Oh I am going to build on it, and yes I am an asshole, fully admitted. It has a building envelope. Didn’t say the entire thing was on an easement.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Printable View
Oh I am going to build on it, and yes I am an asshole, fully admitted. It has a building envelope. Didn’t say the entire thing was on an easement.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I’m curious what floor altasnob lives on. To be this smug about housing density I’m guessing somewhere between the 175th and 200th floors.
I live in a house in a neighborhood I wouldn't consider dense by international standards. But it is dense by US and TGR standards. I have bars, restaurants, weed stores, and a bus line one block away. 20 minute walk downtown to my favorite music venues. There is a 40 unit apartment building permitted just down the street that for whatever reason, hasn't broken ground yet. Demoing two houses to build 40 units with 19 parking spots. My friend who lives directly across from that is not thrilled but I tell him what did he expect when he moved this close to the action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry
Harry, you should put that island into a conservation easement and get some tax breaks.
same here ^^ except DT is 2 blocks, tennant in the basement pays all the billsQuote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
also suites above stores on main street so they get a tax break from the town for building a suite, i think it is 5 years tax relief for building a suite and then of course they get the rent
there is still not near enough rental housing
all makes for a more liveable DT
One would think you wouldn’t be such a cunt, but here we are.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
I bet I could get Musk on board…Quote:
Originally Posted by XXX-er
Do we start with the CV? I'm pretty involved with this on a local level in that people actually have elected me. I show up to the meetings prepared wearing Dickies, Flylow or Tobe depending on the day and shoot holes in the logic of the Karen's, Developer's and fellow Politicians.
"affordable", "attainable", "work force", "deed restricted" and so on all sound great. I encourage all ya'll to look at who's paying and who's benefiting before you jump on board.
Firstly, capital appreciation without downside risk isn't a housing benefit. It's a tax advantaged leveraged savings account.
Secondly, the idea that the work and/or income situation that was originally used for qualification is not a requirement for continued residence is insane. Audit the existing projects and see who lives there. Make that request in a public meeting and watch people come unglued.
Look at municipalities playing developer. They are the worst. The Town of Winter Park can't even make there affordable housing affordable. Its just become this machine where it it just rolls on at any expense such that Team Chardonnay can keep cashing checks.
Pay more. Encourage commuting from down valley. Let for profit business fail. Incentivize density and lower cost building.
Don't hold up Aspen as a great example of what every mountain town should be. It's great that it's working out for some but fuck me if the only way you can make it with out pulling down $200k is to live in subsidized housing.
This problem is nationwide and it sucks. Until we start the conversation around what is a living wage job and what is a reasonable expectation around what that may get you we are just gonna perpetuate the income and wealth divide. Everybody talks a big game until the spot light shines on them. It's always somebody else's checkbook that need to take the pain.
Inform yourself. Vote. Go to the meetings when you can. Submit comment when you can't (because they are probably scheduled when you are working). Don't stop. Don't be ignored.
Aspen subsidizes people making up to $307,650 for a six person household. One way Aspen pays for this subsidy is a .45% sales tax. Sales taxes are regressive as the poor pay disproportionately more than the rich. So if you are poor, and aren't one of the lucky lotto winners, you are really screwed. This sales tax also incentivizes people to drive out of the county to do their shopping.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
Aspen also funds this subsidy with a 1.5% Real Estate Transfer Tax. This tax drives up overall free-market housing costs. So again, if you are poor and don't win the lotto, you are even more screwed. It also disincentivizes selling your house, so people are more likely to just stay put than sell. And if forces newcomers to disproportionately pay for the affordable housing, even though long time locals benefit from the program as well (that is probably by design).
Alpinevibes, I was wrong about one thing, I thought only uber-liberal, la la land Aspen could subsidize people making way more than the median income. Well, looks like Seattle will pass their Social Housing initiative. It's a little confusing how this program is going to play out but basically, there is a quasi-government entity created who will build, or buy existing housing and reserve a portion of that housing for low income. The program will subsidize people making up to 120% of the area median income (currently $144,000 for a family of four). The idea is the profits from the units paying market rent will allow the lower income units to be subsidized. The proponents think they can do all this without public funds. I have serious doubts about that, mainly because I have little faith in the bureaucratic quagmire that is City of Seattle.
I am not as against public housing in Seattle as in a place like Aspen because I think people should live in places like Seattle and not Aspen. It will be interesting to see how this social housing program plays out but I envision it will make free-market housing and cost of living in Seattle more expensive than everywhere else in the region (because I believe this subsidized housing will have to be funded by City of Seattle tax dollars, driving up the cost of living in Seattle). The latest demographic trends show people fleeing Seattle for the surrounding metro areas, and this will be exasperated. Public schools are closing in Seattle where as they are booming in places like Tacoma, which is cheap by comparison.
