Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 08-11-2019, 03:40 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
By the way, i just looked at this: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publi...CA-comp-17.pdf

Since 2000, the population of renters in San Jose has grown by 26%. The stock of rental units grew by 16%. I do not pin that shortfall solely on rent control: California and its municipalities have generally made every bad decision possible when it comes to housing, from Prop 13 to rent control to very restrictive zoning. Of course there are terrible housing problems that are getting worse.

It's like if someone is addicted to alcohol, meth, crack, and heroin. Which one is the cause of the woes? If someone says, "Yeahbut medically speaking, heroin addiction ain't that bad" you'd get laughed at. Rent control is the heroin in this situation, and of course it's making things worse, even if it isn't the sole cause of the troubles.
  #102  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
By the way, i just looked at this: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publi...CA-comp-17.pdf

Since 2000, the population of renters in San Jose has grown by 26%. The stock of rental units grew by 16%. I do not pin that shortfall solely on rent control: California and its municipalities have generally made every bad decision possible when it comes to housing, from Prop 13 to rent control to very restrictive zoning. Of course there are terrible housing problems that are getting worse.

It's like if someone is addicted to alcohol, meth, crack, and heroin. Which one is the cause of the woes? If someone says, "Yeahbut medically speaking, heroin addiction ain't that bad" you'd get laughed at. Rent control is the heroin in this situation, and of course it's making things worse, even if it isn't the sole cause of the troubles.
None of that shortfall is due to rent control, if you knew anything about San Jose rent control laws, you'd know that. Rent control is not making things any worse in San Jose.
  #103  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I doubt this is true. Bay area rent control has opponents on both sides, some thinking it's too little, and others not enough. Most new housing legislation has failed in the state legislature, and while new rent control is still possible, it's facing stiff opposition. Certainly lots of folk are in favor of it, but the support is not universal.

The Landlords on the Rent Control board and the Tri county Association both favor San Jose rent control laws. Yes, some advocates on the tenant side think it isnt enough, but it's better than nothing.
  #104  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:51 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The Landlords on the Rent Control board and the Tri county Association both favor San Jose rent control laws. Yes, some advocates on the tenant side think it isnt enough, but it's better than nothing.
The rent control board is in favor of rent control? That's not surprising. Landlords and apartment owners seem to be opposed - also not surprising since those are the ones that would be subsidizing these policies.

Landlords, developers and their representatives are deeply opposed to the expansion of rent control.

Quote:
“Developers already face a number of hurdles when building, like nimbyism, environmental restrictions and the soaring costs of land and labor,” says Tom Bannon, CEO of the California Apartment Association.

California’s high costs of building disincentivize developers, and Bannon worries that if rent control expands to new construction, investors might leave the state entirely.

“You would have a serious reduction in the construction of any new apartments because builders and banks and individuals would not be willing to take the risk,” he says.
Support for rent control is hardly universal.
  #105  
Old 08-11-2019, 05:54 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Building more housing seems like, intuitively, a better solution to the problem of not enough housing than rent control.
  #106  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:01 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The rent control board is in favor of rent control? That's not surprising. Landlords and apartment owners seem to be opposed - also not surprising since those are the ones that would be subsidizing these policies.

Landlords, developers and their representatives are deeply opposed to the expansion of rent control.



Support for rent control is hardly universal.
The Landlords on the board. But the TriCounty apartment owners associate also likes San Jose Rent control , but they dont want it expanded, that's a different subject entirely. You cite is about Frisco mainly.

And I am talking about San Jose particular type of mild rent control. Not SF, Not Oakland, not Berkeley, etc.
  #107  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:02 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Building more housing seems like, intuitively, a better solution to the problem of not enough housing than rent control.
There's no more land in the Bay Area to build on. It's all greenspace or parks or something.
  #108  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:04 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
There's no more land in the Bay Area to build on. It's all greenspace or parks or something.
Rezone and build up. It doesn't need to be all apartment buildings, but allow duplexes and triplexes, at least. Tons of single-family homes on land (and a population and an economy) that could easily handle multi-family homes.
  #109  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:08 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Rezone and build up. It doesn't need to be all apartment buildings, but allow duplexes and triplexes, at least. Tons of single-family homes on land (and a population and an economy) that could easily handle multi-family homes.
So, you'd allow the government to use Eminent Domain to kick a thousand people out of their $Million dollar homes, then bulldoze them to build condos? You'd be out of office so fast, it'd be a record.

And you can't just plop down a 20 story apt building in the middle of the suburbs. Not enough infrastructure.
  #110  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:12 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, you'd allow the government to use Eminent Domain to kick a thousand people out of their $Million dollar homes, then bulldoze them to build condos? You'd be out of office so fast, it'd be a record.

And you can't just plop down a 20 story apt building in the middle of the suburbs. Not enough infrastructure.
No, I'd just advocate that homeowners have the option of selling their homes to builders or modifying them to be multi-family homes. These are problems the market can solve -- restrictive zoning prevents market action from solving them.
  #111  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:20 PM
SamuelA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, you'd allow the government to use Eminent Domain to kick a thousand people out of their $Million dollar homes, then bulldoze them to build condos? You'd be out of office so fast, it'd be a record.

