Jump to content

Ketchum considering tent city for workers amid 'crushing inequality,' scarce affordable housing


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

What in the actual fuck? Nurses? I cannot imagine living in a tent with my job.

 

Yes but someone's view of the mountain might be marginally affected or they might have a shadow on their window for an hour if you built an apartment building and that's literally communo-fascism (but making someone pay $200k in permits and approvals to put a $10k gazebo in their backyard is capitalism!). Nothing we can do about that sadly. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In particular, he blames Idaho House Bill 216, a piece of legislation signed into law in 2017 that stripped municipalities of their authority to regulate short-term rentals like AirBnBs or VRBOs. Homeowners and investors who realized they could charge visitors hundreds of dollars per night for a property as a short-term rental swiftly moved to get rid of longer-term tenants."

 

@Jason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

Eat the rich

Quote

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a wealthy man well nursed, is a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragoust.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's currently a renewed battle on Long Island about a bridge from Connecticut to LI which would be incredibly important and the highway to connect said bridge to major arteries was already built decades ago. Why didn't it go ahead? Because the rich on the north shore of Long Island are so fucking rich and influential, they have decreed that a bridge would ruin their backyards and views.

 

So yes, eat the rich and then puke them up and burn whatever came up. 

 

And...a fucking TENT CITY for the peasants keeping you alive. Wow. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

Actually, instead maybe they should have their empty units taxed heavily if it's unoccupied. Not sure if they'd rather be eaten or taxed, but go with whichever one they like the least.

 

No, Vancouver tried a vacancy tax and it did jack shit for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Bloodporne said:

There's currently a renewed battle on Long Island about a bridge from Connecticut to LI which would be incredibly important and the highway to connect said bridge to major arteries was already built decades ago. Why didn't it go ahead? Because the rich on the north shore of Long Island are so fucking rich and influential, they have decreed that a bridge would ruin their backyards and views.

 

So yes, eat the rich and then puke them up and burn whatever came up. 

 

And...a fucking TENT CITY for the peasants keeping you alive. Wow. 


Is that the Rye-Oyster Bay bridge? It keeps popping up every 10 years or so. They even talked about a tunnel that goes under those towns instead of through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

No, Vancouver tried a vacancy tax and it did jack shit for them. 

 

I think it did a little, but so little as to be pointless (compared to the main issue, which is overall lack of housing). Some places, like Vancouver, will always have too-high prices in the most desirable area simply due to lack of land (being surrounded on three sides by ocean, for the peninsula). The real solution to all of this is massive government housing investments. But no one wants social housing near them...so prices keep rising where people want to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CitizenVectron said:

 

I think it did a little, but so little as to be pointless (compared to the main issue, which is overall lack of housing). Some places, like Vancouver, will always have too-high prices in the most desirable area simply due to lack of land (being surrounded on three sides by ocean, for the peninsula). The real solution to all of this is massive government housing investments. But no one wants social housing near them...so prices keep rising where people want to live.

 

It got them like 1000 units on the market, which wasn't worth the time and energy it cost to get the tax passed. And Vancouver just as everywhere else with a housing crisis has an issue with zoning not allowing insufficient density, not insufficient land. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Subzwari1987 said:


Is that the Rye-Oyster Bay bridge? It keeps popping up every 10 years or so. They even talked about a tunnel that goes under those towns instead of through. 

Yes, that one. What the 135 on Long Island was supposed to be. It's coming up again I believe because between lack of affordable housing, jobs etc., LI has its residents' nuts in a vice with nowhere to go because the only way on or off is through the city. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Massive warehousing of units just doesn't happen in general. It may be happening to some extent right now because of the eviction moratoriums (landlord preferring to keep units vacant than risk get stuck with someone who they can't evict if they don't pay) but that's a temporary thing that will stop as the eviction moratoriums end. A lot of people in the US wrongly think you can claim a loss on your taxes for lost rent just for a unit being vacant, which even if that's how it worked wouldn't make warehousing make sense because it'd always be financially better to just rent the unit out, it'd be like intentionally buying stocks you thought were going to tank just so you could sell them at a loss to claim on your taxes. 

 

People don't realize that reasons a unit can be listed as vacant include the unit being in the middle of being renovated, the unit being sold/rented but the new owner/tenant hasn't moved in yet, the unit being a second home, and having owners who for whatever reason, say, a homeowner who moves into a nursing home and the family doesn't want to sell it yet. I'm not sure if Vancouver kept track of what vacancy categories got put on the market after their vacancy tax but if the tax applies to second homes then I'd be inclined to assume that people with enough money to have a second home just ate the tax and that it was just the "owner in nursing home and family unwilling to part with house" types of vacancies that got pushed over the edge into feeling forced to make a decision about the unit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody I went to high school with was complaining about Vancouver's vacancy tax a while back. He doesn't live in the house that he is partial owner of, but the family members who own the rest do. So because he lives in another country most of the time it's considered vacant even though it is not vacant given that there are 2 co-owners permanently living there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, dualhunter said:

Somebody I went to high school with was complaining about Vancouver's vacancy tax a while back. He doesn't live in the house that he is partial owner of, but the family members who own the rest do. So because he lives in another country most of the time it's considered vacant even though it is not vacant given that there are 2 co-owners permanently living there. 

 

That doesn't sound correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I feel as though, at least in the larger, more heavily populated cities, this will become more & more the norm going forward in the next number of decades. We are at a point where the wealth gap divide is SO lopsidedly in the favor of those w/ money that their respective curve is only going to skyrocket upwards in towards of wealth while all the rest will probably fall off of an economic cliff. 

 

How is this even sustainable? Like wtf anymore seriously!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SoberChef said:

Why do I feel as though, at least in the larger, more heavily populated cities, this will become more & more the norm going forward in the next number of decades. We are at a point where the wealth gap divide is SO lopsidedly in the favor of those w/ money that their respective curve is only going to skyrocket upwards in towards of wealth while all the rest will probably fall off of an economic cliff. 

 

How is this even sustainable? Like wtf anymore seriously!?

 

yeah but got mine so fuck you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have anything to contribute other than to say that Ketchum is about 45 minutes from where I grew up, and it has always had a ridiculous amount of money involved; it's where Hollywood celebrities (used to?) have their winter ski homes. Another fun fact: Ketchum is also where Hemmingway is buried. :twothumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SoberChef said:

Why do I feel as though, at least in the larger, more heavily populated cities, this will become more & more the norm going forward in the next number of decades. We are at a point where the wealth gap divide is SO lopsidedly in the favor of those w/ money that their respective curve is only going to skyrocket upwards in towards of wealth while all the rest will probably fall off of an economic cliff. 

 

How is this even sustainable? Like wtf anymore seriously!?

 

country's dyin' lmao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...