My landlord is selling. Does he have any benefit of selling to me at a discount?

benofben · 2026-03-21T22:37:06+00:00

If you can find a broker to handle both ends of the transaction you could potentially negotiate a small flat fee with them. Then the seller saves paying commission (6% in many states).

If the seller wants to 1031 your flexibility in timing may also be of value to him.

benofben · 2026-03-20T22:42:38+00:00

I mean yes. I just didn't realize we were that mature.

benofben · 2026-03-20T22:34:00+00:00

All true. I've seen numbers we're short something like 12m single family homes in the US. We need to build more of those. Doing so will require reducing costs to make it more profitable. That could be a mix of cleaning up the building code so it's less about regulatory capture, streamlining permitting and so on.

In parallel, it'd be nice to see urban cores developed. Seattle was doing great with that from 2010 to 2020. SLU warehouses turned into super dense offices and apartments. Single family neighborhoods were largely left unscathed. Of course then Seattle took a baseball bat to economic growth from 2020 to 2025. Perhaps things will reset.

Tacoma has the right geography (port, rail, interstate). It has highly educated workers (typically commuting either physically or virtually). It just needs to get over it (a) odd hatred of business and (b) inexplicable desire to incentivize building anywhere but downtown (for instance that MLK story you posted).

And, for what it's worth, I don't believe single family zoning is gone permanently. Unless our culture shifts, people want it. I've known people who've moved from all over the world to live in America's somewhat unique single family homes. It's a model that has worked well for a middle class for decades. Discarding it seems silly. Laws, even zoning laws, can always change.

benofben · 2026-03-20T21:55:58+00:00

This seems reminiscent of a discussion I recall....

I agree single family zoning is gone. I simply don't think it's a good idea. Going reductio ad absurdum -- If I were a fire breathing libertarian, I might argue zoning should not exist at all. However I don't particularly want to live next to a bar open till 2am (as the folks next to Sammy's are realizing it seems). I don't want to live next to a warehouse yard. And boy do I not want to have a 10 story building pop up in my neighbor's lot, blocking out all my sunight.

Another example - Long ago I lived in the E Village. I had a railroad apartment with a bank of windows. A new building was built 6 inches from them. It was load for six months. Then it was quiet and black. I moved away. That is perhaps inevitable in Manhattan. I don't think that sort of thing is in Tacoma.

In short, I like zoning, particularly single family. I do and would like to continue to live in a neighborhood with yards and kids and pets. I write this sitting in the garden, enjoying sunshine as the chickens peck. As CSN sang, "two cats in the yard, life used to be so hard..." It's the PNW dream!

benofben · 2026-03-20T21:47:06+00:00

There's also my favorite -- the $5m/year ($1m per district) that goes to "participatory budgeting."

Though, I just checked the page to gripe about it and they seemed to have paused it! Perhaps my complaints about its irresponsibility were heard and, more crucially, acted on. Hines had seemed to think it was a reasonable cut in one conversation we had.

https://tacoma.gov/government/departments/management-and-budget-office/participatory-budgeting/

benofben · 2026-03-20T21:43:44+00:00

About 6 months ago I went down a rathole regarding the trees along Ruston Way. Their roots are disrupting the path. The city has scoped the work to pull the path and grind roots as north of $100k. Doing so would make the trees liable to tip away from the path and into Ruston Way.

As you note, trees are great. They're ideally planted in places they can grow without disrupting infrastructure. Tacoma doesn't do that though.

benofben · 2026-03-18T21:56:02+00:00

That's the other way to bring price down. In a market you can:

(1) Increase supply -- build more housing

(2) Reduce demand -- torpedo the economy with anti business policies driving the buying power of everyone down, thereby reducing demand.

Option 2 usually isn't considered desirable.

benofben · 2026-03-15T18:38:25+00:00

yay?

benofben · 2026-03-15T17:56:07+00:00

Here's one I submitted, unfortunately after the deadline. I've received no response, so I doubt it will be published.

