Another failure in a blue state for the policies of the Democrats....

California's Soros-backed progressive experiment collapses after a decade
Prop 36 aims to implement stronger penalties for drug and theft crimes in California

Certain 2024 election results in California took many by surprise.

The Golden State's residents, for example, rejected another term for progressive Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón, backed by billionaire George Soros.

They also overwhelmingly voted — at more than 70% — in favor of Proposition 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act, which seeks to undo portions of Proposition 47 from 2014 by increasing penalties for some crimes. The proposition, which took effect Dec. 18, will allow felony charges to be filed against those possessing certain drugs and those who commit thefts under $950. Additionally, people accused of those crimes could spend more time in jail.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-so...ter-decade

---

---

This is trend which alarms me.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/y...s-booming/

Build-to-rent homes popping up at faster pace as buyers are priced out

Many first-time homebuyers are priced out of the housing market

Developers are building neighborhoods of single-family homes to rent

New single-family rental construction is occurring the most in the Midwest

---

This is trend which alarms me.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/y...s-booming/

Build-to-rent homes popping up at faster pace as buyers are priced out

Many first-time homebuyers are priced out of the housing market

Developers are building neighborhoods of single-family homes to rent

New single-family rental construction is occurring the most in the Midwest

Me too.
Condominium and townhome ownership gets complicated, and many of them probably should be rentals. 
But single family, separated homes are not complicated at all and they should never be marketed to landlords. Only a sick society would allow that. The same kind of sick society that would allow TV advertisements for expensive prescription drugs or ads for sports betting during the game.
Midwestern states in particular, most of them do not have a homestead exemption on their property tax. They should implement one, it would tip the scales back towards home ownership.
Another thing, that any state could do, that might help, is a law stating that all new lease contracts on single family homes must have a buyout provision at the end of the lease term. Take the monthly rent, current interest rates, and back those numbers up into a 30-year mortgage loan amount, multiply by 1.25 to account for a 20% down payment, and that is the maximum buyout price. If the rent goes up next year, the buyout price goes up next year, we don't want this to be rent control. Most renters would not buy out, but some would and it would make a difference.

---

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

Big Brother has entered the chat.

---

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

This is trend which alarms me.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/y...s-booming/

Build-to-rent homes popping up at faster pace as buyers are priced out

Many first-time homebuyers are priced out of the housing market

Developers are building neighborhoods of single-family homes to rent

New single-family rental construction is occurring the most in the Midwest

Me too.
Condominium and townhome ownership gets complicated, and many of them probably should be rentals. 
But single family, separated homes are not complicated at all and they should never be marketed to landlords. Only a sick society would allow that. The same kind of sick society that would allow TV advertisements for expensive prescription drugs or ads for sports betting during the game.
Midwestern states in particular, most of them do not have a homestead exemption on their property tax. They should implement one, it would tip the scales back towards home ownership.
Another thing, that any state could do, that might help, is a law stating that all new lease contracts on single family homes must have a buyout provision at the end of the lease term. Take the monthly rent, current interest rates, and back those numbers up into a 30-year mortgage loan amount, multiply by 1.25 to account for a 20% down payment, and that is the maximum buyout price. If the rent goes up next year, the buyout price goes up next year, we don't want this to be rent control. Most renters would not buy out, but some would and it would make a difference.

I COMPLETELY disagree with ALL of that.  If people, or companies, want to build homes and rent them out, what in the world is wrong with that?  That increases the housing stock, and it offers homes for rent that people apparently want to rent.  
I am also against your idea of government forcing landlords to sell homes at the end of lease terms, and the government setting the price.  That's a terrible idea.  The government should stay out of things like that.

We need to let the free market sort things out.  If I want to build a home and rent it out, or if I want to buy a home and rent it out, I should have the right to do that, and I should not be forced to sell that house at the end of the lease term.  If you put your ideas into effect, people would stop building houses.  And then with the reduced supply, the price of houses would skyrocket.

