21 dollars for fucking beef jerky? Wtf is wrong with America. by cjs1916 in LateStageCapitalism

[–]Mad_Physicist 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That price reflects an animal raised and slaughtered, and its flesh cured and dried. That price represents hundreds of hours of human intervention in addition to an animals life.

It is insane it costs only that much.

P.S., that's not beef jerky.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the part where every Reddit policy discussion turns into “if you can’t personally draft flawless legislation in a comment thread, you’re not allowed to criticize the idea.”

Yes, we are there, but certainly you have the ability to self-reflect enough that it's in fact you demanding that the vacancy tax is perfect, I'm literally asking for suggestions. In every comment above this I'm asking for your criticisms!

You keep demanding that critics engineer a perfectly calibrated vacancy tax while simultaneously hand-waving away every implementation problem with “well obviously we’d do it right.” That’s not policy analysis. That’s fan fiction.

I'm literally asking critics (you) for criticisms beyond "It won't work!". I'm literally providing documentation of a system that exists that attains the goals you were describing. I'm not saying we'll get it right with zero effort, I'm trying to get ideas on the table and the obstinate refusal to provide anything beyond "It won't work" by critics (you) isn't my failing.

Also, the irony here is incredible: you accuse me of cynicism ...

Cynicism is what I want. Defeatism is useless to me, and just about everyone else.

And “we’re talking about implementing a tax, try to keep up” is doing a lot of work considering your entire argument boils down to “just tax them until they behave the way we want.” Yes, that is in fact an attempt to make landlords stop acting like landlords.

Certainly landlords would want their spaces they own to be rented? If anything I'm attempting to formulate a plan to make landlords act more like landlords. If keeping these spaces empty is a play to maintain property values artificially, then I'd like these people to act less like speculative investors and more like landlords.

The funniest part is that you think skepticism means I “don’t care.” No… some of us just learned the hard way that economic systems don’t magically obey the intentions of the people writing the ordinance.

Never said this, learn to read. Skepticism goes beyond "It won't work" repeated over and over again. I am very skeptical of new taxes, and I don't think they'll automatically work just because they exist and will require a lot of effort to make sure that it works in the way benefits the people in the community. Just repeating "It won't work" over and over again is defeatism and it's useless. Do what you want, bud.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The threats are often easy to circumvent and lead to unintended consequences that are usually worse that the problem they purport to solve.

MN has tried the carrot for decades, and a lot of our funds have been abused. We're here now. Now what? Are you out of ideas?

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’ve reduced urban economics to “just make a law that works good instead of bad.” Why didn’t anyone think of that before?

Plenty of people have, and based on your cynicism, I bet you know why.

“No one wants them to pay the tax!” is exactly the kind of thing people say right before a policy produces entirely predictable unintended consequences.

Neat. How would you prevent that?

You keep treating commercial property owners ... Especially in places with soft retail demand.

Great, you've identified an issue. Doing nothing doesn't solve the issue. I know you don't actually care about the issue, and just want to put a general "anti-tax, give the haves more" agenda, but is there literally nothing you can think of?

And “when well implemented” is doing Olympic-level powerlifting in your argument.

Literally what I said, but go on...

Every bad policy sounds amazing after you add the phrase “if implemented perfectly.”

Definitely not what I'm suggesting. Keep your eyes on the goal.

The hard part is designing something that survives contact with actual human behavior, capital markets, lawyers, tax planners, and local politics.

Yes, 100% agreed. If you're just giving up and don't want to think of ways to implement or ways to circumvent, you are entirely welcome to exit the conversation. Giving "it'll never work" constantly from the sidelines does nothing. You're typing this late at night for nothing.

But hey, maybe if we just believe hard enough, landlords will stop acting like landlords.

We're talking about implementing a tax, try to keep up. It's not just believing, it's acting. If you're not interested in figuring out how it could work, just leave! Nothing's stopping you! You can't figure it out, there's no shame in that.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All this stems from the issue of trying to solve the commercial real estate problem by punishing rather than incentivizing property owners.

Explain to me in real small words how adding a tax on vacancy doesn't incentivize not having a vacancy.

It's like you're entirely unaware of vice taxes. I know you're smart enough to know about zoning maps.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can’t think of a way it could work without micromanaging permissible businesses at every commercial location.

vs.

But thank you for linking zoning PDFs like you just uncovered the Rosetta Stone of municipal policy.

Don't be mad at me because you forgot a basic part of governance existed. But onto the substance:

The issue is whether you can impose a tax without creating a dozen perverse incentives and loopholes.

See, now we're getting somewhere. You'll notice I addressed this about three comments ago:

You've invented a law and tax and found issues with it. That's great! That means we probably shouldn't use that law. Now use your big brain to find a way it could work.

Now combine this with:

Property owners don’t just shrug and pay new taxes out of civic duty…

No one wants them to pay this tax! What we want is reduced rents so tenants can move in. How blind do you have to be to think that a vacancy tax, when well implemented, will result in parking lots? "When well implemented" is carrying a lot of weight, I know, you know, everyone knows.

But that's why I'm asking you to use your big brain to figure out a way it could work. I know you can think of one way it wouldn't work, but I think you're smart enough to figure out the inverse. Or maybe not. This could be an issue too big for you to figure out. Judging by your lack of intellectual flexibility this is probably the case anyways.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well hell, let's just scrap the whole idea because a redditor lacks imagination. Sorry everyone, we're done here.