And you can't just plop down a 20 story apt building in the middle of the suburbs. Not enough infrastructure.
The Federal government, or the State government, has an interest in seeing high density. So everyone in Silicon valley and a few other areas might vote against the new rules, but other people wouldn't care, and many would vote for it from the higher level. This has already happened, with the State government deciding that local municipalities can can it. Perfectly legal. Each level of government does trump the one below it and they will not get anywhere if they protest it in court, with a few exceptions.

As for a sane development policy, it would look like the following:

a. No more property tax exclusions. This gives people sitting on valuable land an incentive to move.
b. Property tax needs a density surcharge. That 20 story building is going to require a lot of infrastructure upgrades to support - it is perfectly fair to add on an additional tax, times the number of stories or the number of times over that residential space covers the lot it's on, or some other reasonable measure.

(so if the 20 story building covers a 1 acre lot, and has 10 acres of total rentable space, there is a 10 times multiplier times some kind of tax. Perhaps 10 times 0.1% the building's value, or 1% of the value of the lot annual or something)
c. Limited exemptions for historic buildings - you can't just declare whole districts historic
d. Density taxes should eventually apply to nearby buildings to discourage squatting. So if your house is surrounded on 4 sides by skyscrapers paying a density surcharge, after a certain number of years, your house is also subject to the same tax they are paying. Pay it or sell.

Maybe my formula needs some adjustment. Point is, that if a developer wants to put a skyscraper in the middle of a low rise area, they should be able to do so, they should just have to pay the taxes required to upgrade the streets and utilities leading to it and pay for all the extra residents they are bringing in.

Last edited by SamuelA; 08-11-2019 at 06:21 PM.
  #112  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:32 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No, I'd just advocate that homeowners have the option of selling their homes to builders or modifying them to be multi-family homes. These are problems the market can solve -- restrictive zoning prevents market action from solving them.

You cant mix high density in with single family willy nilly. It causes too many issues.
  #113  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
...
Since 2000, the population of renters in San Jose has grown by 26%. The stock of rental units grew by 16%. I do not pin that shortfall solely on rent control: California and its municipalities have generally made every bad decision possible when it comes to housing, from Prop 13 to rent control to very restrictive zoning. Of course there are terrible housing problems that are getting worse.

... Rent control is the heroin in this situation, and of course it's making things worse, even if it isn't the sole cause of the troubles.
So, tell me Ravenman, why would any of that shortfall be caused by rent control in San Jose?
  #114  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:37 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You cant mix high density in with single family willy nilly. It causes too many issues.
The market can solve those issues -- it has in Tokyo, and many other places.
  #115  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:41 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
The market can solve those issues -- it has in Tokyo, and many other places.
No, it can't. The "market" is made up of a lot of evil greedy people out to make a quick cheap buck at the expense of others, leaving behind a stinking mess they no longer care about.
  #116  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, it can't. The "market" is made up of a lot of evil greedy people out to make a quick cheap buck at the expense of others, leaving behind a stinking mess they no longer care about.
Somehow this system produces widely available, affordable housing in one of the most advanced and wealthiest cities on the planet. I'm pretty far from a die-hard capitalist, but market action really is the most successful solution for some problems (but certainly not all) -- dining options, vacation options, entertainment options, and housing options being notable. The Bay Area is very clearly failing at ensuring affordable housing is available for all its workers, and it's failing by preventing market action from solving these problems like it's solved and prevented them in Tokyo.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 08-11-2019 at 06:44 PM.
  #117  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:44 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, tell me Ravenman, why would any of that shortfall be caused by rent control in San Jose?
Because, as I said, it’s an utterly uncontroversial that rent control makes housing shortages worse.

I already cited officials in San Jose saying that they have concerns that their rent control laws as they pertain to new construction are making the housing shortage worse. That directly contradicts your “Everyone thinks rent control is awesome in San Jose!” opinion.
  #118  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:48 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,962
Huge swaths of land being single-family-only helps no one but those homeowners who want their neighborhoods to be prevented by law from changing. It hurts everyone else, including everyone's property values. A piece of land is worth a lot more if it can eventually be used to rent to 8 families rather than 1 family. Opening up zoning to allow multi-family housing helps everyone but the NIMBYs (and it even helps their property values, in the long term).
  #119  
Old 08-11-2019, 06:59 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Because, as I said, it’s an utterly uncontroversial that rent control makes housing shortages worse.

I already cited officials in San Jose saying that they have concerns that their rent control laws as they pertain to new construction are making the housing shortage worse. That directly contradicts your “Everyone thinks rent control is awesome in San Jose!” opinion.
So explain? I think it is very controversial. Explain why it does.

Where? You dont mean this cite: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publi...CA-comp-17.pdf

where it says "A significant portion of the apartments currently under way is in the
city of San Jose, particularly in the
downtown area, where demand is
bolstered by revitalization efforts currently in progress.."

Because you see- Rent Control in San Jose does not pertain in the slightest to new construction. Nothing built after 1979 is under rent control.

Last edited by DrDeth; 08-11-2019 at 07:02 PM.
  #120  
Old 08-11-2019, 07:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
https://psmag.com/economics/in-defense-of-rent-control
But a comprehensive review of literature by New York housing lawyer Timothy Collins found that the received wisdom regarding rent regulations is overly simplistic—partially because hard ceilings on rents are often imagined, while the reality is more often (as in New York’s case) a more measured approach meant to discourage landlords from dramatically raising rents and displacing tenants.

