Government Program Dishonesty

[Revoltingest]

I ran across something in the local paper today at my dentist's office.
Some years ago, my town loosened local laws to allow "accessory apartments".
This was to help alleviate a housing shortage which is leading to pretty high
home prices & rents. There was a lot of demand for this because the cost
per sq ft for such units is much lower than new construction.
It turns out that the "loosened" laws are still so restrictive that no one has
been able to do it yet. Now, some might think....those damnable Republicans!
No, we don't have any. All Democrats & one independent last time I checked.

It reminds me of the HARP program for assisting homeowners with troubled
loans. A friend applied, but it turned out that having one late payment was
a disqualifier.

What is the point of having a program which excludes everyone?
I have an answer to the first program.
I don't for the 2nd one.
I'll let others weigh in first.

 

[Stevicus]

I ran across something in the local paper today at my dentist's office.
Some years ago, my town loosened local laws to allow "accessory apartments".
This was to help alleviate a housing shortage which is leading to pretty high
home prices & rents. There was a lot of demand for this because the cost
per sq ft for such units is much lower than new construction.
It turns out that the "loosened" laws are still so restrictive that no one has
been able to do it yet. Now, some might think....those damnable Republicans!
No, we don't have any. All Democrats & one independent last time I checked.

It reminds me of the HARP program for assisting homeowners with troubled
loans. A friend applied, but it turned out that having one late payment was
a disqualifier.

What is the point of having a program which excludes everyone?
I have an answer to the first program.
I don't for the 2nd one.
I'll let others weigh in first.

Not sure how it works in your state, but in my state, local governments have very little power or autonomy. They're essentially vassals of the state government which rules the roost (and controls most of the money).

And I see that your state legislature has a Republican majority. Are there state laws which might conflict with or supersede the local laws you're referring to?

How much public input was there? I can't imagine that very many of the common people would come up with this idea on their own. It seems like it was the work of lawyers, and lawyers work for big business, not for the common people. Politicians do the bidding of lobbyists, who also represent big business, not the common people.

So, when you say "government program dishonesty," isn't it really capitalist dishonesty, since they control the government and the politicians? Who else would come up with something like this? Not the Average Joe, so who else is there?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I ran across something in the local paper today at my dentist's office.
Some years ago, my town loosened local laws to allow "accessory apartments".
This was to help alleviate a housing shortage which is leading to pretty high
home prices & rents. There was a lot of demand for this because the cost
per sq ft for such units is much lower than new construction.
It turns out that the "loosened" laws are still so restrictive that no one has
been able to do it yet. Now, some might think....those damnable Republicans!
No, we don't have any. All Democrats & one independent last time I checked.

It reminds me of the HARP program for assisting homeowners with troubled
loans. A friend applied, but it turned out that having one late payment was
a disqualifier.

What is the point of having a program which excludes everyone?
I have an answer to the first program.
I don't for the 2nd one.
I'll let others weigh in first.

What else would it be there for? It's solely so the Socialists can congratulate themselves and Pat themselves on the back by telling people what they've done in order to garner votes and intentionally structured so that nobody can really benefit except of course for themselves through increased revenue from property taxes that comes as a result.

 

[Jumi]

What else would it be there for? It's solely so the Socialists can congratulate themselves and Pat themselves on the back by telling people what they've done in order to garner votes and intentionally structured so that nobody can really benefit except of course for themselves through increased revenue from property taxes that comes as a result.

Socialists? Doesn't sound like you even have socialists there...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You could always just relocate Revoltigestan, and then be annoyingly (or revoltingly, in your case) happy to be where you are while everybody around you complains (more or less, pretty much like everybody complained to be in Indiana). Or just go to a place like Montana or Wyoming and make Revoltingestan it's own sovereign nation.
Don't have any suggestions for zoning and housing laws.

What else would it be there for? It's solely so the Socialists can congratulate themselves and Pat themselves on the back by telling people what they've done in order to garner votes and intentionally structured so that nobody can really benefit except of course for themselves through increased revenue from property taxes that comes as a result.

People benefit, but it's banks, investors, and anyone but real estate agents and managers, and tenants certainly don't benefit either. If prices are capped for medicine or housing, ultimately those hurt the most are patients and residents while bank and medical facility executives still rake in cash.
It's another issue that it really doesn't matter who is in office, Rep or Dem, no one is addressing it or trying to fix it or point out how it hurts and benefits the wrong people. They might point out each other's, but of course their own **** doesn't stink.

 

[Stevicus]

Socialists? Doesn't sound like you even have socialists there...

There are some. I don't think there are that many truly radical socialists in the US. I think most people who are labeled as "socialist" actually tend to support a mixed economy (which is what we already have), not the kind of total government ownership of the kind associated with Marxist-Leninist states.

"Socialist" is a pretty broad term which can mean just about anything these days when bandied about in the standard political narratives.

 

[Father Heathen]

Socialists? Doesn't sound like you even have socialists there...

He just uses the term as a slur to refer to anything that he doesn't like.

 

[tytlyf]

He just uses the term as a slur to refer to anything that he doesn't like.

Their media has them trained well. They're oblivious to the propaganda.

