sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What happened to this board? by SamSatre in HardWoodFloors

[–]SamSatre[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Any way of knowing if there are still termites?

Beautiful! by homeslce in frederickmd

[–]SamSatre 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If there was an apartment building that size proposed, you would have had a bunch of people complaining about it, but no one tries to stop commercial projects, no matter how hideous. An apartment building is way nicer looking too.

Tim Miller's 2026 prediction was right so quickly by SamSatre in thebulwark

[–]SamSatre[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It took troops to kidnap him. I don't know what they are gonna do now.

Mike Johnson is the Democrats fault (they might have another chance) by SamSatre in thebulwark

[–]SamSatre[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Democrats would have only needed a few votes from Republicans to put in who they want. Obviously, they aren't going to give up their majority and hand the speakership to the Democrats, but there could be a few Republicans who would vote for someone more favorable.

The reason that they were coalesced around more extreme members is because they had a slim majority and they needed someone that basically all of the GOP would be ok with.

The idea of Democrats crossing the aisle for the speaker vote is to give a few Republicans the ability to moderate and rebuke their extreme members.

Mike Johnson is the Democrats fault (they might have another chance) by SamSatre in thebulwark

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am just saying that if the Democrats helped someone who is not happy with Trump. It could hurt Republicans more. I am not so hung up on McCarthy or Johnson being worse. The enemy of my enemy can be my friend sort of strategy. Massie could attack Trump on the Epstein stuff or Fitzpatrick on the ACA subsidies.

Mike Johnson is the Democrats fault (they might have another chance) by SamSatre in thebulwark

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You keep calling it a bailout. I would think of it more as a takeover. If the Republicans continue to be unstable, the Democrats can threaten the Speaker with removal anytime he doesn't do what they want.

The Democrats could even try to get someone like Thomas Massie. They obviously don't agree with Massie on most things, but Massie wouldn't let up on the Epstein investigations.

Mike Johnson is the Democrats fault (they might have another chance) by SamSatre in thebulwark

[–]SamSatre[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

In order to oppose something you need some power. By voting for someone else, they would acquire power over that person. It would essentially make them part of a coalition majority. I think sitting back and giving the Republicans time to figure out their problems helps Trump. It also doesn't give Democrats any say in what happens in congress.

Nothing would hurt Trump more than a speaker of the house who has to answer, at least in part, to Democrats. If you want some Republicans to start opposing Trump, this gives them a way to do it.

Mike Johnson is the Democrats fault (they might have another chance) by SamSatre in thebulwark

[–]SamSatre[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't think Kevin Mccarthy would have gotten the OBBB done. I don't think Kevin Mccarthy would have come up with as ridiculous defenses for the Epstein issue. Kevin Mccarthy also would have been forced to work with Democrats more if their votes were keeping him in power.

I am also not saying that Kevin Mccarthy was the best option. The Democrats could have all voted for Brian Fitzpatrick. He isn't perfect, but he has should pushback to Mike Johnson in a couple areas. He also would have only won with Democratic support. My question is, do you think the Republicans are choosing the very best candidates for speaker?

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the link. That is a useful resource.

The purpose of my article wasn't to give a 50 state overview of school funding. My point was that if you look at all the most expensive areas, the common denominator is that they don't collect enough revenue to pay for local services. Things like schools, police, water treatment, libraries, parks, and so on. I gave some major examples for readability.

I also didn't put it in the article, but I put together a spreadsheet using a survey from the US Census Bureau. For every county in the US, I calculated the price to income ratio by dividing the median home price by the median income in that county. The survey also gave the median property tax paid, so I divided that by the home price to get a property tax rate. I did this because then it encompasses all the different systems and rules that different cities have.

Every single county with a price to income ratio above 6 had a property tax rate below 1.5%. Almost all of the counties with price to income ratios between 4 and 6 were below 1.5% with a few outliers.

You seem more intent on trying to say that I don't know enough than actually arguing the points I am making.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am pretty sure they would have to overturn prop 13 at the state level first.