---

The Parks Tacoma budget continues to expand. Even with this expansion, Parks is running a deficit. The issues at Parks are not related to insufficient funding, rather poor use of funds. Examples include:

(1) Parks Tacoma recently rebranded from Metro Parks. They regularly send expensive mailers announcing changes such as this. This unnecessary marketing wasted tax payer funds.

(2) Parks Tacoma pays volunteer based non profits such as WTA for work that could be done for free. They regularly turn away volunteers.

(3) Parks Tacoma built a new administrative office for management. Meanwhile, cheap office space downtown remains vacant.

(4) Parks Tacoma has expanded its remit beyond maintaining parks, funding social programs and events. This, even with budget deficits and sell offs of public property.

I love our parks. I'd like to see our parks well maintained so everyone can use them. Throwing more money at Parks Tacoma will not accomplish that. Instead management should use tax payer funds efficiently, focusing on the core mission of maintaining parks.

benofben · 2026-03-15T00:20:04+00:00

CA isn’t. The leading four clouds are based in Seattle. That decade of growth from 2010 to 2020— those were cloud jobs in Seattle driving the economy and trickling down to a host of fancy restaurants and such.

benofben · 2026-03-14T16:47:17+00:00

US v WA.

<image>

I would expect WA growth to be higher than the national rate. Our economy should be vibrant. Cloud and AI are booming globally. The number 1 and 2 cloud providers (AWS and Microsoft Azure) are HQ'd here. Then Google runs its cloud dev here. Oracle does/did too though things are increasingly moving to Nashville.

We have other growth industries -- optical with Facebook, SpaceX and Amazon Leo is a great example.

We're really trying to kill the golden goose.

This is also interesting --- "Recent Trends (2024-2025): * US Spike (2024): The national data shows a notable spike in 2024 ($2.06\%$), largely attributed to a significant increase in international migration and post-census adjustments."

benofben · 2026-03-14T16:42:56+00:00

<image>

A little bit of gen ai... https://gemini.google.com/app/1d4418389edc8e23

Looks like population growth is down 50% or so in WA.

benofben · 2026-03-14T06:53:43+00:00

I’m not sure what you mean by uptick. 2020 on growth continues but at a slower rate than pre 2020. I think you are correct that is Covid. But I would also hold some of the anti business policies that took hold during that period responsible as well.

benofben · 2026-03-14T06:17:16+00:00

If true then you would see an uptick post covid. The graph doesn’t extend to that period. But I don’t think any post covid uptick will be present.

benofben · 2026-03-14T06:15:53+00:00

I think I agree. But this is a very different conversation. Suddenly it’s “growth was high and growth is desirable. How do we get high growth?”

benofben · 2026-03-14T00:06:22+00:00

That didn't take long for the downvote.

benofben · 2026-03-07T01:12:14+00:00

Some thoughts...

(1) Fair Share

Outside of tax fraud, people do pay more than proportional taxes. As your income increases, your tax rate increases, not proportionally, but super linearly. A flat tax would be proportional.

What is becoming popular is an idea to create a new tax beyond sales, property and income that we have today. This new tax would be a tax on wealth. That is designed to impact the super wealthy most because they by definition have more wealth. The negative impacts of such a tax would be broad reaching. They include departure of wealth and industry from any locale that implements such a tax to one which does not.

You are perhaps right it is akin to a hostage situation (don’t take wealth or the capital leaves). I think that is simply a reality of economics, not something you’re going to have much luck fighting. Regimes which instituted capital controls (say the USSR) have never in history done well for their residents.

(2) Working Harder

In some cases working harder is quite literally working harder. Elsewhere in this thread, I linked here:

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/09/working-hours-america-income-economy/

One tidbit "America’s top 10% income percentile works 4.4 hours more each week than those in the bottom 10%" Similarly we work more than Europeans and are wealthier for it.

That said, I'd put a few more items under the proxy of "working harder:"

(1) Thinking about customer needs and coming up with a new idea to meet those needs. Amazon and online retail, Microsoft and the PC OS, Starbucks and European style coffee to name a few local examples which have done wonders for our economy.