Collins argues that New York’s two largest building booms took place during times of strict rent controls: the 1920s and the post-war period between 1947 and 1965. ...

“New York’s moderate rent regulations have had few, if any, of the negative side effects so confidently predicted by industry advocates,” Collins writes. “More important, rent regulations have been the single greatest source of affordable housing for middle‐ and low‐income households. I should note that many of these findings came as a surprise to me. When I first joined the Rent Guidelines Board staff in 1987, I believed that rent regulations in New York City probably did have some long‐term harmful effects. I was proven wrong.”

Outside the city, one economist found that housing construction in New Jersey fell by 52 percent in cities that enacted rent control regulations in the early 1970s—but fell 88 percent in those that didn’t. ....
Collins also found that all the apartments that experts expected to open up with the introduction of rent regulations did not materialize after rent control was removed from Boston. In 1994, real estate interests in Massachusetts organized a statewide referendum to end rent control—which only existed in Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline—and just barely won. But Census data shows that Boston’s vacancy rate was four percent before the regulations were phased out and 2.9 percent four years after they were done away with—scrapping rent control had, at the very least, not generated a measurable effect on apartment availability. The median price for a two-bedroom apartment doubled in the meantime.
  #121  
Old 08-11-2019, 08:33 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So explain? I think it is very controversial. Explain why it does.
I have covered this in previous posts. Please check them out, and if you want to debate it, quote the parts I’ve argued that I disagree with - but I’m not just going to repeat myself.

But when Nobel Prize winning economists like Krugman and the architect of the Swedish welfare system, Gunnar Myrdal, tell people it is foolish to think that rent control is good economic policy, people should listen.

Quote:
Where? You dont mean this cite:
I do not. When speaking of the mayor saying that he’s aware of construction projects being delayed or cancelled, I linked to the article that reported the mayor saying that thing. I did not read a HUD webpage and fictionalize the views of the San Jose mayor.

Quote:
Because you see- Rent Control in San Jose does not pertain in the slightest to new construction. Nothing built after 1979 is under rent control.
What sense does that possibly make? If rent control helps people, why should it apply only to old housing?

My theory is that as locales realized that rent control is a failed policy, they relaxed those rules to encourage investors to build units that they would not have. This theory seems to be common sense, and fully supports the consensus of economists. Plus, I can’t think of any other rational explanation for old vs. new policy.
  #122  
Old 08-11-2019, 09:10 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
My theory is that as locales realized that rent control is a failed policy, they relaxed those rules to encourage investors to build units that they would not have. This theory seems to be common sense, and fully supports the consensus of economists. Plus, I can’t think of any other rational explanation for old vs. new policy.
Dunno about the situation in San Jose, but here in Paris rent control overwhelmingly applies (or rather, city halls tries to make it apply ; and the landlord unions dogs them at every turn) to buildings that fall under monuments historiques, i.e. housing old and pretty enough that they've become living museums that simply can't be torn down or even remodelled ; as well as other housing which can't be demolished or built higher for other reasons. The most common of which being that, Paris being built over a rabbit-hole mess of older Paris and subway lines and catacombs and disused mushroom-growing tunnels or limestone quarries like many old European towns, if you start messing around in there with heavy machinery or try to dig foundations deep enough for a big-ass tower, half the neighbourhood risks becoming one big cave-in.
  #123  
Old 08-11-2019, 10:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I have covered this in previous posts. Please check them out, and if you want to debate it, quote the parts I’ve argued that I disagree with - but I’m not just going to repeat myself.

But when Nobel Prize winning economists like Krugman and the architect of the Swedish welfare system, Gunnar Myrdal, tell people it is foolish to think that rent control is good economic policy, people should listen.

I do not. When speaking of the mayor saying that he’s aware of construction projects being delayed or cancelled, I linked to the article that reported the mayor saying that thing. I did not read a HUD webpage and fictionalize the views of the San Jose mayor.


...

My theory is that as locales realized that rent control is a failed policy, they relaxed those rules to encourage investors to build units that they would not have. This theory seems to be common sense, and fully supports the consensus of economists. Plus, I can’t think of any other rational explanation for old vs. new policy.
This is a different thread. "My post (from years ago) is my cite" doesnt work.

Appeal to authority fallacy.


In what post did you make that cite about the mayor of SJ? "Fictionalize"?

Your theory is totally incorrect. The law is the same, more or less, since put on the books.
  #124  
Old 08-12-2019, 07:04 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
This is a different thread. "My post (from years ago) is my cite" doesnt work.
All you have to do is look on the last two pages of this thread for my posts.

Quote:
Appeal to authority fallacy.
Are you seriously saying that it is a fallacy to refer to the conclusions of award-winning experts in their field, on a matter that is precisely within their field of expertise?


Quote:
In what post did you make that cite about the mayor of SJ?
Click back one page and look at my post where I mention the mayor.

Quote:
Your theory is totally incorrect. The law is the same, more or less, since put on the books.
You aren’t defending why it make sense only to have tenants in old buildings covered by rent control. Answer the question.

