US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[bostjan]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-67560552

What a week

Pleasantly surprised that they managed to dump him in spite of the house leader telling GOP reps to vote no.

 

[thebeesknees22]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/06/realestate/wall-street-housing-market.html

this won't pass with republicans edging out control in the House, but at least democrats finally introduced a bill to ban hedge funds from owning single family homes. Hopefully it gains traction and they can get something through by 2025 if they can gain control of both houses in congress (and keep the presidency)

imho It's something people in both parties should be pushing to for if you can't afford a home and don't want to be a serf for the rest of your life. (and if don't want to end up like Canada. ...Canada is fucked with a capitol F with how they allowed so much investment money to buy up existing homes. To the point there's just no fixing it.)

it looks like the proposed bill gives the firms 10 years to sell off their properties, and there's a fee of $10,000 per home if they own more than 75 homes. That fee would go towards assisting low income families with down payments.

Anywho, at least someone is finally talking about it in congress. Hopefully they can pass something to help fix the situation sooner rather than later.

 

[Drew]

I mean, housing affordability in the states is fraught with problems waaaaaaay beyond that, but it's certainly an idea where I don't immediately see too many downsides.

 

[thebeesknees22]

I mean, housing affordability in the states is fraught with problems waaaaaaay beyond that, but it's certainly an idea where I don't immediately see too many downsides.

oh yeah totally. It's not a fix all, but it's a step in the right direction for sure.

 

[Strobe]

I mean, housing affordability in the states is fraught with problems waaaaaaay beyond that, but it's certainly an idea where I don't immediately see too many downsides.

It's a good step (referring to ban on wall street speculation in home ownership). That's such a small part of the problem. It's an easy problem to get mad at, but I am shocked at how little effort is put to addressing the actual problem.

The problem with housing is primarily zoning, with other regulations being secondary. Put simply, it is not-in-my-backyard objections artificially driving down the housing supply while current home owners reap the shortage windfalls. Just next door to me, Minneapolis banned single family zoning (meaning you can't convert or put up legal barriers to constructing more dense multi-structure units). The language of banning in this case is actually *removing* restrictions on housing and allowing building and conversion to better match the market demand. That's on pause because of a lawsuit stating the ban did not sufficiently study the environmental impacts. It's absolute bullshit to put a pause on multi-family housing when it is demonstrably better in terms of energy and water use compared to single family housing.

Given how much proverbial ink is wasted bemoaning the cost of milk and eggs, it's a wonder so little attention is applied to housing supply where people spend probably 50 times or more as much in a month as they do on milk and eggs.

Don't get me started on people objecting to new housing because it's not *affordable* housing as if restricting the supply was going to do anything other than make everything less affordable. It's as if people believe in supply and demand determining the price for everything *besides* housing that follows some sort of magical rules.

 

[Drew]

It's a good step (referring to ban on wall street speculation in home ownership). That's such a small part of the problem. It's an easy problem to get mad at, but I am shocked at how little effort is put to addressing the actual problem.

The problem with housing is primarily zoning, with other regulations being secondary. Put simply, it is not-in-my-backyard objections artificially driving down the housing supply while current home owners reap the shortage windfalls. Just next door to me, Minneapolis banned single family zoning (meaning you can't convert or put up legal barriers to constructing more dense multi-structure units). The language of banning in this case is actually *removing* restrictions on housing and allowing building and conversion to better match the market demand. That's on pause because of a lawsuit stating the ban did not sufficiently study the environmental impacts. It's absolute bullshit to put a pause on multi-family housing when it is demonstrably better in terms of energy and water use compared to single family housing.

Given how much proverbial ink is wasted bemoaning the cost of milk and eggs, it's a wonder so little attention is applied to housing supply where people spend probably 50 times or more as much in a month as they do on milk and eggs.

Don't get me started on people objecting to new housing because it's not *affordable* housing as if restricting the supply was going to do anything other than make everything less affordable. It's as if people believe in supply and demand determining the price for everything *besides* housing that follows some sort of magical rules.

Ah, NOW you're speaking my language.

I mean, I'd nit pick the last point a little; I don't think building yet one more luxury condo building is going to do much to promote housing affordability for anyone. $2.5mm luxury condos are not substitutes for $350k single family homes. Local regulation can help, and Massachusetts has taken a sensible (I think) approach where most new multifamily housing projects have to reserve a few units for affordible housing programs, so as not to create the stigma of a "section 8 project" vs "condos where middle class people live" and the like. It takes the edge off... but the market is too focused on developing high end properties with high margins, and not focused enough on producing affordable housing.

