to conservatism is an easy way to avoid self-introspection over this problem. We know who's writing these laws in CA.

NIMBYism motivated by "screw you, got mine" isn't very progressive, regardless of the political views espoused by the person who upholds it.

I'm also not sure if there are actual laws or regulations that actually push NIMBYism. Blocking construction or rejecting plans for dense housing are actions that aren't legislative in nature. Or refusing to repeal Prop 13.

[Devout Centrist]

Communal spaces are almost always destroyed through negligence. However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent. Security cameras could also catch angry commies in action if they decided to destroy things for their own sick entertainment.

That's not what worries me. I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of sharing a kitchen or a bathroom with several different families.

Why? Roommates are fun. That seems like a weird critique and certainly not significant enough to warrant policy action.

Socialists think that sharing and cooperation are intrinsic aspects of the human experience-- unless, of course, they're happening inside a capitalist system, in which case they stink.

You're pushing dozens of disparate and desperate families into shared living spaces. Conflict is inevitable!

This is hardly a free choice. As you said, it's either this or the streets.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I count restrictive zoning as overregulation. And yeah, it comes from a place of NIMBYism but linking NIMBYism to conservatism is an easy way to avoid self-introspection over this problem. We know who's writing these laws in CA.

NIMBYism motivated by "screw you, got mine" isn't very progressive, regardless of the political views espoused by the person who upholds it.

I'm also not sure if there are actual laws or regulations that actually push NIMBYism. Blocking construction or rejecting plans for dense housing are actions that aren't legislative in nature. Or refusing to repeal Prop 13.

Zoning itself, not approving development by-right, CEQA, and excessive local control are several clear examples of legislation empowering NIMBYs.

[Estrella]

Communal spaces are almost always destroyed through negligence. However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent. Security cameras could also catch angry commies in action if they decided to destroy things for their own sick entertainment.

That's not what worries me. I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of sharing a kitchen or a bathroom with several different families.

Why? Roommates are fun. That seems like a weird critique and certainly not significant enough to warrant policy action.

It is fun - when you're in college, with a group of people of same age, origin, interests and so on. After that, not really. This sounds like a Victorian lady being confused by why the working classes complain so much about cramped housing; surely it must be charming, romantic even, for a whole family to live in such a close-knit environment?

[John Dule]

I count restrictive zoning as overregulation. And yeah, it comes from a place of NIMBYism but linking NIMBYism to conservatism is an easy way to avoid self-introspection over this problem. We know who's writing these laws in CA.

NIMBYism motivated by "screw you, got mine" isn't very progressive, regardless of the political views espoused by the person who upholds it.

I'm also not sure if there are actual laws or regulations that actually push NIMBYism. Blocking construction or rejecting plans for dense housing are actions that aren't legislative in nature. Or refusing to repeal Prop 13.

The laws that assist the NIMBYs are generally laws that give HOAs a large amount of power to interfere with development projects nearby. I don't think it's possible to define this through a progressive/conservative dichotomy. The people who benefit from such laws range from whites who don't want "undesirables" moving into their neighborhood to minority communities who oppose "gentrification."

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Communal spaces are almost always destroyed through negligence. However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent. Security cameras could also catch angry commies in action if they decided to destroy things for their own sick entertainment.

That's not what worries me. I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of sharing a kitchen or a bathroom with several different families.

Why? Roommates are fun. That seems like a weird critique and certainly not significant enough to warrant policy action.

It is fun - when you're in college, with a group of people of same age, origin, interests and so on. After that, not really. This sounds like a Victorian lady being confused by why the working classes complain so much about cramped housing; surely it must be charming, romantic even, for a whole family to live in such a close-knit environment?

I assume such units would mostly be occupied by 20-somethings trying to break into a city's real-estate market. They may not be ideal, but what's the rationale for making them illegal to build? Nobody wins when you take away choice unnecessarily.

[John Dule]

You're pushing dozens of disparate and desperate families into shared living spaces. Conflict is inevitable!

This is hardly a free choice, either. As you said, it's either this or the streets.