Last edited by Ravenman; 08-12-2019 at 07:06 AM.
  #125  
Old 08-12-2019, 07:43 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, it can't. The "market" is made up of a lot of evil greedy people out to make a quick cheap buck at the expense of others, leaving behind a stinking mess they no longer care about.
Like increasing accessibility to affordable housing.
  #126  
Old 08-12-2019, 10:51 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
All you have to do is look on the last two pages of this thread for my posts.
....


Click back one page and look at my post where I mention the mayor.


You aren’t defending why it make sense only to have tenants in old buildings covered by rent control. Answer the question.
You cant provide a link?

You cant provide a post #?

answer mine first.
  #127  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:47 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
You cant provide a link?

You cant provide a post #?

answer mine first.
Go to page two. Hit control F, search for mayor. Click that link in my post.

If you don’t read what I have written in the last 24 hours, I’m not going to do the work to repost what I’ve already provided, make a link to what you’ve ignored, or physically move your eyeballs for you.
  #128  
Old 08-12-2019, 12:52 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,755
Going back to the beginning, direct comparisons of Japan to Western developed countries tend to be suspect.

I agree with the broad consensus of economists, nearly universal, that rent controls don't work. If they are very 'mild' and/or lots of go arounds, then they don't really do what their proponents want them to. A supposed finding that NY rent controls* didn't prevent a lot of building has to be compared to the fact that it hasn't been perceived to control rents all that much overall either. What most real systems of rent control do is bifurcate the market into a higher priced 'free market' segment and a lower priced controlled segment. Absolutely comprehensive control doesn't exist in the US. Nor of course is any form of control common in the US. It's mainly in a couple of the very most expensive places (NY and SF areas), yet strangely does not make them not be expensive.

I think actually it's pretty obvious to common sense that rent controls can't accomplish a lot. Which isn't to say they can't accomplish anything for anybody ever. There are few even obviously bad policies, overall, which can't get over *that* hurdle.

As to landlords supporting rent controls that's virtually never really true, but not really relevant. In general as has been stated, landlords would prefer to charge infinite rent, tenants would prefer to pay nothing. So obviously LL's don't like controls at less than infinite, just like they don't like the fact that rents are far below infinite in the 90 whatever % of US rentals with no rent control. But rent control is a visible policy that could be changed. Anyway finding some odd landlord who likes rent controls doesn't show that it's a good policy, which it's pretty obviously not. Or at best a policy with very limited benefit.

*which includes the older system 'Rent Control', and the newer one 'Rent Stabilization'. At this point Rent Control is practically irrelevant but Rent Stabilized units number over 1 million, and that system was just pretty drastically tightened, in terms of go arounds, earlier this year. Though there will still be a large non-controlled segment, where rents will go because the supply via RS units being decontrolled will decrease, and nothing in the law changed to encourage construction of market units. In fact the narrow defeat of a provision what would have made rent increases more than 1.5 the inflation rate illegal *anywhere* in the City will probably have a significant chilling effect on all construction.

Last edited by Corry El; 08-12-2019 at 12:56 PM.
  #129  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:00 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Go to page two. Hit control F, search for mayor. Click that link in my post.
This just illustrates your anti-Mac bias. It's like, command + F there . Because I'm helpful, here is a link.

Last edited by Bone; 08-12-2019 at 01:01 PM.
  #130  
Old 08-12-2019, 01:13 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
I view all keys as equals, no better and no worse than others. Whether command or control, let us all rejoice in the multi key nation that has given us so much.

Except PrntScn. Fuck that key.
  #131  
Old 08-12-2019, 02:55 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,270
It seems a better compromise on rent control would be limited term rent control.

Make it for 5 years or so, rent can only be raised by 5% (or so) a year, and at the beginning of the fourth year, the tenant is given the terms for the next period, and has a year to decide if they want to pay the increase or move.

That gives some stability to the renter, but also prevents people from staying forever in a place at a fraction of market value.

Also, micro-housing should be approved and encouraged, especially in and around high job areas. If you live less than a block from where you work, and can get all the amenities you need within a short distance, some may not mind having little more than a bed and a bathroom.
  #132  
Old 08-12-2019, 06:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Go to page two. Hit control F, search for mayor. Click that link in my post.

If you don’t read what I have written in the last 24 hours, I’m not going to do the work to repost what I’ve already provided, make a link to what you’ve ignored, or physically move your eyeballs for you.
Man, tying a number must be HARD. Psst the answer is 100.


Mayor Sam Liccardo, who led the push to study the policy, said the restriction may possibly be hurting housing production in San Jose. The mayor said he’s heard of developers not moving forward with housing projects potentially because of the Ellis Act ordinance.....Liccardo said he knew of at least three housing projects negatively impacted by the law. But the city’s housing director Jacky Morales-Ferrand said that the department can’t say whether the projects Liccardo referred to didn’t move forward because of the Ellis Act ordinance.

“Ellis is designed to make developers pay,” she said. “But is this Ellis ordinance designed so it’s acting as a barrier? Is it the fundamental reason that development is not going forward is the question.”


Note the following words "may" "possibly" "heard of" . Liccardo is a known tool of the developers. Note that the experts disagreed with him.

