dismissing information based on mediabiasfactcheck
Dismissing information based on it coming from a badly biased source is smart. If the information is solid, then there will be other, credible sources that cover it, without the bias. The problem with taking information from a deeply biased source is that you have to try and fact check every single claim that they make in an article, because they’re inherently untrustworthy. If you want to waste your time tracking down sources to try and verify things, rather than just finding good sources to start, well, that’s a you problem.
a number of Democrats tried to boost far-right Republican candidates whom they deemed easier to beat in November.
The strategy seems to have paid off: In high-profile races where Democratic candidates or groups successfully used the strategy during the primaries, all of the Republicans they helped have either lost or are trailing, two days after Election Day.
Yeah but then they stabbed him in the back because they were scared he would do well (which he probably would) and they are just as scared of the system actually being shaken up
A perfect example of short term thinking that plagues US politics. Democrats boosted popularity of the far right to win a primary. This directly contributed to the republicans party sliding further into MAGA territory. Now, dems are looking at a wipe out by Trump in the coming election. This continues the great tradition of liberals ushering in fascism.
These do help though. They’re great for student housing for example. Here in Albuquerque there is a long tradition of casitas that is thankfully being expanded through relaxed zoning. It provides a relatively quick way to increase density in areas built up with SFH without facing much nimby pushback. Housing prices are detached from supply/demand somewhat but not entirely, increase supply enough and prices drop.
Mass produced shipping container housing might not be a bad idea though if governments can fund it. As long as they have consistent design requirements factored in (electricity, water, and sewage hookups), a place to set up that hasn’t been NIMBY’d, and offered free to the people, I’d be all for it.
Let’s end the housing crisis. Let’s end homelessness. It isn’t impossible.
I live in an an area with a lot of empty houses. A lot of those houses are not fit for human habitation. Someone dies, the house gets tied up in probate, the kids don’t want to live in the area–nor do most other people–and so the house that was already in disrepair degrades more. And, TBH, moving homeless people to rural areas that have a lot of abandoned homes would make it harder for them to access social services.
Yeah, we have the houses. Just not where the homeless people are.
Do you not know that there is enough housing already? The issue is that housing is an investment object, and giving the people homes isn’t profitable. So a lot of housing goes unused to keep prices high and the investment profitable
The problem with housing is not the cost of the house itself, is the zoning laws that limits the amount of housing that can be built close to workplaces and where people wants to live. Just let construction companies built residential buildings, duplexes and other denser housing that single family detached houses and prices are going to go down.
People generally want that suburban ideal, of a four bedroom house, two car garage, a front and backyard… Zoning would be needed to require housing to be denser, rather than allowing sprawl.
Private contractors also prefer building single family homes because they get paid way more to do 50 individual houses than put up an apartment that houses 50.
We aren’t here because people are stupid. We are here because this is where all the incentives align.
Sure, absolutely. That’s also why you see “luxury” developments popping up everywhere; they can make cosmetically nicer houses that have a higher profit margin, while not spending significantly more than a more modest house.
But, again, this is why you need zoning to restrict sprawl.
No, the problem with housing is that it is a financialized commodity that is engineered to go up in price faster than wages because it’s an investment. Not just for individuals, but for real estate companies and banks that gamble with the loans. Zoning laws are a symptom of this, but even if you basically get rid of them (as happens in various places in Texas), the same trend applies.
Those construction companies (really, real estate companies) all get big loans to build those apartments and they do so with an expectation of per-unit profits, often with unrealistic targets unless property values increase even more, and often targeting richer people. When they fail to rent enough at that price point, rather than decreasing rents (which would spook their lenders), they just leave units vacant until they can hit that price point. There are half-empty “luxury apartment” buildings dotting every major city due to this.
The most anyone can point to for the impact of zoning is that prices to rent tend to go up slightly slower.
Your local government is also likely funded by property taxes that are pegged to property values, which is why they never do anything sufficient to handle this issue.
Countries without FPTP aren’t exempt from any of this problem. Australia and Japan for example use different voting systems, and far-right governments and parties are and have been on the rise there also.
You don’t have to steel it. It’s a virtual picture. You can download it and share it with everyone, as often as you like, whenever you want. There’s no cost attached in sharing data other than hardware and energy
lemmy.ml
Oldest