---

Me too.
Condominium and townhome ownership gets complicated, and many of them probably should be rentals. 
But single family, separated homes are not complicated at all and they should never be marketed to landlords. Only a sick society would allow that. The same kind of sick society that would allow TV advertisements for expensive prescription drugs or ads for sports betting during the game.
Midwestern states in particular, most of them do not have a homestead exemption on their property tax. They should implement one, it would tip the scales back towards home ownership.
Another thing, that any state could do, that might help, is a law stating that all new lease contracts on single family homes must have a buyout provision at the end of the lease term. Take the monthly rent, current interest rates, and back those numbers up into a 30-year mortgage loan amount, multiply by 1.25 to account for a 20% down payment, and that is the maximum buyout price. If the rent goes up next year, the buyout price goes up next year, we don't want this to be rent control. Most renters would not buy out, but some would and it would make a difference.

I COMPLETELY disagree with ALL of that.  If people, or companies, want to build homes and rent them out, what in the world is wrong with that?  That increases the housing stock, and it offers homes for rent that people apparently want to rent.  
I am also against your idea of government forcing landlords to sell homes at the end of lease terms, and the government setting the price.  That's a terrible idea.  The government should stay out of things like that.

We need to let the free market sort things out.  If I want to build a home and rent it out, or if I want to buy a home and rent it out, I should have the right to do that, and I should not be forced to sell that house at the end of the lease term.  If you put your ideas into effect, people would stop building houses.  And then with the reduced supply, the price of houses would skyrocket.

Agreed. Less government interference in our lives not more. However anyone inclined to sell is currently free to do that. It is called rent to own. The government does not know best. It only knows what the lobbyist tell them.

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

Me too.
Condominium and townhome ownership gets complicated, and many of them probably should be rentals. 
But single family, separated homes are not complicated at all and they should never be marketed to landlords. Only a sick society would allow that. The same kind of sick society that would allow TV advertisements for expensive prescription drugs or ads for sports betting during the game.
Midwestern states in particular, most of them do not have a homestead exemption on their property tax. They should implement one, it would tip the scales back towards home ownership.
Another thing, that any state could do, that might help, is a law stating that all new lease contracts on single family homes must have a buyout provision at the end of the lease term. Take the monthly rent, current interest rates, and back those numbers up into a 30-year mortgage loan amount, multiply by 1.25 to account for a 20% down payment, and that is the maximum buyout price. If the rent goes up next year, the buyout price goes up next year, we don't want this to be rent control. Most renters would not buy out, but some would and it would make a difference.

I COMPLETELY disagree with ALL of that.  If people, or companies, want to build homes and rent them out, what in the world is wrong with that?  That increases the housing stock, and it offers homes for rent that people apparently want to rent.  
I am also against your idea of government forcing landlords to sell homes at the end of lease terms, and the government setting the price.  That's a terrible idea.  The government should stay out of things like that.

We need to let the free market sort things out.  If I want to build a home and rent it out, or if I want to buy a home and rent it out, I should have the right to do that, and I should not be forced to sell that house at the end of the lease term.  If you put your ideas into effect, people would stop building houses.  And then with the reduced supply, the price of houses would skyrocket.

I only said that the landlord should be forced to offer the home for sale at a price determined by the rent that the landlord himself set. Usually the tenant will not be able to afford this price and nothing will change. This is only for the unusual case where a landlord gets too speculative on the market.

Home ownership is our main ladder up into a lifestyle of investment instead of labor.  We need a steady stream of new people coming into the investment scene and having the capital to start new businesses or we will see the economy turn inward and stop growing.

We should not allow the people who currently have access to large amounts capital to hog the resources that go into building homes and at the same time wall off people who don't have access to capital from ever owning those homes.

The free market is not a good unto itself, it is there to ensure sustained and broad-based economic growth.

---

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

I COMPLETELY disagree with ALL of that.  If people, or companies, want to build homes and rent them out, what in the world is wrong with that?  That increases the housing stock, and it offers homes for rent that people apparently want to rent.  
I am also against your idea of government forcing landlords to sell homes at the end of lease terms, and the government setting the price.  That's a terrible idea.  The government should stay out of things like that.

We need to let the free market sort things out.  If I want to build a home and rent it out, or if I want to buy a home and rent it out, I should have the right to do that, and I should not be forced to sell that house at the end of the lease term.  If you put your ideas into effect, people would stop building houses.  And then with the reduced supply, the price of houses would skyrocket.

I only said that the landlord should be forced to offer the home for sale at a price determined by the rent that the landlord himself set.  Usually the tenant will not be able to afford this price and nothing will change. This is only for the unusual case where a landlord gets too speculative on the market.

Home ownership is our main ladder up into a lifestyle of investment instead of labor.  We need a steady stream of new people coming into the investment scene and having the capital to start new businesses or we will see the economy turn inward and stop growing.

We should not allow the people who currently have access to large amounts capital to hog the resources that go into building homes and at the same time wall off people who don't have access to capital from ever owning those homes.

The free market is not a good unto itself, it is there to ensure sustained and broad-based economic growth.

If we want the price of houses to come down, we need to build more houses.  You say "we should not allow the people who currently have access to large amounts capital to hog the resources that go into building homes and at the same time wall off people who don't have access to capital from ever owning those homes."  But those people who have access to large amounts of capital are the ones who can afford to build a lot of homes.  And nothing they are doing would be keep other people from buying homes.  In fact, it's the opposite.  The more homes that are built, whether they are rentals or not, the more the supply-demand equation comes into balance.  And besides that, those large homebuilders are employing large numbers of people to build those homes, and those people hammering and roofing and plumbing those homes then have more financial resources so they can save up for a down payment.  And maybe they might even be able to afford to rent a house and not be homeless because they don't have a job.

---

---

This is trend which alarms me.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/y...s-booming/

Build-to-rent homes popping up at faster pace as buyers are priced out

Many first-time homebuyers are priced out of the housing market

Developers are building neighborhoods of single-family homes to rent

New single-family rental construction is occurring the most in the Midwest

Me too.
Condominium and townhome ownership gets complicated, and many of them probably should be rentals. 
But single family, separated homes are not complicated at all and they should never be marketed to landlords. Only a sick society would allow that. The same kind of sick society that would allow TV advertisements for expensive prescription drugs or ads for sports betting during the game.
Midwestern states in particular, most of them do not have a homestead exemption on their property tax. They should implement one, it would tip the scales back towards home ownership.
Another thing, that any state could do, that might help, is a law stating that all new lease contracts on single family homes must have a buyout provision at the end of the lease term. Take the monthly rent, current interest rates, and back those numbers up into a 30-year mortgage loan amount, multiply by 1.25 to account for a 20% down payment, and that is the maximum buyout price. If the rent goes up next year, the buyout price goes up next year, we don't want this to be rent control. Most renters would not buy out, but some would and it would make a difference.

So now free enterprise is proof of a "sick society"?  Okay comrade, let's turn it all over to the government you have such trust in.

---

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

I'll take a Trump Tower with a side of onion rings, please!!

https://x.com/DavidJHarrisJr/status/1872...nRD6g&s=19

---

I'll take a Trump Tower with a side of onion rings, please!!

https://x.com/DavidJHarrisJr/status/1872...nRD6g&s=19

I ate in Trump Tower one time.  I had lasagna.  It was quite good.  My wife and I still reminisce occasionally about how good that lasagna was.

---

And the Jackasses complained about Trump taking 375 days..........

---

I'll take a Trump Tower with a side of onion rings, please!!

https://x.com/DavidJHarrisJr/status/1872...nRD6g&s=19

That's awesome actually.
I don't care who you vote for, two juicy patties of meat and six slices of cheese is my love language. Although Tillamook would be better then so-called American cheese.
Restaurants serving over the top food with over the top decor will always have a place in my heart.

---

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

I'll take a Trump Tower with a side of onion rings, please!!

https://x.com/DavidJHarrisJr/status/1872...nRD6g&s=19

That's awesome actually.
I don't care who you vote for, two juicy patties of meat and six slices of cheese is my love language.
Restaurants serving over the top food with over the top decor will always have a place in my heart.

If I had only one meal to eat for the rest of my life, it would be a cheeseburger.  A big, juicy, sloppy cheeseburger.

---

I'll take a Trump Tower with a side of onion rings, please!!

https://x.com/DavidJHarrisJr/status/1872...nRD6g&s=19

That's awesome actually.
I don't care who you vote for, two juicy patties of meat and six slices of cheese is my love language. Although Tillamook would be better then so-called American cheese.
Restaurants serving over the top food with over the top decor will always have a place in my heart.

The price doesn't look too bad, either.. I mean, $20 for a 16 oz patty? That's not too bad. That's a big [BLEEP] burger..

---

I only said that the landlord should be forced to offer the home for sale at a price determined by the rent that the landlord himself set.  Usually the tenant will not be able to afford this price and nothing will change. This is only for the unusual case where a landlord gets too speculative on the market.

