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.

 

[Bonasababy]

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.

Living in the same state as this guy, I can see another one impacted by the all one way or all another way disease.

We arent a blue state--we are a purple state, and I'm not talking our football team.

Within that there are more solid red and more sold blue portions sure, but the norm is sick and tired of the extremes required to be solid one or the other.

We have a decades long running history--when republicans control, they run the state into debt, then when democrats take over they get us out of it. Republicans rarely cut much but they run into debt due to their penchant to forget that big tax cuts and trickle down didn't work in the 80's and still doesn't work today. Both parties tend to add to spending rather than remove it, but while the Dems add more they are still balancing things better and they pay attention to budget experts more than the republicans.

As weird as it is, and as much as it differs from what many think--if you want a state to be run by a party that has shown it can better balance a checkbook--that's clearly the dems in my state.

More recently the Dems went a bit too far and the status in the future looks concerning, but a lot of that is due to the ending of federal covid funds and I still trust Dems more to get it right before trouble starts than republicans in this state.

The video ignores reality in my state on housing. Rural manufacturers and businesses are not allowed to grow because they can't attract workers--who don't move to the work as there is not enough housing for them. Some actually send buses around to towns dozens of miles away to round up workers to come to their facility to work. That only goes so far. Housing is badly needed. And code and overbearing issues are a problem in urban areas to some extent but much less so that rural. In fact corners get cut in rurual areas. We've seen catastrophic fires, roof failures, and more so across the board relaxing of codes and inspections isn't the answer.

The republicans in this state have gone so extreme any housing assistance provided by the evil government are handouts they want nothing to do with. Dems are doing far more on housing. Republicans have fought funding to increase high speed internet in rural areas here--Dems support it.

Owners of businesses and large manufacturers routinely say they struggle to find workers with the education needed to step into some if not many of their jobs. Republicans want to starve education in my state, support private schools for the more wealthy and vouchers, Dems are the ones who much more strongly support education.

Republicans in this state want to end any and all immigration from other cultures and races, while businesses and manufacturing know they will decline and won't thrive without more of it.

It doesn't have to be this way--many years ago republicans were less extreme and capable of good checkbook balancing and governance. Today the few that want the part to get back to that are drummed out of the party, called RHINO's, and ostracized. We have had some moderate republican leaders--the last one (Pawlenty) went to the extreme as he had to to get any party support. He ran the state into debt, gave IOU's to school districts causing them to cut programs and activities that took years to recover from. The last one who really did a nice job (Carlson) and managed budgets well has been openly and publicly ostracized from the party.

We will have a divided government again for a few years, if ever there was a chance to prove me wrong we'll see it soon. I'd be happy to see republicans willing to work across the aisle more, focusing on the important things, pushing for moderation in the more extreme progressive agendas rather than fighting it all with zero willingness to compromise--but I am not holding my breath.