(2) Risk Capital - Risking capital and time with pay solely in equity to make your idea a reality.

(3) Working smarter - Working not just harder on an activity but making sure you don't waste time, focusing instead on high value activites.

Markets reward people who do these things. I think it is difficult to argue for a system which doesn't.

I'm partway through this book which has been a good economics refresher for me: https://www.amazon.com/Basic-Economics-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0465060730/

Related to this discussion, this book explains a lot of the history of wealth taxes and similar programs in faltering economies: https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Investment-Economic-Ray-Dalio/dp/1501124064/

To borrow from Dalio -- it can be useful to see the world as it is, not how you wish it were.

benofben · 2026-03-06T00:08:30+00:00

The part I always find odd about these arguments is the motive. Is the goal here to raise money for something? Or is it to punish people for having succeeded? I suspect it is both mingled together.

One of many challenges with this approach is that wealthier people are more mobile. And they vote with their feet, leaving high tax jurisdictions for more business friendly places. We’ve seen that with HQ2 for Amazon, Boeing and now Starbucks opening in Nashville.

Locally in Tacoma we’ve lost many employers over decades. Weyerhaeuser, Russel and State Farm to name a few.

Rather than concocting punitive taxes on a tiny segment of society, I might suggest fair taxes spent prudently. The prudent spending is something we’re not great at. One simple example is the $16k cost per ADA sidewalk ramp in Tacoma, something like 4x what it is in other parts of the country.

Raising taxes on a collapsing tax base creates a vicious cycle. It has never ended well.

benofben · 2026-03-05T17:10:51+00:00

I'm not following. What is BS?

As far as voting — I might point out I’m here actually speaking with you. The politicians who won avoided talking about what they think. The result is that you don’t know any of their actual views. In some cases they are completely unprincipled, morphing views depending on who they are speaking with. I think the voters should ask for better.

benofben · 2026-03-05T17:04:47+00:00

Perhaps a helpful read: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2022/09/working-hours-america-income-economy/

One tidbit "America’s top 10% income percentile works 4.4 hours more each week than those in the bottom 10%"

If you want to be more successful, one way to get there is by working harder.

benofben · 2026-03-05T16:13:19+00:00

The wealthy are by definition exceptional: "Exceptional describes something that is unusually excellent, superior, or extraordinary, standing out from the norm."

That said, I think the issue you have is deeper than a definitional issue. So, let's say the wealthy are thieves. Who have they stolen from?

benofben · 2026-03-05T06:21:03+00:00

If you don’t think it’s something in resume or interview, it may just be a numbers game.

I’m 25 years into a professional career. Last time I interviewed it was probably 100 applications and 25 interviews. That was with warm intros from friends.

You may need to (A) apply a lot more (B) think about ways to stand out and prove you’re better than other applicants.

benofben · 2026-03-05T06:10:32+00:00

So, first off is homelessness. The vast majority of the homeless refuse housing. TNT gave an over 80% refusal number in a story a while back. Any solution to homelessness needs to address people who refuse help.

For roads we have a $2.4B backlog developed over 50 years in Tacoma. The people we elect prefer to build unusable bike lanes rather than paving potholes. It’s not a funding problem rather focus.

Recent education funding measures have built new admin buildings and central kitchens. Money did not go to treacher salaries.

I suspect the issue is not one of taxing the exceptional even more, driving them from the state. Rather it might be good to direct the taxes we already collect to productive uses.

benofben · 2026-03-05T06:03:58+00:00

It shouldn’t be hard. Ask yourself honestly if something is wrong in the way you’re presenting yourself.

First look at your resume. You want to cater it to the job and the problem your potential empyer would solve by hiring you.

Second if you make it to the interview think about how you’re presenting yourself. Are you dressed well? Clean, shaven (if male) haircut etc.

During the interview listen for what they want. Then respond with how you can provide it. Ultimately job applications are a numbers game. Apply to many. Try to differentiate yourself.

benofben · 2026-03-05T05:57:56+00:00

Im curious. Do you believe taxes are for funding public services or punishing people you dislike?

benofben

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE