Alaskan LOA offer

[BEEF SUPREME]

Would you prefer facilitator? Even with borrowed money, one has to have the initiative and thought to make something happen, which otherwise might not have happened. With the borrower being the one now assuming the financial risk, not the renter. Heck, in the above case, everyone of us who has a mortgage/car/personal loan etc, would be employees of a credit union/bank/mortgage house or wherever the money was loaned from.

Stop making sense. It’s easier to be irrationally angry at people who who take risks.

By the above standard it’s actually Alaskan Airways house I guess.

Contractor Ken better show up and put chains on the tugs this winter or else!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Roger]

Angry? Naw, it’s just funny that people who don’t actually do the work, and in many cases don’t actually front the money, want credit for “creating” things, whether it’s housing, jobs, consumer goods etc. But I guess that’s capitalism for ya. All glory to the shareholders.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Angry? Naw, it’s just funny that people who don’t actually do the work, and in many cases don’t actually front the money, want credit for “creating” things, whether it’s housing, jobs, consumer goods etc. But I guess that’s capitalism for ya. All glory to the shareholders.

Who else is going to increase the number of habitable homes?

You sure you want the government doing that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ppragman]

With the borrower being the one now assuming the financial risk, not the renter.

Actually, I'd argue that though the renter does not take on any debt to rent a house... they're assuredly taking on risk.

Landlords in many states can essentially raise rents with relative impunity - yes, there are complications, and you don't want to price yourself out of the market - but also... not being able to pay your bills and the bank repossessing your rental property is fundamentally different than getting booted from your home because the landlord increased rent and you can't afford it.

 

[ppragman]

You sure you want the government doing that?

Unironically, yes?

I mean, not that the current "powers that be" would be remotely effective or that they'd do a good job, but I'd love to see modern versions of the WPA building all sorts of • across the country. Like, I want 100s of tax payer funded nuclear power plants built to combat climate change, and solar panel farms, and microchip factories, and high speed rail, and housing, and... yeah. That would be rad as hell. I don't know that it has to be "the government physically builds it" but, yeah, theoretically we could.

"Welcome to Housing Crisis Corps, we're constructing entirely new walkable cities on public land in Nevada!"

It'd never happen, but I'd love it if we actually started to encourage homesteading some of western Alaska again too, but instead of saying "you're on your own don't die" - we actually started building infrastructure to get out there. And that, definitely, takes government money and support at this stage of the game. It may not be my anarcho-socialist utopia, but the government building houses is better than nobody building houses. The government doesn't even have to build them, they just have to offer the money.

That's not going to happen anytime soon though.

 

[ppragman]

Like, honestly, why can't we take on those big projects any more? MAGA folks always look back at the past with this weirdly rosy take... but one of the characteristics of the 1950s and 1960s was that we just... did stuff? We don't do stuff anymore. We were absolutely insane then, you guys ever read "the firecracker boys?" We thought, "hey, let's dig harbors with nuclear freaking weapons." And no, that's not a "good idea" - but arguably, our nation just doesn't have that sort of ambition in the least. Like, I know that there are projects out there, but... I don't know. They're not exactly exciting projects.

We have even outsourced our space ambitions to private companies - now we're not "going to Mars for America" or whatever, it's because some random dude wants to go there. We're building Mars Rockets because one dude is interested in it as a hobby - that's a fundamental lack of give-a-damn about the future that is uncharacteristic of our historical ethos. I'm not saying that we should have always done the things we did - I'm harshly critical of this country, and can think of a myriad of places I'd rather live - but let's be real, we're almost all more worried about enriching ourselves and "likes" than we are about doing anything remotely ambitious. We live in a paradise of opulence; we're drowning in information and starving for wisdom.

Let's build cool • - and more or less that takes the government still, let's use it.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Those days are gone.

My realtor in 1977 was a teacher and bought (could afford) a 150k home in Hermosa Beach. Today, his house is worth 4 million.