Hold on. Just to be clear, you're saying that if someone bought a deed restricted property when they were making $70K 4 years ago, and they get a raise to $140K, and that would be too much for their deed restriction, they have to sell their place? Even though they probably can't afford anything open market with the new salary? Or else not take the promotion? That doesn't seem ideal eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
I'm actually against subsidized "home ownership" as I've seen it presented. Subsidized housing should be rentals.
There are arguments that housing should be considered infrastructure like roads, schools and so on.
if people makes $140k get to stay in their subsidized house, others making $140k should have to pay for it. As mentioned, audit the existing stock. It's fuckin' gamed for no benefit.
What might make sense in Jackson, Aspen and Vail etc. only makes sense because you are taxing the 1%.
There is this think called a Down Valley Market Rate Apartment Building which, in my community, is the only thing that should be broadly subsidized.
Fuck your up valley 3/3 with granite and a garage. I don't think the "missing middle" should pay for that.
But hey, I'm just another fortunate Mid Valley Townie that charges market rate for my services to be able to afford my house.
Sent from my SM-G990U using Tapatalk
Not sure I agree with everything Foggy wrote, but this one is certainly true. Just like it is when we talk about homelessness, and folks complain about how their local govts are mishandling it, when the reality is no local govt can solve the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Foggy_Goggles
It should not be that hard to address these problems, as lots of other countries are doing a good job making sure a living wage is paid and there is housing for all (rentals) that are subsidized for lower incomes. The problem is the people that are homeless that want to remain homeless (my freedoms biatches). They are obviously out of their minds, so do we finally round them up and send them to a facility somewhere? Looking at the billions and trillions spent by the gubermunt, we should be able to get this done.
That's like saying "it should not be that hard to address our health care problems, lots of other countries are doing a good job providing quality health care to their residents."Quote:
Originally Posted by liv2ski
O right, fuckin Murica....:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
My overly simplistic and reactionary opinion is that our homelessness, crime, and other poverty driven ills are driven by our draconian use of property taxes as the main driver of education funding.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
Are you saying that we need to increase funding levels on education, and property taxes keep us from doing that?Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
I’m saying using property taxes to fund school districts is fuct. It’s unequal and leads to the shitty outcomes we see in poor rural and urban areas.
I can't speak for other areas but where I live, the legislators have historically lacked the balls to spend general fund money on education so the voters only ability to take actions is independent levies. Levies that are funded by property taxes. Sure, it's on us who vote for asshole legislators in the first place.
However property taxes are a stable source of tax revenue which benefits education. When property taxes are lowered and/or fixed ala prop 13, the revenue then has to come from other (unstable) sources such as sales taxes, user fees, lotteries, etc which can lead to boom and bust cycles.
Yeah, thing is, its the parents and culture that make a school district good or bad. Teacher pay, facilities, etc, as long as they are halfway decent dont really matter. And yes i realize certain areas have legit crumbling schools that dont meet basic needs. But im talking about the 90% of schools on the bell-curve who all have passable facilities, and passable staff. When you have well off parents who help with schoolwork, instill academics as a priority, and model good behavior and life skills you get high performing schools. IMO the teachers arent any better at those schools, they just get kids that are easier to teach.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
Poor and rural areas generally have parents that prioritize academics less, and model worse behavior for their kids than schools in wealthier and sub/urban areas. Poverty/substance addiction/abuse are cyclical for many of the same reasons that wealth and success also appear cyclical. Its modeled behavior and experiences passed from the older generation to the younger in a particular social circle.
You think you’re arguing against me when you’re really making my point.
It’s an endless cycle of poverty because the system never changes. Wealth begets wealth, poverty begets poverty. It all starts with kids having a level playing field. I’m not so naive to know that if the funding changed it would take a couple generations to make an impact.
But yeah, the thing is, people like you would rather look down on others than make any changes.
I dont think school funding is the answer here. At least not in the traditional sense. I think we would see far greater benefit from funding immersive and extended afterschool programs and the like to provide a substitute for a stable home environment that prioritizes and models good behavior. programs that go from 3pm-8pm, not 3pm-5pm. The current school situation isnt causing the cycle of poverty/addiction/abuse, its the other 17 hours of the day where the kids are learning it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
That’s a pretty fantastic idea.
I think you’re being a little myopic on the school environment in poor areas though. Those schools are pretty chaotic day to day. A chaotic school environment will definitely lead to the apathy, exhaustion, and unwillingness to be there to learn.
Well thats quite the projection. Youre the one playing up a holier than thou attitude here.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee