tytlyf
Not Religious
I'm interested in facts and sources. You provided none, on purpose. Do you disagree with the definition presented for 'accessory apartment?'
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Government Program Dishonesty
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Have you noticed your definition isn't even in dispute?
It looks great on paper, in theory. Isn't that what politicians do?
At least sometimes programs work, & work well.
Curious George
Veteran Member
Balderdash!
This is not an example of a dishonest government program. This is an example of liberals deregulating. The reason that it hasn't taken off is simple capitalism. People don't want to do it if it is not worth something for them.
The problem is in the financing, construction, and, as you mentioned, the community itself.
The government is not responsible for people choosing not to build accessory housing. The people who own the houses are responsible.
It was proffered as deregulation, but in actual effect was not,
as evidenced by no one taking advantage of the program.
If the burdens imposed by government dissuade people from
participating, then this is on government.
Curious George
Veteran Member
It was deregulation. The units are allowed where before they were not.
My objection is that government policies sometimes offer the appearance
of opportunity, while actually discouraging it, in this case effective denial.
I suppose you also disagree about Republicans admitting the legality of
abortion, but attempting to deny access? I call that dishonest too.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I think the socialists who don't even want to destroy capitalism are a larger group anyway...
They aren't real socialists though.
They're capitalists who want more social benefit from capitalism.
The terminology is a real mish mash these days, eh.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I think that it's always been that way... socialism with Chinese characteristics is an interesting case study in that...
Aye, they moved towards capitalism, but retains
the command ability to use ad hoc.
And they also retained the social control aspects.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I'm late to the party here. What's an "accessory" apartment?
If you already have house on a lot, you could add on an
apartment to rent out, or install your aged mother-in-law, Bertha.
I have something like that.....a separate one bedroom house on
the same lot. Oddly, under Michiganistanian law, it adds almost
nothing to the appraised value, despite it's earning much more
rent than my property taxes. I get paid to live here.
(I live outside the city limits, so no trouble from them.)
tytlyf
Not Religious
You're in the minority, don't be so selfish. I'm sure most people aren't complaining about this change.
So you don't like minorities, eh.
If that's true, then why wouldn't they just do it? They could simply invoke Eminent Domain, buy up some property, and then rent it out at a substantially reduced rate. That would be far simpler and workable than the plan you've outlined here.
A preferred method is to require that developers of new residential
buildings donate a percentage of units to the city in exchange for
permission to build.
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
I'll get you one day, ya old coot!
Get off'n me lawn!