But, as a condo-owner in a converted single family/now 3 unit condo, in a city where the vast majority of available properties are zoned single-family or condo conversion like mine... yeah, I 100% agree that I'm benefitting on an artificially restricted supply, and my "starter" condo now being closer to $1mm than what I paid for it is probably not evidence of a healthy market. At the same time, I get the extreme political difficulty of changing that - I have enough unrealized gains in my place that we could change zoning and have an immediate 30% drop in condo prices as significant multi-family supply came online, but someone who bought six months ago would get hosed, and frankly I wouldn't be stoked about seeing my equity get slashed like that either. It's one of the risks in buying in a market with artificial supply constraints though, so... But, like, you can get why voters won't be wild about these changes, and if you have more homeowners than renters who vote, you're going to have a LOT of inertia to overcome.

Back on topic, I think the one thing I might change with the proposed bill is to put a price cap on the restriction, so, say, properties over $15mm or something like that are still allowable for hedge funds. That's just the investment professional in me, though - a $500k house in a market full of $500k houses is a commodity, but "the House Tom Brady and Giselle Whatshername Bought while He Was a Patriot" is more of a specific-ID unique good than a commodity, and I don't really have a problem with hedge funds being active in that sort of "marquee property" market - if anything, they could be a useful source of liquidity there, whereas for the sort of property you or I might buy, they're competing and pushing up prices for people who just want somewhere to live.

 

[Strobe]

Ah, NOW you're speaking my language.

I mean, I'd nit pick the last point a little; I don't think building yet one more luxury condo building is going to do much to promote housing affordability for anyone. $2.5mm luxury condos are not substitutes for $350k single family homes. Local regulation can help, and Massachusetts has taken a sensible (I think) approach where most new multifamily housing projects have to reserve a few units for affordible housing programs, so as not to create the stigma of a "section 8 project" vs "condos where middle class people live" and the like. It takes the edge off... but the market is too focused on developing high end properties with high margins, and not focused enough on producing affordable housing.

But, as a condo-owner in a converted single family/now 3 unit condo, in a city where the vast majority of available properties are zoned single-family or condo conversion like mine... yeah, I 100% agree that I'm benefitting on an artificially restricted supply, and my "starter" condo now being closer to $1mm than what I paid for it is probably not evidence of a healthy market. At the same time, I get the extreme political difficulty of changing that - I have enough unrealized gains in my place that we could change zoning and have an immediate 30% drop in condo prices as significant multi-family supply came online, but someone who bought six months ago would get hosed, and frankly I wouldn't be stoked about seeing my equity get slashed like that either. It's one of the risks in buying in a market with artificial supply constraints though, so... But, like, you can get why voters won't be wild about these changes, and if you have more homeowners than renters who vote, you're going to have a LOT of inertia to overcome.

Back on topic, I think the one thing I might change with the proposed bill is to put a price cap on the restriction, so, say, properties over $15mm or something like that are still allowable for hedge funds. That's just the investment professional in me, though - a $500k house in a market full of $500k houses is a commodity, but "the House Tom Brady and Giselle Whatshername Bought while He Was a Patriot" is more of a specific-ID unique good than a commodity, and I don't really have a problem with hedge funds being active in that sort of "marquee property" market - if anything, they could be a useful source of liquidity there, whereas for the sort of property you or I might buy, they're competing and pushing up prices for people who just want somewhere to live.

We probably agree on most things - but to explain why I support building - full stop - whether it's luxury apartments or section 8 or anything in between is that the person buying a $2.5M condo/apartment will, if the $2.5M apartment is not available, buy the next nicest thing. This then pushes the person who would have bought that to the next nicest thing, etc - until at the end of the chain there is one less in stock of a much more affordable apartment. Not building that luxury apartment (for which the demand is small) results in more scarcity even of affordable housing. That's a tragedy that can be avoided by building what the market calls for - which will include both ends of the housing market. We see luxury apartments going up in part because there is real demand for them - but also if you only get to build 5% of what the market is calling for you to build, you're going to build the most profitable stuff - which is probably that luxury apartment. Build it. I don't care about the historic gas station that fits the character of the neighborhood, or the blighted parking lot that your grandfather recalls. Cities are for people. While we are at it, get rid of some of the stupid regulations on manufactured homes that are kept in place specifically to try and keep lower income compatible housing out of a suburban / rural communities.


I own a fairly expensive house that's gone up in value $100k in the last 5 years. I wrote to the city in favor of the multi unit 4 story senior living facility in my literal backyard (across the alley behind me to be exact). I want to build. While the status quo benefits me, fuck it, I do not need my house to climb in value every year. I want a city where the next generation can afford to live in it.