Ain’t no teacher today in California buying or affording a 4 million dollar home.

When it comes to wealth building, the below 40 crowd today has had it real bad. And boomers have prospered big time.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

Like, honestly, why can't we take on those big projects any more? MAGA folks always look back at the past with this weirdly rosy take... but one of the characteristics of the 1950s and 1960s was that we just... did stuff? We don't do stuff anymore. We were absolutely insane then, you guys ever read "the firecracker boys?" We thought, "hey, let's dig harbors with nuclear freaking weapons." And no, that's not a "good idea" - but arguably, our nation just doesn't have that sort of ambition in the least. Like, I know that there are projects out there, but... I don't know. They're not exactly exciting projects.

We have even outsourced our space ambitions to private companies - now we're not "going to Mars for America" or whatever, it's because some random dude wants to go there. We're building Mars Rockets because one dude is interested in it as a hobby - that's a fundamental lack of give-a-damn about the future that is uncharacteristic of our historical ethos. I'm not saying that we should have always done the things we did - I'm harshly critical of this country, and can think of a myriad of places I'd rather live - but let's be real, we're almost all more worried about enriching ourselves and "likes" than we are about doing anything remotely ambitious. We live in a paradise of opulence; we're drowning in information and starving for wisdom.

Let's build cool • - and more or less that takes the government still, let's use it.

I’m down with that but it takes so much to get through the conservation laws that have been put in place. It will never happen and housing will be a lost opportunity to many because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roundout]

you created them? You’re a carpenter, roofer, drywaller too? Or you paid out of your own pocket with money you earned?

If there was a thumbs down emoji, I’d put it in this

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

You fly a plane? Did YOU create the wings and the gravity of earth??????

 

[ppragman]

I’m down with that but it takes so much to get through the conservation laws that have been put in place. It will never happen and housing will be a lost opportunity to many because of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not just the conservation laws - and arguably, many of those are "good." The bottleneck isn't environmental impact statements (contrary to popular belief) - it's that you literally cannot get access to the land because it's not something that can be purchased and there's literally no infrastructure to it.

And it's not just national parks, take a gander at this map

Not that all of it is usable, but yeah, the government owns it and will not relinquish control of it for very cheap. And I'm not saying that I don't want national parks, or don't think we should take care of this land - indeed quite the opposite - but if it's all locked up and nobody can use it, the price for land and the difficulty to access it will remain high.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

It's not just the conservation laws - and arguably, many of those are "good." The bottleneck isn't environmental impact statements (contrary to popular belief) - it's that you literally cannot get access to the land because it's not something that can be purchased and there's literally no infrastructure to it.

And it's not just national parks, take a gander at this map

View attachment 75100
Not that all of it is usable, but yeah, the government owns it and will not relinquish control of it for very cheap. And I'm not saying that I don't want national parks, or don't think we should take care of this land - indeed quite the opposite - but if it's all locked up and nobody can use it, the price for land and the difficulty to access it will remain high.

I'm very familiar with this. I'm trying to get mountain bike access to Federal land which is extremely difficult. PILT is a whole other level of crazy and I had no idea it was such an issue.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

It's not just the conservation laws - and arguably, many of those are "good." The bottleneck isn't environmental impact statements (contrary to popular belief) - it's that you literally cannot get access to the land because it's not something that can be purchased and there's literally no infrastructure to it.

And it's not just national parks, take a gander at this map

View attachment 75100
Not that all of it is usable, but yeah, the government owns it and will not relinquish control of it for very cheap. And I'm not saying that I don't want national parks, or don't think we should take care of this land - indeed quite the opposite - but if it's all locked up and nobody can use it, the price for land and the difficulty to access it will remain high.

Not denying what you said. I would just like to add, that homewowners throughout the decades have passed zoning laws or regulations that have hindered new construction. And it was done mostly with a NIMBY and greed perspective, to protect their own home values and ensure continual rising of property values.