 

[tytlyf]

I ran across something in the local paper today at my dentist's office.
Some years ago, my town loosened local laws to allow "accessory apartments".
This was to help alleviate a housing shortage which is leading to pretty high
home prices & rents. There was a lot of demand for this because the cost
per sq ft for such units is much lower than new construction.
It turns out that the "loosened" laws are still so restrictive that no one has
been able to do it yet. Now, some might think....those damnable Republicans!
No, we don't have any. All Democrats & one independent last time I checked.

It reminds me of the HARP program for assisting homeowners with troubled
loans. A friend applied, but it turned out that having one late payment was
a disqualifier.

What is the point of having a program which excludes everyone?
I have an answer to the first program.
I don't for the 2nd one.
I'll let others weigh in first.

Accessory apartments are dwellings on an owners property (guest house) or a room in the owners home. Accessory apartments are made legal mostly because people are doing it illegally anyways

accessory apartment
noun, US
Definition of accessory apartment


: a rental unit that is located on the lot of or within a single-family owner-occupied home

"In 1991, the town moved away from an almost exclusive reliance on single-family homes and passed a law that began a process of legalizing some of Huntington's thousands of illegal accessory apartments.— Newsday, 14 Sept. 2010"

 

[Revoltingest]

Not sure how it works in your state, but in my state, local governments have very little power or autonomy. They're essentially vassals of the state government which rules the roost (and controls most of the money).

And I see that your state legislature has a Republican majority. Are there state laws which might conflict with or supersede the local laws you're referring to?

How much public input was there? I can't imagine that very many of the common people would come up with this idea on their own. It seems like it was the work of lawyers, and lawyers work for big business, not for the common people. Politicians do the bidding of lobbyists, who also represent big business, not the common people.

So, when you say "government program dishonesty," isn't it really capitalist dishonesty, since they control the government and the politicians? Who else would come up with something like this? Not the Average Joe, so who else is there?

Our town exercises great control thru zoning laws & the housing code (which is
entirely city controlled). The state is not the problem here. Moreover, the state
has had to step in at times to rein in city over-reaching in their restrictions.
On lobbyists...
It's a very liberal town, with students (even out-of state) at at a very liberal
university getting a vote. This is where the power lies.
It appears that their view on affordable housing is that it be driven solely by
government programs (as opposed to market solutions), eg, gov assistance,
gov owned housing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Accessory apartments are made legal mostly because people are doing it illegally anyways

This is entirely untrue.
We have a culture of neighbor snitching on neighbor.
No one can erect an addition without going thru the
formal permit process. I've owned, managed, &
remodeled many properties here, & have never
seen an addition constructed without city scrutiny.

 

[Revoltingest]

What else would it be there for? It's solely so the Socialists can congratulate themselves and Pat themselves on the back by telling people what they've done in order to garner votes and intentionally structured so that nobody can really benefit except of course for themselves through increased revenue from property taxes that comes as a result.

Aye, it's largely PR.
But it's more complicated.

Incentive to allow additions....
The city can greatly increasing property taxes, not only for the added value, but also
because the state restriction on yearly increases (Hedley Amendment) is removed.

The disincentive....
NIMBY (not in my back yard), ie, neighbors don't want to see another neighbor
increase housing density. One might think that liberals would want higher density
for environmental & public transportation reasons....But for many, this is only if the
increased occupancy is near someone else's home.

Note:
I'm more progressive. I never oppose any neighbor's zoning variance
or permit application for increased housing density. It's good for society.

 

[tytlyf]

This is entirely untrue.
We have a culture of neighbor snitching on neighbor.
No one can erect an addition without going thru the
formal permit process. I've owned, managed, &
remodeled many properties here, & have never
seen an addition constructed without city scrutiny.

Take up your issue with the dictionary. Or you could share a source for all to see.

 

[Revoltingest]

Socialists? Doesn't sound like you even have socialists there...

We have a few, but fortunately they haven't emerged
in numbers large enuf to destroy capitalism...yet.
Btw....
I wouldn't lump Bernie Sanders in with real socialists.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now, lest any of my liberal friends become offended at my naming
only Democrat controlled dishonest programs, I have a treat for you....
I also notice many Republican led efforts to make legal abortions
far less accessible with unreasonable regulatory restrictions upon
providers, eg, buildings, admitting privileges, funding.

Dishonest programs are a bi-partisan problem.

 

[Revoltingest]

Take up your issue with the dictionary. Or you could share a source for all to see.

Bless your heart.

 

[tytlyf]

Bless your heart.

Share a source. Or you're intentionally leaving it out to be able to skew your agenda.

No one knows what you're talking about. I supplied the definition of the term 'accessory apartment.' You didn't like the definition. So here we are, you without sourcing and me using the dictionary.

Wealthy people don't typically rent out a guest house or rent a room on their property.

 

[Revoltingest]

Share a source. Or you're intentionally leaving it out to be able to skew your agenda.

No one knows what you're talking about. I supplied the definition of the term 'accessory apartment.' You didn't like the definition. So here we are, you without sourcing and me using the dictionary.

Wealthy people don't typically rent out a guest house or rent a room on their property.

You sure complain a lot.

 

[tytlyf]

You sure complain a lot.

I didn't create this complaint thread with no information.

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't create this complaint thread with no information.

The problem is that you've a tendency to bicker about peripheral things.
That doesn't interest me.