Damn, now he just links directly to Wiki instead of hiding it in a bowl of copy pasta.

---

Sure, American citizens would tell the guy to buzz off. Illegal aliens would run for the hills.

Ok, and in the second case, the workers ran away.  Is your department, in the short term, now more productive or less productive?

Well, I don't hire illegals so my staff is fine.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Damn, now he just links directly to Wiki instead of hiding it in a bowl of copy pasta.

---

Ok, and in the second case, the workers ran away.  Is your department, in the short term, now more productive or less productive?

Well, I don't hire illegals so my staff is fine.

Duck, dodge, and dip!

I have attempted to paraphrase wiki but I've never just copied it without using quote marks.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Damn, now he just links directly to Wiki instead of hiding it in a bowl of copy pasta.

---

Well, I don't hire illegals so my staff is fine.

Duck, dodge, and dip!

I have attempted to paraphrase wiki but I've never just copied it without using quote marks.

Hey now.   Whatever else your talking about I do not know. However, get the 5 D's of dodge ball right. It is dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Mikesez, you have gone on a long rant about rents going up but continue to overlook the problem.

You say supply is low. Why is that? How many people have been let into this country? Don't you see the problem?

The government has a set limit they will pay for housing illegals. That amount will magically be the amount the renter will rent for. The amount is different in different places but that becomes price floor for rents.

Stop trying to apply a bunch of financial and economic terms, theories, etc. to explain it away. The rates drop immediately if the government stops paying. Supply doesn’t change until people are kicked out of the country.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

Mikesez, you have gone on a long rant about rents going up but continue to overlook the problem.

You say supply is low. Why is that? How many people have been let into this country? Don't you see the problem?

The government has a set limit they will pay for housing illegals. That amount will magically be the amount the renter will rent for. The amount is different in different places but that becomes price floor for rents.

Stop trying to apply a bunch of financial and economic terms, theories, etc. to explain it away. The rates drop immediately if the government stops paying. Supply doesn’t change until people are kicked out of the country.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

There are a small number of states that will pay for housing for some illegal immigrants, but the federal government does not.

The price floor you're describing in most places is section 8, which is federal, and does not benefit illegal immigrants unless they happen to live with a citizen.  I agree that program is problematic.  But it's also about 50 years old now.  Before section 8 we had a lot more government owned housing, which is also not great. But these are older problems. The housing shortage is a new problem, that started on the West coast and is hitting all over most major cities now.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Mikesez, you have gone on a long rant about rents going up but continue to overlook the problem.

You say supply is low. Why is that? How many people have been let into this country? Don't you see the problem?

The government has a set limit they will pay for housing illegals. That amount will magically be the amount the renter will rent for. The amount is different in different places but that becomes price floor for rents.

Stop trying to apply a bunch of financial and economic terms, theories, etc. to explain it away. The rates drop immediately if the government stops paying. Supply doesn’t change until people are kicked out of the country.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

There are a small number of states that will pay for housing for some illegal immigrants, but the federal government does not.

The price floor you're describing in most places is section 8, which is federal, and does not benefit illegal immigrants unless they happen to live with a citizen.  I agree that program is problematic.  But it's also about 50 years old now.  Before section 8 we had a lot more government owned housing, which is also not great.  But these are older problems.  The housing shortage is a new problem, that started on the West coast and is hitting all over most major cities now.

As far as rental cost a lot use the 1% rule. It is just a rule of thumb.  Zillow has a nice article.
https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/re...house-for/

Additionally historical rent info here. Amazing that it spiked as the current administration attacked fossil fuel and enacted their policies, without a plan to mitigate the damage other than rolling them back before the election.

https://ipropertymanagement.com/research...nt-by-year

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

There are a small number of states that will pay for housing for some illegal immigrants, but the federal government does not.