I will spare everyone my rant on a land value tax to disincentivize hanging on to undeveloped land in attractive locations.

 

[Drew]

We probably agree on most things - but to explain why I support building - full stop - whether it's luxury apartments or section 8 or anything in between is that the person buying a $2.5M condo/apartment will, if the $2.5M apartment is not available, buy the next nicest thing. This then pushes the person who would have bought that to the next nicest thing, etc - until at the end of the chain there is one less in stock of a much more affordable apartment. Not building that luxury apartment (for which the demand is small) results in more scarcity even of affordable housing. That's a tragedy that can be avoided by building what the market calls for - which will include both ends of the housing market. We see luxury apartments going up in part because there is real demand for them - but also if you only get to build 5% of what the market is calling for you to build, you're going to build the most profitable stuff - which is probably that luxury apartment. Build it. I don't care about the historic gas station that fits the character of the neighborhood, or the blighted parking lot that your grandfather recalls. Cities are for people. While we are at it, get rid of some of the stupid regulations on manufactured homes that are kept in place specifically to try and keep lower income compatible housing out of a suburban / rural communities.

To a degree this is true. However, and while I fully confess I don't have the hard data on hand to back this up here, a surprising number of those luxury condos in urban areas or at least here in Boston end up in the hands of investors or as second or third houses for occasional trips to the city or wealthy families buying their kids a place for the four years at Boston College or Harvard figuring it's cheaper than dorms and they can sell it at a profit when they're done, etc, and long story short aren't really being used as primary residences on a long term basis. And in markets where the lowest tier of houses for sale are STILL extremely expensive because they're so supply-constrained - again, I own a starter condo in "Slumerville," and if it takes us more than a year longer to find our next house, I'll probably be selling at more than a million - that trickle-up effect barely moves the needle.

More supply is 100% the answer. But if it's supply that will mostly sit unused vs supply that will be quickly consumed as primary residents, it's not nearly as effective helping affordbility. At least this part of the state does require a certain number of units be set aside for affordable housing programs (which are sensibly done - subsidized financing including subsidized 0% loans provided by some of the area cities which can be used for a down payment which is almost unheard of, properties bought under the most affordable programs can only be sold back to those programs to remain in the stable, and at a price equal to purchase price + cost of improvements + a defined cost-of-living rate to keep them from spiraling in price). But the most effective way to make housing more affordable, is to make more units of the sort that people can afford them.

 

[Drew]

I will spare everyone my rant on a land value tax to disincentivize hanging on to undeveloped land in attractive locations.

Also, Detroit is trying to do just that. An ex of mine isn't directly involved in the campaign but works in affordable housing out there and has been helping to try to get it across the line, and I think the proposal is fascinating. I'm really hoping it passes, and will be watching eagerly to see how things shake out.

 

[thebeesknees22]

Mark Meadow's appeal in the GA election case to move it to federal court was just shot down.

short version on the reason being: what he was doing there was outside of the scope of duties as it was for an election, and also possible violation of the hatch act etc.. (there's a bigger write up on it if you're curious)

He's stuck going to state trial unless he appeals to the supreme court and they agree to take it up. (which I don't know that they will for him. Trump they would, but meadows? I'm not so sure. I think he's toast)

The prosecutor has already said they won't offer a plea deal a while back, but I do wonder if he'll try and strike a deal now to avoid serving time in Fulton County jail. lol

 

[Drew]

TBH I don't know if they'd do that for Trump either. I think the whole judiciary is a little leery of touching these cases, between the clear evidence of anti-democratic wrongdoing, but also the potential to set precedents with FAR-reaching consequences in legal grey areas around executive power. Even the judges he's appointed seem like they're become increasingly careful with their actions.

 

[thebeesknees22]

TBH I don't know if they'd do that for Trump either. I think the whole judiciary is a little leery of touching these cases, between the clear evidence of anti-democratic wrongdoing, but also the potential to set precedents with FAR-reaching consequences in legal grey areas around executive power. Even the judges he's appointed seem like they're become increasingly careful with their actions.

agreed. I think when the time comes, they'll pass the buck much like that Colorado judge did when she found he committed insurrection but somehow was absolved of being banned from the ballot because...he...wasn't...an officer of the government.... Which is just idiotic.

Also at the end of the day they're too afraid of getting kill by some MAGA nut. The current judges are already getting loads of threats by the day.

 

[thebeesknees22]

I'll be damn. Colorado actually did it. Hats off to the judges for not backing down.