The Ellis Act Ordinance only applies when a developer plans to demolish rent-controled apartments from the rental market. This ordinance requires 50% of new apartments built on the site of previously rent-controled apartments be subject to the Apartment Rent Ordinance.



Later in that same link "Thousands of new affordable units

On Monday, San Jose’s Housing Department announced that it had dedicated $100 million to build 1,144 affordable units. Just a day later at the Feb. 5 City Council meeting, the council made a commitment for additional funding for 249 of those units.

The three developments, located on Page, North 21st and Balbach streets, are the first wave of 11 new affordable housing projects. If all 11 move forward, it will push the city over 20 percent of the way to meeting its goal of building 10,000 new affordable units by 2022. S
  #133  
Old 08-12-2019, 06:46 PM
msmith537 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Also, micro-housing should be approved and encouraged, especially in and around high job areas. If you live less than a block from where you work, and can get all the amenities you need within a short distance, some may not mind having little more than a bed and a bathroom.
Meh. You know, not everyone who wants to live in an urban area near their office is a childless singleton, content to cram themselves into something resembling their college dorm room. I'd like to see more 3+ bedroom homes for people like with kids who actually like city living.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, it can't. The "market" is made up of a lot of evil greedy people out to make a quick cheap buck at the expense of others, leaving behind a stinking mess they no longer care about.
And when those "evil greedy people" can't make a quick cheap buck, they don't invest in new developments that would increase the number of units available.



Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
And you can't just plop down a 20 story apt building in the middle of the suburbs. Not enough infrastructure.
Depends what you mean by "suburb". I was reading an article awhile back about a growing trend of development in suburban "satellite cities" around major metropolitan areas. For New York City, that would include smaller cities like Jersey City, Hoboken, Fort Lee, Weehawken, Secaucus and Newark in New Jersey; White Plains, NY; Stamford and Norwalk in Connecticut. Probably a number of others I can't think of off the top of my head. The characteristics of these smaller cities include the following:
- Home to large corporate offices
- Development of "downtown" areas with their own restaurants, bars, shopping, and other amenities
- Rail and other public transportation links to New York City. Many of these cities have their own major transportation hubs.
- Massive influx of multi-family condos and even luxury high rise buildings.

To your point, what I see when I drive around the tri-state area are a fair number of 20+ story condo towers plopped in what appears to be the middle of nowhere.
  #134  
Old 08-12-2019, 07:36 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Well, concrete jungles have their own downside(s), and what's possible in Japan due to their strong cultural community values of is not necessarily workable elsewhere. So I wouldn't call for an absolutely unrestricted license to build. Unless you really like Mumbai for some reason.
But I agree there's a more sensible middle to be reached than preserving residential suburbia.
I have nothing against residential suburbia! I grew up in residential suburbia, and I've lived in residential suburbia for most of my adult life, including right now.

But it's a tremendous waste of scarce infrastructure to surround a subway stop with single-family tract housing. The best way to fully utilize it is to enable as many people to live or work within walking distance of that stop as want to live or work there. You want several thousand, not several dozen, people walking to that station every day.

And since I said "within a quarter-mile" that's not exactly going to create Mumbai. Well, maybe a number of very, very small Mumbais.

Though again, if I were the housing god, I'd have some rule for extending the radius once the quarter-mile was built to sufficient density that there were no longer any obvious tear-down-and-build-higher candidates within the circle.
  #135  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:06 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Man, tying a number must be HARD.
Its harder than you reading the thread, I guess.

Now that I answered your question - before you asked it by the way - will you respond to my question - do you actually believe it is a fallacy to cite award winning economists on matters within their expertise?

Quote:
Liccardo is a known tool of the developers. Note that the experts disagreed with him.
Ad hominem, and then pending your answer to the previous question, it may qualify as your version of an “appeal to authority.”

Quote:
On Monday, San Jose’s Housing Department announced that it had dedicated $100 million to build 1,144 affordable units. Just a day later at the Feb. 5 City Council meeting, the council made a commitment for additional funding for 249 of those units.
When markets work, the government doesn’t have to subsidize real estate developers. You ought to be outraged that your tax dollars are going into landlords’ pockets in this way.
  #136  
Old 08-12-2019, 08:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Its harder than you reading the thread, I guess.

Now that I answered your question - ....
When markets work, the government doesn’t have to subsidize real estate developers. You ought to be outraged that your tax dollars are going into landlords’ pockets in this way.
Indeed, going back and scanning every one of 134 posts is hard than you typing in "100".



No, you didn't answer my question. You were being deliberately evasive that appeared to me, just to be annoying.

"When markets work...", this is a economic fallacy.

http://fxtrade.oanda.com/documents/R...isiblehand.pdf
Since the inception of classical economics over 200 years ago, one of the
most sacred assumptions has been the hypothesis that an invisible hand
determines market prices and that market prices follow a random walk.
Today, there exists significant statistical evidence that this is not the case and
we need to acknowledge that financial markets are, indeed, predictable. How
is this possible?
....
For Adam Smith and his followers, it was clear that division of labour would
only develop within the context of a free market economy with competitive
prices. At the time, governments had firm control of market pricing. Smith
believed that to unleash the forces of the market and foster competition, it
would be necessary to free markets from this control.
The ‘invisible hand’
Early economists used their theories to argue their policy recommendations,
which in turn influenced the very way their theories developed. Under no
circumstances did they want to develop a theory of the advantages of the
market economy that could be attacked as being unfair, i.e. inequitable to
society. Thus was born the concept of the ‘invisible hand’.
They argued that an efficient market has such a large volume that any one
participant has a negligible impact on the market as a whole. Because any
one participant is so small (relatively speaking) and insignificant, it was concluded that everyone behaves in the same way. Economists thus postulated that man behaves like a ‘homo oeconomicus’ who is rational and
maximises his utility. From this they inferred that everyone reacts in the
same way to market events and that market reactions to outside events are
thus homogeneous, with no secondary reactions. ,,,"


https://www.triplepundit.com/story/2...-markets/70151

Your Adam Smith Invisible hand is a outdated concept from 1776, proven wrong by many economists since then.
  #137  
Old 08-12-2019, 09:02 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, you didn't answer my question. You were being deliberately evasive that appeared to me, just to be annoying.
You asked about the link for the mayor quote. I told you I already posted it, and you refused to look.

You asked why rent control doesn’t work. I’m referring you to my other posts in this thread, because I’m not going to lift a finger to retype a single word I’ve posted, nor re-read my own posts that you can’t spend 30 seconds looking for.

Meanwhile, I know for a fact that you haven’t posted anything to substantiate your assertion that it’s a fallacy to quote economists talking about economics.

ETA: what is with the thing where you can go look up and post extended quotes about Adam Smith, but you can’t read my dozen or so posts that answer this question that you find so very important that you are compelled to ask me about every few hours?

Last edited by Ravenman; 08-12-2019 at 09:06 PM.
  #138  
Old 08-13-2019, 05:48 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 7,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
"When markets work...", this is a economic fallacy.
Yet you yourself referenced the market when discussing why my never rent controlled apartments didn't have infinite rent. Housing markets work in this country when we allow them to. They work by incentivizing investment in housing when demand goes up.
  #139  
Old 08-13-2019, 06:32 AM
GreenHell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 245
I'm a little confused about Kobal2's criticisms. Are you attacking free-markets or America? Because, as a student of economics and (not by choice) American, they are not at all the same thing.

I am a free-market apologist, because I believe competition, innovation, and consumer choice yield the greatest good for the greatest number the greatest proportion of the time. The invisible hand of the market does work, in that respect.

However, I am an apologist for the free-market, not an extremist. I think that most of the time, if a person can't afford something, they should go without it. However, to allow people to starve, die of treatable illnesses, etc. because they are poor is atrocious.

To paraphrase Smith: "We do not enjoy our beer, bread, and meat from the generosity of the brewer, baker, or butcher, but from their self interest." However, even within the text of Wealth of Nations, he took the trouble to point out that it was not unbridled greed that made the system work, but enlightened self-interest. That first part is as important as the latter.

But, this is largely theoretical. In practice, Americans are not going to allow free-market principles to compete with the established wealthy elites any more than they allow democracy to dislodge dynastic politicos or Christ-like benevolence supplant religious favoritism.

Mentioning medical costs in the U.S. is the very worst way to attack Capitalism. While a quality medical system run or funded by the state could be argued to be better than free-market solutions, free-market medical care is not what the Americans have. Rather the physician shortage was intentionally installed by the AMA's restrictions on the number of physicians trained, legacy admits ensured that more gifted lower-class students could not short-circuit the entry of less-qualified children of physicians (legacy admissions), and the spiraling costs of medical care were addressed by insurance (an industry that engages in price-fixing and gouging writ into law via regulation).

If you deal with a cartel, you are going to get gouged. If you need to deal with the intersection of TWO cartels . . .

I'm ethnically French as well, and I think it is long past due for the Americans to re-boot their democracy, preferably peacefully, failing that, otherwise. But, I have no faith that they will do so. Americans are too stupid. AN American can be intelligent, collectively, they have shown that there is virtually no abuse they won't tolerate from the powerful and wealthy, because they are deluded enough to think they they will one day be at that end of the lash and malicious enough to desire it.

"The slave dreams not of freedom, but of becoming the master."
  #140  
Old 08-13-2019, 11:09 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
Yet you yourself referenced the market when discussing why my never rent controlled apartments didn't have infinite rent. Housing markets work in this country when we allow them to. They work by incentivizing investment in housing when demand goes up.
Sure, but that's different than the "invisible hand market' where the hypothesis is that if government would just get out of the way with it's silly regulations, the magical and mythical "invisible hand market' would just make everything peachy keen and perfect.
  #141  
Old 08-13-2019, 12:17 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
Funny, I have always heard the "invisible hand" as referring to the interchange of supply and demand that moves prices (or in reaction thereto), driven by the self-interest of massive amount of opposing parties with diametrically opposed interests (one wants as much as possible at the least cost possible, the other wanting to give as little as possible at the most cost possible) results in an equilibrum without having to establish a policy on prices.

This is not the same as "laissez-faire" in which government regulations are taken to be detrimental in the vast majority of cases.

Even the liberal economists who oppose rent control all agree that a price cap has an impact on supply, even though the same economists would strongly oppose laissez-faire.
  #142  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:12 AM
DesertDog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 5,642
This young lady is paying 69,000-yen a month for an 82-meter apartment in Tokyo. In the final minutes she says it is a bit high for the size but among other things, she likes the bed being in a loft rather than everything being in one tiny room, and they rent by the month rather than two-year leases like most places offer; her work-visa has to be renewed every months.
  #143  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:28 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post
I'm a little confused about Kobal2's criticisms. Are you attacking free-markets or America? Because, as a student of economics and (not by choice) American, they are not at all the same thing.

I am a free-market apologist, because I believe competition, innovation, and consumer choice yield the greatest good for the greatest number the greatest proportion of the time. The invisible hand of the market does work, in that respect.

However, I am an apologist for the free-market, not an extremist. I think that most of the time, if a person can't afford something, they should go without it. However, to allow people to starve, die of treatable illnesses, etc. because they are poor is atrocious.

To paraphrase Smith: "We do not enjoy our beer, bread, and meat from the generosity of the brewer, baker, or butcher, but from their self interest." However, even within the text of Wealth of Nations, he took the trouble to point out that it was not unbridled greed that made the system work, but enlightened self-interest. That first part is as important as the latter.
To state a little differently, free markets are the best way to most efficiently distribute limited resources, with rare exceptions. But society can always, and modern countries always do, decide to sacrifice efficiency to some degree at the margins in favor of subjectively perceived 'fairness'. It's a judgement call how to do that, but one basic point of disagreement would be whether to do it by interfering with the basic functioning of markets, or to just subsidized people who are deemed to suffer unacceptable outcomes in market competition.

Almost no economists really believe that invasive interference in the basic workings of markets, like setting prices, like rent control, is really the best way to modify market outcomes to what's perceived as acceptable from a 'fairness' POV. The best way would be to tax incomes, property etc and given some of that money to people who can't afford market rents* but are deemed to have a 'right' to live in a very expensive area, [City of] NY for example, rather than just move somewhere where they can afford rents. That would waste fewer resources and create fewer perverse incentives.

The reason not to do that is basically pandemic economic illiteracy. Although simply subsidizing people who cannot achieve 'acceptable' outcomes in market competition is usually the least inefficient way to balance efficiency and fairness, very few ordinary people believe that. It's kind of like ordinary people's tendency to oppose free trade (unless there's some extraneous reason to start supporting it, like Trump is seen to oppose it and they can't be seen to agree with him on anything). The seat of pants sense is that price fixing like rent control doesn't really cost anything, so why do something that does, like rent subsidies? Though actually rent control costs more. Politicians have to live in the real world, and the real choice is whether a known bad policy like rent control is less worse than nothing. Assuming politicians understand rent control is a bad policy that is. Some of the more sophisticated ones must, though others are also economically illiterate and do not.

*keeping in mind, sticking with the example of NY, that 'market rents' would be considerably lower than now if all the Stabilized properties were allowed to rent at market. The 'market' rent is for a marginal subset of properties tenants have to compete for, the market clearing price for the whole of rental stock would be lower. That said, with even a gradual transition to no RS, but no subsidies, some less well off people would have to move out of NY. It's a judgement call which of them 'shouldn't' have to.

Last edited by Corry El; 08-14-2019 at 10:33 AM.
  #144  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:38 AM
Urbanredneck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, you'd allow the government to use Eminent Domain to kick a thousand people out of their $Million dollar homes, then bulldoze them to build condos? You'd be out of office so fast, it'd be a record.

And you can't just plop down a 20 story apt building in the middle of the suburbs. Not enough infrastructure.
COULD you even build those? I'm not sure but in pictures I've seen most SF property is already built on steep slopes.

Plus isnt EVERY single family home in SF worth more than $1 million?
  #145  
Old 08-14-2019, 10:51 AM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenHell View Post

To paraphrase Smith: "We do not enjoy our beer, bread, and meat from the generosity of the brewer, baker, or butcher, but from their self interest." However, even within the text of Wealth of Nations, he took the trouble to point out that it was not unbridled greed that made the system work, but enlightened self-interest. That first part is as important as the latter.
Edit to add while kind of beating a dead horse, Ravenman has covered this very well, Smith did not say the functioning of markets depended on any enlightenment by market participants. Nor have any serious pro market theorists since.

It's anti-capitalist people who say markets only work if participants are moral or enlightened in some way. And since people usually aren't when it comes to commerce, markets don't work. But free market theory from Smith onward does not actually depend on people being a priori, ethnical or looking at their long term interest. Which is different than people acting ethically because they learn it benefits their market outcomes, or IOW would cost them money not to.