The price floor you're describing in most places is section 8, which is federal, and does not benefit illegal immigrants unless they happen to live with a citizen.  I agree that program is problematic.  But it's also about 50 years old now.  Before section 8 we had a lot more government owned housing, which is also not great.  But these are older problems.  The housing shortage is a new problem, that started on the West coast and is hitting all over most major cities now.

As far as rental cost a lot use the 1% rule. It is just a rule of thumb.  Zillow has a nice article.
https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/re...house-for/

Additionally historical rent info here. Amazing that it spiked as the current administration attacked fossil fuel and enacted their policies, without a plan to mitigate the damage other than rolling them back before the election.

https://ipropertymanagement.com/research...nt-by-year

The rent increases were not the same nationwide. It wasn't a nationwide problem.  They were worse in FL and AZ.  
The things Biden did affected everywhere about the same.  Gas prices went up about the same everywhere.  COVID subsidies went out about the same everywhere.  Yet rent increases had huge regional variation.  This was true before Biden as well.  Rents were going up faster in places where home construction was not keeping pace with new jobs.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

As far as rental cost a lot use the 1% rule. It is just a rule of thumb.  Zillow has a nice article.
https://www.zillow.com/rental-manager/re...house-for/

Additionally historical rent info here. Amazing that it spiked as the current administration attacked fossil fuel and enacted their policies, without a plan to mitigate the damage other than rolling them back before the election.

https://ipropertymanagement.com/research...nt-by-year

The rent increases were not the same nationwide. It wasn't a nationwide problem.  They were worse in FL and AZ.  
The things Biden did affected everywhere about the same.  Gas prices went up about the same everywhere.  COVID subsidies went out about the same everywhere.  Yet rent increases had huge regional variation.  This was true before Biden as well.  Rents were going up faster in places where home construction was not keeping pace with new jobs.

The data clearly shows from 2000 till 2020 rents increased about 3% nationwide, with the exception of the fall out of the 2008/9 housing crisis. During this period there were so many houses on the market it fell for a couple years. In 2021 it rose to 6.76% it stayed above that peaking in 2022 at 7.95%. They rolled the energy restrictions then and it fell to 5% level in 2023. If Kamala is elected and she does as her record says and not what she is saying now look for more of the same.  Hope you do not rent cause it will be painful. Did you look at the data at all?

PS the President does not have the power to impose rent control. Only congress can do that. It would most likely need to be an admenment to the constitution as well requiring 2/3rd's votes.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

The rent increases were not the same nationwide. It wasn't a nationwide problem.  They were worse in FL and AZ.  
The things Biden did affected everywhere about the same.  Gas prices went up about the same everywhere.  COVID subsidies went out about the same everywhere.  Yet rent increases had huge regional variation.  This was true before Biden as well.  Rents were going up faster in places where home construction was not keeping pace with new jobs.

The data clearly shows from 2000 till 2020 rents increased about 3% nationwide, with the exception of the fall out of the 2008/9 housing crisis. During this period there were so many houses on the market it fell for a couple years. In 2021 it rose to 6.76% it stayed above that peaking in 2022 at 7.95%. They rolled the energy restrictions then and it fell to 5% level in 2023. If Kamala is elected and she does as her record says and not what she is saying now look for more of the same.  Hope you do not rent cause it will be painful. Did you look at the data at all?

You're missing my point.
The trend I want you to notice varies from place to place.  It is not in the national data.  It is not Biden's fault, or Trump's fault, or any President's fault.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So, 79 pages in now and still NADA, ZIP, Zilch for any viable sound reason to vote for that empty, drunk, cackling, non-democratically installed puppet of a candidate.

---

Looking to troll? Don't bother, we supply our own.

 

 

The data clearly shows from 2000 till 2020 rents increased about 3% nationwide, with the exception of the fall out of the 2008/9 housing crisis. During this period there were so many houses on the market it fell for a couple years. In 2021 it rose to 6.76% it stayed above that peaking in 2022 at 7.95%. They rolled the energy restrictions then and it fell to 5% level in 2023. If Kamala is elected and she does as her record says and not what she is saying now look for more of the same.  Hope you do not rent cause it will be painful. Did you look at the data at all?

You're missing my point.
The trend I want you to notice varies from place to place.  It is not in the national data.  It is not Biden's fault, or Trump's fault, or any President's fault.

All real estate is about location, location, location. You are not the first nor will be the last to finally figure that out...LOL

California shot themselves in the foot of their own accord and have no weight in this matter.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

You're missing my point.
The trend I want you to notice varies from place to place.  It is not in the national data.  It is not Biden's fault, or Trump's fault, or any President's fault.

All real estate is about location, location, location. You are not the first nor will be the last to finally figure that out...LOL

California shot themselves in the foot of their own accord and have no weight in this matter.

But what if there was something a President could do to incentivize or even require these states to unlock their zoning?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

All real estate is about location, location, location. You are not the first nor will be the last to finally figure that out...LOL

California shot themselves in the foot of their own accord and have no weight in this matter.

But what if there was something a President could do to incentivize or even require these states to unlock their zoning?

Nice try at the switcheroo buddy, but just not good enough. You a renter? If so save your cash to pay for increased rent as that is on the way if the votes fall one way.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

But what if there was something a President could do to incentivize or even require these states to unlock their zoning?

Nice try at the switcheroo buddy, but just not good enough. You a renter? If so save your cash to pay for increased rent as that is on the way if the votes fall one way.

It's not a switcheroo. I've been trying to talk about this since post 1,371.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So, 79 pages in now and still NADA, ZIP, Zilch for any viable sound reason to vote for that empty, drunk, cackling, non-democratically installed puppet of a candidate.

People should listen.


https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1836...S6J2w&s=19

---

I live in a small town of 3500, before covids full shut down I was renting a place for $650 a month, that was even kind of high for the area at the time. Now those same houses are ranging $1000-$1250. Right as the shut down was happening, I purchased my house because I was afraid I wouldn't see those 3% or less interest rates. Boy am I happy I did. Now my house payment, property taxes and insurance doesn't even cost me $650 a month. The 3%-6% raise in rent doesn't add up for what we are seeing around here.

---

All real estate is about location, location, location. You are not the first nor will be the last to finally figure that out...LOL

California shot themselves in the foot of their own accord and have no weight in this matter.

But what if there was something a President could do to incentivize or even require these states to unlock their zoning?

Zoning is far too localized an issue to ever have Presidential oversight, and any Federal involvement would become just another bureaucratic boondoggle.  Municipalities enact their own zoning regulations and it's a continuously evolving process, with overlying restraints that vary with individual States.  There are numerous factors to consider when before making zoning changes that allow significant increases in development, especially residential.  A municipality's ability to support the accompanying demand for water, sewer, schools, etc. is a huge concern and those services take years to upgrade.

Zoning doesn't make development happen, it simply allows or prevents it.  When growth is permitted, infrastructure is still the critical component.  The most effective incentive government can offer is to provide and/or assist in developing the prerequisite supporting services.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

But what if there was something a President could do to incentivize or even require these states to unlock their zoning?

Zoning is far too localized an issue to ever have Presidential oversight, and any Federal involvement would become just another bureaucratic boondoggle.  Municipalities enact their own zoning regulations and it's a continuously evolving process, with overlying restraints that vary with individual States.  There are numerous factors to consider when before making zoning changes that allow significant increases in development, especially residential.  A municipality's ability to support the accompanying demand for water, sewer, schools, etc. is a huge concern and those services take years to upgrade.

Zoning doesn't make development happen, it simply allows or prevents it.  When growth is permitted, infrastructure is still the critical component.  The most effective incentive government can offer is to provide and/or assist in developing the prerequisite supporting services.