Colorado Supreme Court bars Donald Trump from the state’s ballot in 2024, ruling he’s disqualified by Jan. 6 actions

Donald Trump cannot appear on the state’s primary ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a legal challenge that has gained national notice as the former president seeks the 2024 …

www.denverpost.com

Trump is banned from their ballot. The lower court judge should have made that call in her ruling, but it's good to see the state supreme court followed through especially after the lower court judge found trump committed insurrection.

This will go federal supreme court, but I don't know that Trump has a leg to stand on. It'll be interesting to see how their presidential immunity ruling goes first, and that may be a tell tale sign on what will come down on this.

Alito and Thomas will vote in trump's favor no matter what. But I'm not so sure on the rest. Some of the conservative supreme court justices surprise me from time to time.

 

[tedtan]

I'll be damn. Colorado actually did it. Hats off to the judges for not backing down.

Colorado Supreme Court bars Donald Trump from the state’s ballot in 2024, ruling he’s disqualified by Jan. 6 actions

Donald Trump cannot appear on the state’s primary ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a legal challenge that has gained national notice as the former president seeks the 2024 …

www.denverpost.com

Trump is banned from their ballot. The lower court judge should have made that call in her ruling, but it's good to see the state supreme court followed through especially after the lower court judge found trump committed insurrection.

This will go federal supreme court, but I don't know that Trump has a leg to stand on. It'll be interesting to see how their presidential immunity ruling goes first, and that may be a tell tale sign on what will come down on this.

Alito and Thomas will vote in trump's favor no matter what. But I'm not so sure on the rest. Some of the conservative supreme court justices surprise me from time to time.

Just came here to post this.

As for the Supreme Court, they’ve ruled against Trump so far, so they may well rule against him here, too.

 

[MetalDestroyer]

I truly want to believe the old rich heads of the Republican party want Trump done and dusted. He appeals to the lowest common denominator of the party - the group the people in power don't actually like - and they're losing the control they've built up so far. Fingers crossed this gives them a plausible deniability hands-tied way off the Trump train without pissing off the nationalists they now rely on for votes.

Then again, there are no consequences for the cheeto's actions so I think we're just as likely to end up with landmark-solidified presidential immunity to dictatorship attempts.

 

[thebeesknees22]

Just came here to post this.

As for the Supreme Court, they’ve ruled against Trump so far, so they may well rule against him here, too.

right?

I think Trump boxed them in and there's not a leg to stand on to rule in his favor. There's just too much evidence against him.

There are a bunch of other states that were waiting to move forward on their lawsuits to get him off the ballot too. Either they'll go ahead and move forward now, or they'll wait for the SCOTUS decision then boot him off their ballots.

 

[Drew]

right?

I think Trump boxed them in and there's not a leg to stand on to rule in his favor. There's just too much evidence against him.

There are a bunch of other states that were waiting to move forward on their lawsuits to get him off the ballot too. Either they'll go ahead and move forward now, or they'll wait for the SCOTUS decision then boot him off their ballots.

It won't matter - it would be very hard for the Supreme Court to rule the Colorado court was correct in determining that Trump had committed insurrection, that he was an officer of the US government, and that therefore Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibited him from holding government office... and NOT have that ruling apply to the other 49 states. I suppose it's possible and that such a decision could follow the basic gist that because the power of determining who had engaged in insurrection was not explicitly given to the federal government then it fell to each state to determine if he had engaged in insurrection, but that creates a very messy legal landscape for federal elections, and while this isn't entirely a slam dunk the fact that the 14th does give power to congress to remove "such disability," then it cements the power to determine who had engaged in insurrection at the federal and not state level.

But, Bloomberg's Francis Wilkinson wrote a scathing op-ed a few days ago unrelated to this case or decision about Trump's legal jeopardy and the Supreme Court, that I think is worth a read here:

The Supreme Court Won’t Save Donald Trump

The fastest way for Chief Justice John Roberts and company to become irrelevant is for their quasi-kingship to be supplanted by a MAGA dictatorship.

www.bloomberg.com

the tl;dr version is this - Thomas and Alito will probably side with Trump, because they have never NOT been nakedly partisan. But the other four conservatives on the court have their own best interests most clearly served by taking an opportunity to clearly show they are NOT beholden to Trump, because they are in a position where they can reshape the US legal system for decades to come, there is little more Trump can do to support any of them personally now that they have been appointed for life to the Supreme Court, and by ruling against him they're able to distance themselves from association with a "lawless demagogue," as well as ensure their continued relevancy by not risking the re-election of someone hell-bent on turning the US into an anti-democratic dictatorship. Beyond the simple merits of the case, which I don't think are favorable to Trump, their personal best interests are probably better served by Trump being barred from holding office, than by seeing him re-elected.