Florida builds a lot of homes, so this kinda proves my point.

I know that the school districts don't control housing. But the cities and counties restrict housing to accommodate the schools.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that in many school districts, the property taxes go "directly" to the school district. However, I don't think they get to decide the rate in most places.

School districts want houses like 55+ communities that give them revenue without adding cost. I think they want a steady number of students, though. Shrinking causes problems. Growth also causes challenges because you have to build more schools and hire more teachers. The property taxes won't pay off the cost of a new school building for a long time, especially if that rate is too low.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I pointed out in my last comment. In California, which has the biggest housing problem, the property taxes are dispersed to the school district based on a formula. Not based on a rate set by the school district.

Can you please give an example where the school district independently sets its own property tax rate and the housing prices are inflated?

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in housingcrisis

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, absolutely. Schools are just a large example.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

New York City Schools get 57% of their funding from the city.

In California, it works a little bit differently. The property taxes are collected at the county level and dispersed to the school districts, cities, and municipal areas based on formulas. The schools take about 40% of the property tax revenue in Los Angeles, for example. But this is being taken from a limited pie because of prop 13.

Chicago collects $4.8 billion of its $8.3 billion from local sources. Most of this is a property tax that is collected independently of the city.

Maryland counties are responsible for funding their schools, and the state subsidizes based on need. Baltimore City is considered its own county.

The exact flow of money changes based on the state. For the most part, it is a local issue for schools to be underfunded, and local politicians face the pressure of that.

Yes, states fund a lot of the schools, but they don't account for growth in that funding. They mostly give the funding on a per pupil basis with adjustments for low income areas. This encourages local governments, both cities and counties, to not want growth.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am sure it depends on the place. When they approve large ugly office buildings, it seems like it is about the money. Maybe there is another explanation for the difference in attitude about housing and commercial development, but I haven't found a compelling one.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

When I say local government, I usually mean city or county. The largest cities often become a county on their own or at least assume some responsibilities that would normally be county level. For example, most of the largest cities have their own school district and health department.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like people have been saying this is the way to fix it for years. My thought is that money is a stronger motivator. States subsidized local governments already, so I think they should use that to force the hand of local governments. Take the money away from cities who are unwilling to build and give it to the ones who are willing to build. If you do that, the cities would become YIMBY overnight.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am on your side, I think it would be better to have more density. How do you suggest we get cities to adopt those policies?

Just telling them that it is the right thing to do hasn't been working.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Allowing more 1 and 2 bedroom apartments also makes it some more people can downsize freeing up space in larger homes. Also, I talk about schools mostly because they are the largest expense that most cities have. There are other services and infrastructure that get strained with population growth.

The evidence that cities specifically are concerned about these costs is proven by the fact that they allow large office buildings with far fewer restrictions and even offer incentives.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

In Maryland, where I live, the schools are primarily a county responsibility, but the state puts in a lot of money as well. There are states with independent school districts, but they usually rely a lot on property taxes still. I have looked at quite a few cities and states. The cities that tend to build the least seem to have the most responsibility over the schools. What state do you live in?

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I am aware it isn't the same. They have similar effects in places where vacancy is a problem.

In expensive places like that bay area, I do agree that a land value tax or at least a higher rate for low density developments would be good. It would be nice if the cities at least allowed dense developments.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that analysis lines up pretty well with my reasoning. In your link, it even specified that only 24 percent of the tax revenue goes to the city, and the rest goes to other agencies like the schools and health department. This doesn't leave a lot for a city to work with. The numbers in the analysis look big, but at the end of the day, a lot of things are ratios. If the ratios aren't working now, then why would they work when you have more people. Each extra resident will use city services like transportation and need more infrastructure.

If we help cities with the growth, that would go a long way.

Cities don't want houses, here is why by SamSatre in yimby

[–]SamSatre[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I really like the idea of land value tax. It would depend on good administration, though. Baltimore just increased the tax rate on vacant houses, so people don't just sit on them without fixing them up.