A different approach

[Ritterskoop]

I’d like to try something new here. Let’s see if we can discuss policy without it being about personality or party. Each of us chooses one topic, to say what we think is an important social, economic, or foreign policy for the next generation to think about and to make better. It’s not a contest, but a common striving of how we would like to make things better.

I’ll start with housing. I don’t think it’s a right to own a home, and whoever has sold that to us these past several generations has made some problems. I’ve appreciated seeing some multi family living situations return during the pandemic. I grant that city living and country living are different animals, with different challenges.

I wish that incomes were such that a family with two incomes of a police officer and a teacher (or any two public servants) with two kids could afford to own an home if they wanted to.

To pay for this program, or any program, I would start by closing a tenth of our military bases in foreign countries where we were not invited, and use the savings to pay for domestic programs such as this housing thing. I would not dismiss the service members from the military, but use them to build roads and schools and bridges, and to provide security for public schools.

That’s my topic. I look forward to yours.

[flockofseagulls104]

I’d like to try something new here. Let’s see if we can discuss policy without it being about personality or party. Each of us chooses one topic, to say what we think is an important social, economic, or foreign policy for the next generation to think about and to make better. It’s not a contest, but a common striving of how we would like to make things better.

I’ll start with housing. I don’t think it’s a right to own a home, and whoever has sold that to us these past several generations has made some problems. I’ve appreciated seeing some multi family living situations return during the pandemic. I grant that city living and country living are different animals, with different challenges.

I wish that incomes were such that a family with two incomes of a police officer and a teacher (or any two public servants) with two kids could afford to own an home if they wanted to.

To pay for this program, or any program, I would start by closing a tenth of our military bases in foreign countries where we were not invited, and use the savings to pay for domestic programs such as this housing thing. I would not dismiss the service members from the military, but use them to build roads and schools and bridges, and to provide security for public schools.

That’s my topic. I look forward to yours.

Skoop, your mindset is incorrect.
Get the federal government out of it. The Constitution allows the federal government to have the military to protect the country from enemies abroad. That is their one and only job. It does not give the federal government any role in setting prices or meddling in housing. Let the market handle it. The federal government causes more problems when they try and fix anything. And the problems they try to fix are more than likely problems they caused.

[kroxquo]

I’d like to try something new here. Let’s see if we can discuss policy without it being about personality or party. Each of us chooses one topic, to say what we think is an important social, economic, or foreign policy for the next generation to think about and to make better. It’s not a contest, but a common striving of how we would like to make things better.

I’ll start with housing. I don’t think it’s a right to own a home, and whoever has sold that to us these past several generations has made some problems. I’ve appreciated seeing some multi family living situations return during the pandemic. I grant that city living and country living are different animals, with different challenges.

I wish that incomes were such that a family with two incomes of a police officer and a teacher (or any two public servants) with two kids could afford to own an home if they wanted to.

To pay for this program, or any program, I would start by closing a tenth of our military bases in foreign countries where we were not invited, and use the savings to pay for domestic programs such as this housing thing. I would not dismiss the service members from the military, but use them to build roads and schools and bridges, and to provide security for public schools.

That’s my topic. I look forward to yours.

Skoop, your mindset is incorrect.
Get the federal government out of it. The Constitution allows the federal government to have the military to protect the country from enemies abroad. That is their one and only job. It does not give the federal government any role in setting prices or meddling in housing. Let the market handle it. The federal government causes more problems when they try and fix anything. And the problems they try to fix are more than likely problems they caused.

I like this idea, Skoop.

The Constitution authorizes the federal government to "promote the general welfare" and while I'll agree with Skoop that owning a home is not a right, housing is a basic human right. There are many areas that the free market is inadequate simply because there is no profit to it - road (and infrastructure generally) construction, education, nature conservation, et al. If the free market could address the problem of unhoused people in this country, I think it would have happened by now. And if the market cannot address the issue it becomes incumbent on the government to live up to its responsibility of protecting the basic unalienable rights of its citizens.

[Beebs52]

The housing thing. I agree it is not a right to own a home. With that, there are many reasons why a home is unaffordable. Obviously if it's out of your price range or none available in a particular community. Solution, move if you have means.

If you have limited means, why? Explore existing programs to get a better job, better interest rate, etc., increase your knowledge base via education, for which many programs are available.

Basic humanitarianism requires us to help others when we can, caveat being, we all choose our donees. I don't necessarily want my tax dollars funding poorly managed, ill run concerns, with managers of those funds raking in profits. It happens.

The "gummint" can shepherd private orgs, entities et al to reasonably come up with solutions, but not fund them. That requires leadershup.

However, once you insert federal sorts in things it usually goes to hell.

That's it for now.

Oh, " Skoop, your mindset is incorrect."

Flock, keep to the subject(s), not the poster.

[flockofseagulls104]

The housing thing. I agree it is not a right to own a home. With that, there are many reasons why a home is unaffordable. Obviously if it's out of your price range or none available in a particular community. Solution, move if you have means.

If you have limited means, why? Explore existing programs to get a better job, better interest rate, etc., increase your knowledge base via education, for which many programs are available.

Basic humanitarianism requires us to help others when we can, caveat being, we all choose our donees. I don't necessarily want my tax dollars funding poorly managed, ill run concerns, with managers of those funds raking in profits. It happens.

The "gummint" can shepherd private orgs, entities et al to reasonably come up with solutions, but not fund them. That requires leadershup.

However, once you insert federal sorts in things it usually goes to hell.

That's it for now.

Oh, " Skoop, your mindset is incorrect."