Although this relates to the issue of setting neutral rules. Libertarian extremists reject neutral rules, but being a free market proponent does not mean you do. For example it's illegal to threaten a tenant with violence if they don't move out. An extreme libertarian would say that's govt interference but common sense says coercion of tenants would only be kept under control in that case if landlords were ethical. A free market proponent accepts a neutral rule like that, which doesn't directly interfere with the setting of prices. Assuming landlords (or tenants) don't use tactics like violence to get their way, the price set in the market, and value of efficient allocation of resources by market price, does not depend on either tenants or landlords being ethical or enlightened. The market just settles at a price where another tenant/landlord will outbid the tenant/landlord who demands a lower/higher rent, doesn't matter if it's 'greedy' for them to want that lower/higher rent, they cannot get it. Again separate from whether one or the other side should be subsidized by the public in the interest of perceived fairness.
  #146  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:02 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
To state a little differently, free markets are the best way to most efficiently distribute limited resources, with rare exceptions. But society can always, and modern countries always do, decide to sacrifice efficiency to some degree at the margins in favor of subjectively perceived 'fairness'. It's a judgement call how to do that, but one basic point of disagreement would be whether to do it by interfering with the basic functioning of markets, or to just subsidized people who are deemed to suffer unacceptable outcomes in market competition.
...
The lesson learned from the robber barons in England and the uSA, with disastrous crippling monopolies and terrible attack on competitors shows that this simply isnt true. Left to itself, the "free market' with in a few years no longer be "free'.
  #147  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:03 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
COULD you even build those? I'm not sure but in pictures I've seen most SF property is already built on steep slopes.

Plus isnt EVERY single family home in SF worth more than $1 million?
They actually have done so.

More or less, yes.

But of course I wasnt just talking SF but the entire Bay area.
  #148  
Old 08-14-2019, 11:29 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,267
Very nice posts, Corry El. You said it better than I possibly could have.
  #149  
Old 08-14-2019, 03:36 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
The lesson learned from the robber barons in England and the uSA, with disastrous crippling monopolies and terrible attack on competitors shows that this simply isnt true. Left to itself, the "free market' with in a few years no longer be "free'.
That's back to the distinction between govt trying to set prices and govt setting neutral rules. Anti-trust laws are price neutral rules. They don't say what price you have to sell something for, in fact they are specifically to prevent price fixing. That's different in kind not just degree from govt price fixing like rent control.

Rent control, the topic here, is a much easier one than an open ended question 'what is the role of govt in the economy?' or strawman type question like 'what if there were no market rules whatsoever?'

Rent control is price fixing. Price fixing creates misallocation of resources and perverse incentives as compared to market price discovery. If the outcome of market pricing is judged unacceptably 'unfair', a subjective judgement call, then collecting taxes to subsidize people who cannot pay market prices is virtually always preferable to govt price fixing.

Last edited by Corry El; 08-14-2019 at 03:39 PM.
  #150  
Old 08-14-2019, 05:14 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 21,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corry El View Post
To state a little differently, free markets are the best way to most efficiently distribute limited resources, with rare exceptions. But society can always, and modern countries always do, decide to sacrifice efficiency to some degree at the margins in favor of subjectively perceived 'fairness'. It's a judgement call how to do that, but one basic point of disagreement would be whether to do it by interfering with the basic functioning of markets, or to just subsidized people who are deemed to suffer unacceptable outcomes in market competition.
If you're talking resources, this is true. If you're talking about money, the answer is a lot more difficult to state unequivocally.

From a fairness standpoint, most people will work 40 hour weeks through the majority of their prime and, probably, most of us would think that amount of labor for society is roughly worth a house, enough money to retire, to raise 2-4 kids, etc. And, I should note, that's not just "fair". If humans were all mostly rational, we would probably expect the free market to do that, because anything less should be inefficient for the market. Workers who spend their lives creating and distributing the things to support the whole population need to be able to continue on from generation to generation, or the engine will stop. But to create and distribute things, you need to be able to get trained up, feel like there's value in spending your life working, and be able to afford creating the next generation.

But, as it is right now, among that same group of people who work 40 hour weeks, in the American system (which is more free than most, but not quite free) only about 2/3rds of those people earn enough money to afford all of that, via their wages. This should be inefficient for the market since, as said, you can't lose 1/3rd of your workforce every generation, because they're not earning a true living wage.

The issue is that the average person is sufficiently bad with money and with planning for the future that they fail to bargain appropriately for a wage sufficient to see them able to retire, put their kids through college, cover their medical expenses, etc. In those cases where they get extra money (a bonus, win the lottery, become a famous actor/sports star, etc.) they tend to just throw it all away and (with sufficient money) drive themselves insane and gain some form of addiction.

If you manipulated wages enough to give people a wage equivalent to their contribution to society, we would expect that most of what you would see is a boost to things like cannabis use, use of casinos, etc. You would be giving people enough money to save to buy a house and retire, one day, but that's not what would actually happen in practice.

In the free market, about 1/3rd of people would go from working to "the pasture" once they're too old to work anymore (assuming that there was no family willing to take them in). They'd burn through the few hundred dollars in their account, take out a few payday loans, and then be out on the street within a few months.

In historic times, this was handled by it being that people expected to live with their children, when they got older. The next generation would route their "casino money" to, instead, supporting their elders. In cases where that wasn't an option, than the retiree was headed to the poor house - usually run partly through the charitable donations of others. Poor houses aren't really a free market solution, though.

The free market works well in the cases where people are objective and rational. Businesses are largely able to do this. The average individual, not so much.

From a policy standpoint, leaving businesses alone pretty well makes sense. They do what they do just fine (with exceptions). It's the worker side of thing where you need to do some fiddling.

Last edited by Sage Rat; 08-14-2019 at 05:16 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017