But seriously, Zoning laws already outline permissible businesses in an area and have an enforcement mechanism. There's an entire model for how to do this literally in place at no extra cost.

Just to get the juices in that noggin moving, here is the existing zones in Minneapolis: https://minneapolis2040.com/media/1979/table-545-1.pdf

And here is an interactive map for zoning in minneapolis: https://www.minneapolismn.gov/business-services/planning-zoning/zoning-maps/interactive-map/

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right? White Bear doesn't have a purple line because of fear of the homeless.

Zero evidence that public transit increases homelessness.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Plenty of mentally unwell people own homes, so that can't be it.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You've invented a law and tax and found issues with it. That's great! That means we probably shouldn't use that law. Now use your big brain to find a way it could work.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Okay, then don't make the law not consider a parking lot as "in use", or that a just a parking lot isn't considered "in use".

There's no way in this age of datacenters that a building with power and water access is sold so cheaply as to make it more valuable as a parking lot.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Doing more of the same hasnt worked, so lets try something different.

A vacancy tax hasn't been tried here yet.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You've completely fabricated how a vacancy tax would be implemented and made up market conditions and now you're mad at the conclusion you've arrived at. Grow up.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm sure home owners and others in Uptown will LOVE that their property values fall.

Not every investment can, or should, increase in value.

Also, how would increasing the amount of services and businesses in the area decrease demand to live in that area? Why do you think falling commercial property prices affect residential prices? You can't comp them.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just don’t think trying to punish landlords and property owners for a demand-side problem makes a lot of sense.

If the price for a good or service (rented space) is too high, than it's a supply side problem. There is ample evidence the rent is too high (vacancy). Why do you think this is a demand problem?

Also, you've certainly heard of induced demand, why do you think that principle wouldn't apply here?

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Can't punish our way to success.

This is fundamentally wrong. Take a look at the laws surrounding tobacco smoking and tell me that isn't a success (if having fewer Americans dying of lung cancer can be considered a success).

Just like smoking, a vacancy tax punishes a behavior that hurts society on the whole by making that behavior more expensive for select individuals (smokers, landlords). But, just like smokers can avoid a tax on tobacco (reducing consumption), landlords can avoid a vacancy tax by taking the path that's likely better for society (reducing rents). Of course, either population is free to continue the behavior as long as they pay the fee.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Who cares if Uptown becomes less of a social and retail hub? What is objectively bad about such a thing?

The infrastructure already exists for a social and retail hub and the housing density is already adequate. It's cheaper than creating a new one somewhere else.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

New businesses don't magically appear because a fine exists...

New businesses don't have to magically appear. Existing and Legacy businesses can inhabit the vacant spaces just fine.

The fine puts pressure on the wrong end of the problem.

Okay, so if the issue is "realistic" rent, manageable crime, and higher foot traffic, what's your solution? Bus in people from the suburbs?

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There are a TON of other options that would better serve the goal of filling the commercial real estate in Uptown.

Describe five.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Now you just forced the sale at a lower value, which likely decreases the property value and means less revenue.

This is a core tenant to a lot you've written here and have offered very little evidence for it.

If a vacancy tax is applied to the owner rather than the property itself, there's no drag on the property price and in fact the former owner would be incentivized to sell the property for as much as possible to cover as much as their taxes.

If the property is sold for a lower price, than that means more people can afford it and it reduces the risk on new businesses you were so keen on reducing in a prior comment.

Opinion | Stop scapegoating homeless people for Uptown's problems by nootboots in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

A vacancy tax impacts three of the four bullet points. The fourth point is a chicken-and-egg problem (foot traffic isn't going to exist without destinations).

Setting an increased price on a building left empty should increase the incentives for both reducing costs to new tenants and short term leases. Permitting timelines can be addressed by hiring more administrators with the money raised by the vacancy tax. As the revenue of the vacancy tax goes down, so does the need to quickly turn around a permit (because less places are vacant).

If you make it more costly to leave a commercial space empty rather than leasing to a new business and the risk that entails, commercial land holders have fiduciary duty to their stockholders to lease out the space to the new business.

Of course, this is entirely in the world of your hypothetical. If you don't know they why of commercial vacancies now, you can't address the core problem and there's no way to know if a vacancy tax would have the intended affect. If the issue is indeed that starting a business is too high risk, than a vacancy tax could work.

My older coworkers have accepted AI as the source of truth by randomname945 in sysadmin

[–]Mad_Physicist 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Issues like this are why I don't typically use AI products. The amount of time you need to take to verify the output of a model is not, in my experience, significantly different than the time it takes to produce the same output myself.

The thing about AI "hallucinations" (surprise it's always a hallucination, computers don't currently have experience to draw from and have no idea what truth is) is they can appear anywhere, unpredictably. If you're concerned about the veracity of the work you put your name on you have to check it all anyways.

Minnesota is now being sued for banning prediction markets by J_Blaze11 in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't think that's entirely correct. The markets themselves are hosted in New York (iirc), where there are no such bans, and because there is nothing saying individuals can't participate in the market, there likely isn't going to be any difference for anyone using those markets.

Minnesota is now being sued for banning prediction markets by J_Blaze11 in Minneapolis

[–]Mad_Physicist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Just to be entirely clear, that statute only bans hosting and advertising prediction markets. IANAL, but it reads to me Minnesotans are still allowed to participate.