Selling Federal Lands

[Forkyfinder]

Just remodeled a cabin. Stood 80 yrs with near zero maintenance - is rock solid. Now every thing we touch has to be ripped out and redone because of "code". Hell had to have the electrician back to flip the outlets 180 degrees because while code allows either orientation, this inspector only signs off on "upside down" apparently. My contractor could give you a list of 50+ stupid things he has to do on every job that add zero to quality but add costs, but I am not a builder so I can't give you a list.

Another example. A builder was set to add 350 affordable units in a new development not far from here. Fully met every code, but city would not permit if they did not meet the highest LEEDS standard on every item. Would have taken $250k starter homes add over $75k to each. Builder backed out because there was no market (had to meet certain subsidized costs for buyers) for these starter homes at the new price. So, no new units.

Ah yeah. I certainly see what you mean from that stand point.

 

[SAJ-99]

Another example. A builder was set to add 350 affordable units in a new development not far from here. Fully met every code, but city would not permit if they did not meet the highest LEEDS standard on every item.

Sounds like someone didn't want it to be built. NIMBY is the biggest cause for lack of affordable multi-family.

Pinto must have been hanging out with Hegseth because the plan is crazy. If affordability is the problem, paying top of market rate for Federal land and deporting workers from the industry heavily dependent on them to make the houses seems like a tough way to fix the problem, at least if you are sober.

 

[Irrelevant]

interesting video, but there are a lot of fairly easily rebuttaled comments.
The freedom for a school district to determine its own funding is not a liberal concept. WA State supreme Court (very liberal) ruled against the ability of local school district's to initiate their own funding through taxes and bonds because like the video pointed out, it's not very fair. But in this case, fairness and freedom are in tension, and sign me up for freedom. We chose to live where we did for a large part because of the SD.

I think the biggest issue with that video is that they are making assumptions that if someone votes blue, they have to agree with every blue policy. Which I think any rational person would disagree with. the housing issue has way more to do with affluence than liberalism. Affluent people don't want "poors" in their neighborhood (nor old folk condos as shown in that video) it has zero to do with them being either liberal or conservative.

 

[VikingsGuy]

interesting video, but there are a lot of fairly easily rebuttaled comments.
The freedom for a school district to determine its own funding is not a liberal concept. WA State supreme Court (very liberal) ruled against the ability of local school district's to initiate their own funding through taxes and bonds because like the video pointed out, it's not very fair. But in this case, fairness and freedom are in tension, and sign me up for freedom. We chose to live where we did for a large part because of the SD.

I think the biggest issue with that video is that they are making assumptions that if someone votes blue, they have to agree with every blue policy. Which I think any rational person would disagree with. the housing issue has way more to do with affluence than liberalism. Affluent people don't want "poors" in their neighborhood (nor old folk condos as shown in that video) it has zero to do with them being either liberal or conservative.

It is of course a complex topic, but Blue states like mine that have had full Blue control and forced other stuff through could have changed those funding laws.

Also, I didn’t take it to say it is an issue for every blue voter. But it is a common stated issue for the most prominent Blues and has been in the Blue platform for years

But yes, complicated topic but for the most part average people awho have what they like would rather not be bothered or share — red or blue.

 

[BrentD]

Never seen freedom do well in the absence of fairness.

 

[Irrelevant]

Never seen freedom do well in the absence of fairness.

It's called life, and Id guess you're doing well with it

 

[TOGIE]

Never seen freedom do well in the absence of fairness.

the (un)fairness of life is essentially on par with the laws of thermodynamics.

immutable, if you will.

 

[Irrelevant]

It is of course a complex topic, but Blue states like mine that have had full Blue control and forced other stuff through could have changed those funding laws.

Also, I didn’t take it to say it is an issue for every blue voter. But it is a common stated issue for the most prominent Blues and has been in the Blue platform for years

But yes, complicated topic but for the most part average people awho have what they like would rather not be bothered or share — red or blue.

I just think the whole pretense of the topic being politically driven is a false starting point. I don't care what color you vote, you likely partake is some form of NIMBY-ism.

 

[BrentD]

I just think the whole pretense of the topic being politically driven is a false starting point. I don't care what color you vote, you likely partake is some form of NIMBY-ism.

If you believe that fairness is not an issue, then you cannot do the NIMBY thing. We all expect fairness. Albeit, we may not have exactly the same definitions of fairness, but institutionalized policy is generally objected to in the grounds of "fairness". We are seeing a lot of NIMBY right now among Iowa farmers. It is all about fairness, in the end.