 

[ppragman]

If there was a thumbs down emoji, I’d put it in this

I mean, Roger isn't wrong, it's a bit provocative, but I agree that there is a stark difference between getting a loan to buy a house to rent to someone and physically building the house (or even providing the loan in the first place).

In our system, rent extraction is a surefire way to make a decent buck and is a good way to set your family up for multiple generations to come, I get it - but let's not make it into something that it isn't. Renting out a house for profit isn't creating housing it's creating rental housing, but that's kind of fundamentally different. Being the guy who owns the property because he had the money already to get a loan from the bank being considered in anyway similar to a person who physically constructs a home is... silly. Guys and gals who rent houses are middlemen - that's pretty much it, it can be challenging, and there are a lot of headaches, but if most people could own a house, they absolutely would so inserting yourself into that system because you can to profit off of it isn't providing housing, it's taking advantage of the way the system is set up. Don't hate the player, hate the game, but let's not say the game is baseball when we're playing hockey.

I get why you would want to be a landlord, but I also don't think we should say that it's remotely the same as someone who "creates housing." I'm not even going to debate the merit of any of this - I've been a landlord, it sucks, but it is lucrative; it's fairly likely that if I ever leave Alaska I'll be a landlord again - I will never sell my house now that I've got one. But in any scenario where I end up renting this place out... I'm not creating anything. Just in the same way that having employees isn't "job creating" renting out a home isn't "housing creating."

I guess perhaps I'm arguing semantics here. I'm even willing to entertain the idea that I'm completely wrong, but it would be like the owner of an airline saying, "I create travel" or "I make flight happen" - no, you don't unless you're flying the line.

Again, arguably, I get the semantic rabbit hole here but, yeah, renting out your spare bedroom or guest house isn't creating housing, it's "renting to someone." You can argue the merits of that or say we can/should change the way the system is (I can and I do) but part of "hating the player, not the game" involves recognizing what game is actually being played.

 

[ppragman]

I'm very familiar with this. I'm trying to get mountain bike access to Federal land which is extremely difficult. PILT is a whole other level of crazy and I had no idea it was such an issue.

are you having any luck with this, because that sounds... well, let me just say, F-ing terrible? Literally 90% of my interaction with stand and federal land laws has been kind of unpleasant.

 

[BEEF SUPREME]

are you having any luck with this, because that sounds... well, let me just say, F-ing terrible? Literally 90% of my interaction with stand and federal land laws has been kind of unpleasant.

We got a bill introduced to Congress and it died in committee. But it’s the furthest anyone has gotten so far


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Who creates housing?


Someone always owns it. A developer is gonna physically make the homes, but someone has to buy it. And then they can choose to live in it, or get it rented it out to someone else. I'm not even sure what we are arguing.

 

[ppragman]

Not denying what you said. I would just like to add, that homewowners throughout the decades have passed zoning laws or regulations that have hindered new construction. And it was done mostly with a NIMBY and greed perspective, to protect their own home values and ensure continual rising of property values.

Well, I get zoning laws for some things - I don't want the chemical plant next to the apartment building (I'm looking at you Matanuska Susitna Burrough) but yah, we need to fix that stuff. But literally nobody listens in the least, or (at least in my case) I get screamed at for being a crazed-leftist or whatever, when I'm like, "hey look, we have science that shows how we could fix this problem."

@Roger Roger had a book I remember him telling me about or some article (can't remember, sorry dude) but about some of the fundamental causes of the housing crisis being related to the inability to actually build anything (sorry if I'm misremembering) because of things like zoning.

 

[ppragman]

Who creates housing?

Carpenters, architects, the heavy equipment operator who runs the bulldozer, the guy who digs the well, you know... people who like... design and build houses?

 

[ppragman]

We got a bill introduced to Congress and it died in committee. But it’s the furthest anyone has gotten so far

this is enraging to me, I'm sorry you're dealing with that.