Home ownership is our main ladder up into a lifestyle of investment instead of labor.  We need a steady stream of new people coming into the investment scene and having the capital to start new businesses or we will see the economy turn inward and stop growing.

We should not allow the people who currently have access to large amounts capital to hog the resources that go into building homes and at the same time wall off people who don't have access to capital from ever owning those homes.

The free market is not a good unto itself, it is there to ensure sustained and broad-based economic growth.

If we want the price of houses to come down, we need to build more houses.  You say "we should not allow the people who currently have access to large amounts capital to hog the resources that go into building homes and at the same time wall off people who don't have access to capital from ever owning those homes."  But those people who have access to large amounts of capital are the ones who can afford to build a lot of homes.  And nothing they are doing would be keep other people from buying homes.  In fact, it's the opposite.  The more homes that are built, whether they are rentals or not, the more the supply-demand equation comes into balance.  And besides that, those large homebuilders are employing large numbers of people to build those homes, and those people hammering and roofing and plumbing those homes then have more financial resources so they can save up for a down payment.  And maybe they might even be able to afford to rent a house and not be homeless because they don't have a job.

The market to buy and the market to rent are different markets.  There are people who really want to buy but settle on renting when they can't find something that works for them, but other than that the markets have different players buying and selling different assets.  I'm not saying there should never be single family homes for rent, but I am saying that it should be a small number ideally.  You only need to look at the "bad old days" of slumlords and company towns to understand what I hope we can avoid.

---

Me too.
Condominium and townhome ownership gets complicated, and many of them probably should be rentals. 
But single family, separated homes are not complicated at all and they should never be marketed to landlords. Only a sick society would allow that. The same kind of sick society that would allow TV advertisements for expensive prescription drugs or ads for sports betting during the game.
Midwestern states in particular, most of them do not have a homestead exemption on their property tax. They should implement one, it would tip the scales back towards home ownership.
Another thing, that any state could do, that might help, is a law stating that all new lease contracts on single family homes must have a buyout provision at the end of the lease term. Take the monthly rent, current interest rates, and back those numbers up into a 30-year mortgage loan amount, multiply by 1.25 to account for a 20% down payment, and that is the maximum buyout price. If the rent goes up next year, the buyout price goes up next year, we don't want this to be rent control. Most renters would not buy out, but some would and it would make a difference.

So now free enterprise is proof of a "sick society"?  Okay comrade, let's turn it all over to the government you have such trust in.

Not what I said at all.  Enterprise should be as free as possible.  But some types of commerce are very corrosive to society.  Prostitution is one.  Opioid sales is another.  Right?  I submit for your consideration that advertisements for prescription drugs is another.  If I need something, my doctor will tell me I need it at my next checkup or when a flareup puts me in urgent care.  I shouldn't be thinking I can tell the doctor what I need.

---

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

I only said that the landlord should be forced to offer the home for sale at a price determined by the rent that the landlord himself set.  Usually the tenant will not be able to afford this price and nothing will change. This is only for the unusual case where a landlord gets too speculative on the market.

Home ownership is our main ladder up into a lifestyle of investment instead of labor.  We need a steady stream of new people coming into the investment scene and having the capital to start new businesses or we will see the economy turn inward and stop growing.

We should not allow the people who currently have access to large amounts capital to hog the resources that go into building homes and at the same time wall off people who don't have access to capital from ever owning those homes.

The free market is not a good unto itself, it is there to ensure sustained and broad-based economic growth.

Hoo boy what a rabbit hole. The suggestion is we FORCE someone to sell an asset of theirs. What if the person renting it doesn't want to, it could be the business they use to support their family? Is the plan to seize the house to ensure compliance? ? Tell me no firearms are involved at least. I believe the constitution would need to be changed to allow this. Then it would open the government up to being able to force people to sell assets they deem excessive.  Quite a slippery slope there.

Now these resource hogs. We would need to establish a limit to the number of homes one person could have right?  I can see all this working in places like China, Venezuela, Russia, 1930's Germany, yea piece of cake.

Just my opinion...

---

A new broom always sweeps clean.

China's 6th gen fighter take flight.

https://www.twz.com/air/yes-china-just-f...t-aircraft

---

CCL Stroudcrowd1