Zoning is totally not the issue it is a red herring. There are a few factors causing this. First, the high inflation caused by the current administrations policies drove up the price of building new homes. In fact a new regulation they have is estimated to increase it an average another 20-30k per house. Next, in response to inflation the Fed responded by the Federal Funds Rate to 5.5% from .5%. This drove up the cost of money for the builders and buyers. Buyers were used to a 3% mortgage rate, it rose to around 8% at it's highest. Last real wage increases did not keep up with inflation under this administration. All of this made new homes unaffordable so less were built. Existing home sales fell as the people with 3% mortgage didn't want to dive into an 8% mortgage.  The Fed is actually meeting today to perhaps begin lowering rates.

Here read this,
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing...e-history/

PS. once the Fed takes the brakes off the "manufactured" housing shortage will be resolved by Free Market forces.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

But what if there was something a President could do to incentivize or even require these states to unlock their zoning?

Zoning is far too localized an issue to ever have Presidential oversight, and any Federal involvement would become just another bureaucratic boondoggle.  Municipalities enact their own zoning regulations and it's a continuously evolving process, with overlying restraints that vary with individual States.  There are numerous factors to consider when before making zoning changes that allow significant increases in development, especially residential.  A municipality's ability to support the accompanying demand for water, sewer, schools, etc. is a huge concern and those services take years to upgrade.

Zoning doesn't make development happen, it simply allows or prevents it.  When growth is permitted, infrastructure is still the critical component.  The most effective incentive government can offer is to provide and/or assist in developing the prerequisite supporting services.

There are examples of federal law overlapping local law all over the place. Sometimes it's a "boondoggle" but other times it works, for instance the Americans with Disabilities Act is federally mandated but locally enforced. For the first maybe decade after it was passed, it was pre-empting and nullifying some state and local requirements. By now the state level laws have been revised to work within the framework ADA laid out. The ICC already has a standard zoning framework with common terminology and definitions and some municipalities are already revising their stuff to match it.

I agree that the main justification for zoning is to make sure infrastructure is adequate in a given area, however in practice this is simply not true.  Many places can afford to add infrastructure, and choose not to, because they want to "preserve their character." In some cases, like specific historical buildings, or truly rural areas, that's valid.  In most cases, it's not.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Zoning is far too localized an issue to ever have Presidential oversight, and any Federal involvement would become just another bureaucratic boondoggle.  Municipalities enact their own zoning regulations and it's a continuously evolving process, with overlying restraints that vary with individual States.  There are numerous factors to consider when before making zoning changes that allow significant increases in development, especially residential.  A municipality's ability to support the accompanying demand for water, sewer, schools, etc. is a huge concern and those services take years to upgrade.

Zoning doesn't make development happen, it simply allows or prevents it.  When growth is permitted, infrastructure is still the critical component.  The most effective incentive government can offer is to provide and/or assist in developing the prerequisite supporting services.

There are examples of federal law overlapping local law all over the place. Sometimes it's a "boondoggle" but other times it works, for instance the Americans with Disabilities Act is federally mandated but locally enforced. For the first maybe decade after it was passed, it was pre-empting and nullifying some state and local requirements. By now the state level laws have been revised to work within the framework ADA laid out. The ICC already has a standard zoning framework with common terminology and definitions and some municipalities are already revising their stuff to match it.

I agree that the main justification for zoning is to make sure infrastructure is adequate in a given area, however in practice this is simply not true.  Many places can afford to add infrastructure, and choose not to, because they want to "preserve their character." In some cases, like specific historical buildings, or truly rural areas, that's valid.  In most cases, it's not.

I call BS on the bold statement. You have no proof it is true. (unless you have some? got a link?) 

So your idea is to transfer the power of zoning to the federal government. Cool half baked idea. Problem you have is we are a republic. That means the local people make those decisions. Point is I have no business tell people in Iowa how they should live nor should you. Who made you that powerful? This is a States right issue not a federal one.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.