That's what free choice is. You are provided with a set of possible options that are contingent upon your circumstances. You then choose from that set of options. This is true for literally every single choice that humans make. Nobody's forcing you to live anywhere. Go live in a ditch in the woods if you really want to; see if I care.

Regardless, this kind of housing would likely be a first step forward for its tenants as they put their lives back together. Of course, alternatively you could continue to make these sorts of arrangements illegal, thus condemning millions of people to lives without shelter. It's your call.

[John Dule]

Communal spaces are almost always destroyed through negligence. However, a developer who wanted to build such a complex could easily hire some trustworthy tenants to clean the communal spaces in exchange for a halved rent. Security cameras could also catch angry commies in action if they decided to destroy things for their own sick entertainment.

That's not what worries me. I am much more concerned about the psychological effects of sharing a kitchen or a bathroom with several different families.

Why? Roommates are fun. That seems like a weird critique and certainly not significant enough to warrant policy action.

It is fun - when you're in college, with a group of people of same age, origin, interests and so on. After that, not really. This sounds like a Victorian lady being confused by why the working classes complain so much about cramped housing; surely it must be charming, romantic even, for a whole family to live in such a close-knit environment?

Lol, you're the one who's out of touch here-- not us. From your perspective, living in this sort of squalor must be horrible, right? Surely we should make it illegal for landlords to provide people with such Spartan housing! Surely it should be illegal to hire people to do menial, repetitive tasks in factories in East Asia! Good lord, look at these pitiful poors. Their dirty, poverty-stricken lives offend my bourgeoise liberal sensibilities!

In reality, these kinds of jobs and accommodations are a step up for people, which is why they choose them. If factories weren't superior to subsistence farming, nobody would work in factories. Similarly, if living in the gutter was really better than living in the kinds of housing units I described in this thread, people would choose the gutter. But you would begrudge them that choice, thus denying them the opportunity to improve their lives in even the most miniscule way. Oh, the soft cruelty of left-wing "empathy." It's the number one cause of misery in the western world.

[Ferguson97]

Leftists destroyed this country's housing market with habitability warranties, zoning laws, rent control, and high taxes. Now they're acting as though the free market caused the housing shortage that came about as a direct result of their inept mismanagement.

I find your first paragraph to be unsympathetic, but I agree with you here. Rent control and overzealous zoning laws are to blame for where we are.

NIMBY-ism is a bipartisan belief, unfortunately. And YIMBY-ism is a suicidal political stance to take.

We need massive reform now.

BUILD MORE HOUSING.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Leftists destroyed this country's housing market with habitability warranties, zoning laws, rent control, and high taxes. Now they're acting as though the free market caused the housing shortage that came about as a direct result of their inept mismanagement.

I find your first paragraph to be unsympathetic, but I agree with you here. Rent control and overzealous zoning laws are to blame for where we are.

NIMBY-ism is a bipartisan belief, unfortunately. And YIMBY-ism is a suicidal political stance to take.

We need massive reform now.

BUILD MORE HOUSING.

Yep, this is an easily solvable problem through aggressive growth. We're choosing not to have enough homes.

As a concession to the left, rent control in a portion of these apartments will likely need to be instituted. But building more is the only way out of a housing crisis, and the current anti-landlord fixation of the authoritarian left is going to result in fewer homes, not more.

[PSOL]

Leftists destroyed this country's housing market with habitability warranties, zoning laws, rent control, and high taxes. Now they're acting as though the free market caused the housing shortage that came about as a direct result of their inept mismanagement.

I find your first paragraph to be unsympathetic, but I agree with you here. Rent control and overzealous zoning laws are to blame for where we are.

NIMBY-ism is a bipartisan belief, unfortunately. And YIMBY-ism is a suicidal political stance to take.

We need massive reform now.

BUILD MORE HOUSING.

Yep, this is an easily solvable problem through aggressive growth. We're choosing not to have enough homes.

As a concession to the left, rent control in a portion of these apartments will likely need to be instituted. But building more is the only way out of a housing crisis, and the current anti-landlord fixation of the authoritarian left is going to result in fewer homes, not more.

I did not know the Authoritarian left was so broad to include social democrats and anarchists.