Flock, keep to the subject(s), not the poster.

Sorry, but it's very frustrating. Why do people have the mindset that the federal government is supposed to fix everything? Why is that the FIRST option on their minds?

The federal government, even if you do consider them to help fix the problem, is a very poor choice. The situations in every community vary. To try and create a one size fits all policy might be somewhat successful in one area but completely devestating in others. Like trying to dictate a national minimum wage.
If you had started out with addressing it at the state, city or county level, I might be able to agree with you in principle. But to tie a solution to the US Military is an extraordinary example of federal government overreach. This is why we are in the state we're in, with thousands of redundant and unnecessary federal departments, commissions and empires that conflict and compete with one another, all on the dime of the taxpayer. In other words : THE SWAMP.

[Beebs52]

The housing thing. I agree it is not a right to own a home. With that, there are many reasons why a home is unaffordable. Obviously if it's out of your price range or none available in a particular community. Solution, move if you have means.

If you have limited means, why? Explore existing programs to get a better job, better interest rate, etc., increase your knowledge base via education, for which many programs are available.

Basic humanitarianism requires us to help others when we can, caveat being, we all choose our donees. I don't necessarily want my tax dollars funding poorly managed, ill run concerns, with managers of those funds raking in profits. It happens.

The "gummint" can shepherd private orgs, entities et al to reasonably come up with solutions, but not fund them. That requires leadershup.

However, once you insert federal sorts in things it usually goes to hell.

That's it for now.

Oh, " Skoop, your mindset is incorrect."

Flock, keep to the subject(s), not the poster.

Sorry, but it's very frustrating. Why do people have the mindset that the federal government is supposed to fix everything? Why is that the FIRST option on their minds?

The federal government, even if you do consider them to help fix the problem, is a very poor choice. The situations in every community vary. To try and create a one size fits all policy might be somewhat successful in one area but completely devestating in others. Like trying to dictate a national minimum wage.
If you had started out with addressing it at the state, city or county level, I might be able to agree with you in principle. But to tie a solution to the US Military is an extraordinary example of federal government overreach. This is why we are in the state we're in, with thousands of redundant and unnecessary federal departments, commissions and empires that conflict and compete with one another, all on the dime of the taxpayer. In other words : THE SWAMP.

Dude, I agree with what you're saying, but I actually didn't get that far in my post.
I just said stop accusing folks of having a "wrong" mindset. We're discussing issues, not posters. Many think you and I have the "wrong" mindset, and we know how well those discussions go. That was all. Couch ideas clinically? I dunno. I'm trying.

[Bob78164]

I’d like to try something new here. Let’s see if we can discuss policy without it being about personality or party. Each of us chooses one topic, to say what we think is an important social, economic, or foreign policy for the next generation to think about and to make better. It’s not a contest, but a common striving of how we would like to make things better.

I’ll start with housing. I don’t think it’s a right to own a home, and whoever has sold that to us these past several generations has made some problems. I’ve appreciated seeing some multi family living situations return during the pandemic. I grant that city living and country living are different animals, with different challenges.

I wish that incomes were such that a family with two incomes of a police officer and a teacher (or any two public servants) with two kids could afford to own an home if they wanted to.

To pay for this program, or any program, I would start by closing a tenth of our military bases in foreign countries where we were not invited, and use the savings to pay for domestic programs such as this housing thing. I would not dismiss the service members from the military, but use them to build roads and schools and bridges, and to provide security for public schools.

That’s my topic. I look forward to yours.

I think the fundamental problem with housing is on the supply side. There simply aren't enough houses, largely due to local control of zoning being used to restrict construction. (This problem is particularly bad in California.) So I view providing additional money to would-be homeowners as a stop-gap that risks increasing prices without solving the problem. I'll be very interested in solutions that actually increase the supply of housing stock. --Bob

[Ritterskoop]

Agreed. We need to find ways to make building housing more worthwhile for those who do the building.

[Bob78164]

Agreed. We need to find ways to make building housing more worthwhile for those who do the building.

It's a difficult problem because very often the barrier is local zoning regulations that have the effect (sometimes intended, sometimes not) of making construction quite difficult and expensive. There are ways to deal with this, but it will often require state preemption of local regulations, which we're starting to see here in California.

The federal government can use its spending power to encourage states to exercise their preemption powers (much the same way the federal government used its spending power to encourage states to raise their drinking age to 21).

Something that has surprised me as I've delved into this issue is the breadth of this problem. I knew the cost of housing had become a crisis in many urban areas. I did not realize that it is also (at a minimum) a serious problem in many rural areas. Given the breadth of the problem, there should be a deal to be had. --Bob

[Ritterskoop]

I'm encouraged by our city's having passed a law making it easier to put tiny homes in your backyard, or to add an apartment to he existing structure, or to build four smaller units on a lot.

If young adults can stay on their parents' property but not in the same house, or if the mother-in-law unit over the garage is making a comeback, maybe that will help a little.

I think we are also toying with buying old motels and converting them into housing for folks with very low income, but I'm not sure how far along that project is. Maybe only one building so far, but that might be 30 units or so.

[SportsFan68]

I think we are also toying with buying old motels and converting them into housing for folks with very low income, but I'm not sure how far along that project is. Maybe only one building so far, but that might be 30 units or so.

That's exactly what we're doing here, Skoop. One Holiday Inn has been completely converted, and a former Best Western is under construction. Also, two mobile home parks have been purchased by the residents. Single family houses in residential neighborhoods are still insanely expensive (I couldn't afford the house I'm living in), but we're making steps.