Personally, I think the guy's got a point. Why would they willingly give up the power they have, when instead by cruicifying Trump they could remove some of its taint?

 

[thebeesknees22]

It won't matter - it would be very hard for the Supreme Court to rule the Colorado court was correct in determining that Trump had committed insurrection, that he was an officer of the US government, and that therefore Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibited him from holding government office... and NOT have that ruling apply to the other 49 states. I suppose it's possible and that such a decision could follow the basic gist that because the power of determining who had engaged in insurrection was not explicitly given to the federal government then it fell to each state to determine if he had engaged in insurrection, but that creates a very messy legal landscape for federal elections, and while this isn't entirely a slam dunk the fact that the 14th does give power to congress to remove "such disability," then it cements the power to determine who had engaged in insurrection at the federal and not state level.

But, Bloomberg's Francis Wilkinson wrote a scathing op-ed a few days ago unrelated to this case or decision about Trump's legal jeopardy and the Supreme Court, that I think is worth a read here:

The Supreme Court Won’t Save Donald Trump

The fastest way for Chief Justice John Roberts and company to become irrelevant is for their quasi-kingship to be supplanted by a MAGA dictatorship.

www.bloomberg.com

the tl;dr version is this - Thomas and Alito will probably side with Trump, because they have never NOT been nakedly partisan. But the other four conservatives on the court have their own best interests most clearly served by taking an opportunity to clearly show they are NOT beholden to Trump, because they are in a position where they can reshape the US legal system for decades to come, there is little more Trump can do to support any of them personally now that they have been appointed for life to the Supreme Court, and by ruling against him they're able to distance themselves from association with a "lawless demagogue," as well as ensure their continued relevancy by not risking the re-election of someone hell-bent on turning the US into an anti-democratic dictatorship. Beyond the simple merits of the case, which I don't think are favorable to Trump, their personal best interests are probably better served by Trump being barred from holding office, than by seeing him re-elected.

Personally, I think the guy's got a point. Why would they willingly give up the power they have, when instead by cruicifying Trump they could remove some of its taint?

oh sweet thanks for the article. I'll try and check it out when i get a free moment!

Yeah I've seen others argue that if the SCOTUS ruled in favor of trump, they'd essentially nullify their own power which honestly people in that position won't want to do. ie) trump wins> becomes dictator> there's no power left in the court system since that's what happens in authoritarian regimes.

at the end of the day though who knows which way they'll go. there are too many wildcards in the SCOTUS right now.

I think some will wake up and realize that trump is replaceable. They have a whole line of people that are chomping at the bits to be trump 2.0 so they don't actually need him. Republicans will worship whoever is at the top no matter who it is.

 

[Drew]

Yeah I've seen others argue that if the SCOTUS ruled in favor of trump, they'd essentially nullify their own power which honestly people in that position won't want to do. ie) trump wins> becomes dictator> there's no power left in the court system since that's what happens in authoritarian regimes.

That was about half this guy's argument, yeah - that Trump will be hell bent on weakening the checks on his power if he returns to the presidency, which will include the court, and right now the courts have a LOT of power.

But the other half was even if you throw the balance of power out the window, three of those justices are somewhat tainted by association to Trump, and this would be a great opportunity for them to improve the perception of their legitimacy at essentially no cost to them.

The counterargument is these are questions with VERY far-reaching consequences for the limits of presidential power that they're unlikely to take up lightly... though that dovetails nicely with point 1.

 

[thebeesknees22]

That was about half this guy's argument, yeah - that Trump will be hell bent on weakening the checks on his power if he returns to the presidency, which will include the court, and right now the courts have a LOT of power.

But the other half was even if you throw the balance of power out the window, three of those justices are somewhat tainted by association to Trump, and this would be a great opportunity for them to improve the perception of their legitimacy at essentially no cost to them.

The counterargument is these are questions with VERY far-reaching consequences for the limits of presidential power that they're unlikely to take up lightly... though that dovetails nicely with point 1.

I just finished the article. Yeah this pretty much nails it on the head I think.

I agreed with what you said ^^

Also the way the article lays out how the supreme court is being used by the right to essentially make legislation is one of the best explanations i've seen so far.

"Here’s how a bill becomes law in 2023: A right-wing activist, or a MAGA state office holder, files a lawsuit — often in Texas, where judge-shopping has become as common among conservatives as a trip to Hobby Lobby. After the ruling is handed down, the loser appeals to the far-right 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. From there, it’s just a skip and a jump to the Supreme Court in Washington, where six judges craft the conservative legislation that will bind the entire nation. Does the federal government, under the direction of the Democratic president, really have the power to enforce its own rules? The conservative justices will decide."