Seattle repealing their $275/pp head tax today to fund homelessness housing & services after corporate mayor Jenny Durkan caved to the privledged of the city (who she had already caved to, to win the election). She caved to people who had to lie and cheat to get signatures to repeal the head tax. She caved to the same people who heavily objected against the $15/hr minimum wage who now enjoy one of the countries largest restaurant booms. She caved to privledged white people who raised $350,000 in a day to repeal this. They didn't get the required signatures, but weak city council will be repealing it today regardless.
This was a 0.2% or less tax on corporations making $20mil in revenue. It didn't include many businesses except for the ones making record profits.
Seattle is an extremely right wing city with right wing residents, believe it or not. The single family zoning has people sitting on $1.2mil beat up houses who want to keep the city theirs at the cost of others. It has pussy hat and rainbow flag neoliberals but everything else is extremely right wing down to the mayor's police reponses that create violence against peaceful protestors. It all happened because of segregation. Economic segregation. I've only lived here for a few years, but it's easy to see that what was once a thriving left wing area now has no interest in anything left of neoliberalism since all of the people that live in the city are wealthy "fuck you I got mine" libertarians that can afford $3200/month rents for a 1br.
Will Seattle ever return to its "socialist hellhole" status or can we now start calling it a fascist shitfest? Any semblance of left politics will be voted out by corporations and replaced with fascist white supremacists who can play off to the city being in favor of identity politics this November.
The corporations have won again over our nation of idiots blinded by consumerism and corporate loyalty.
I think its fair to say the United States is one big fascist shitfest at this point. Stripping babies from their parents did it for me.
Adam Gutierrez
just send the homeless to sf or nyc, you don't have to destroy the last decent white majority American cities (Seattle and Portland)
Adrian Morales
That's what is interesting. Fascism occurs when the bourg can no longer use the state to effectively facilitate the extraction of profit from the working class. It is an essential goal of the bourgeoisie in places where there is a strong labor movement. In America they have almost no unions and their legal system is incredibly hostile to labor in general. They don't even need fascism. That's what makes the country so disgusting.
Nazis: Also nazis Your petty bourg is showing, filth.
Luke James
such a fragile totality, it must be.
Alexander Johnson
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.
Lincoln Gomez
fam homeless here are treated pretty good, "raising more money for services" will just incentivize more homeless from the rest of the country to flood in, just like what happened to sf. we don't have internal passports in the usa like they did in the ussr (though I wish we did) to ensure city services go to city residents and city residents only
your knee jerk sjw world view is showing, all emotions and no brains
Andrew Sanders
So-called tech-libertarian types and property owners dominate those kinds of places. They're left-wing on social issues, but on economic matters they're like any other conservative.
Similar things going on in my city. It's a lib stronghold here and the govt is trying to draw in Amazon and Apple to build here. Of course they're giving away tons of money in tax revenue and of course the specifics are hidden from the public by our Dem governor. The addition is expected to increase rent prices in our already overpriced market, pushing more workers further into the surrounding rural areas while substantially increasing traffic and commute times simultaneously, but the local news only pushes taking points from YIMBYs who only care about their property values going up. Shits depressing.
Isaiah Parker
These are good though, no properly planned economy can do without them.
Isaac Foster
where did I say I oppose them? they're an excellent for enforcing crypto apartheid policies if I do say so myself.
Jonathan Morales
The head tax would have built more affordable housing, which was one of the main reasons why it was so controversial among the "professional" scum that inhabit Seattle these days.
Oliver Lewis
I've never been there but in terms of U.S. states Minnesota seems like the most socdem-ish with the presence of unions and low inequality. The only downside is that you freeze your ass off for most of the year.
MN here, it's not quite socdem but Michele Bachmann has made the local GOP a total joke.
Landon Davis
am I retarded or is this just a shitlib solution that was set up to be repealed?
John James
Gotta increase those property values! America is a country that prides itself on placing property above the wellbeing of its own citizens. It will be interesting to see what happens after the boomers die. Most are selling their homes off (to overseas investing groups) or have "reverse mortgages." There aren't going to be many young home owners in the future. Death is the only thing America has to look forward to.
Honestly just seems like it was setup to be repealed. It's very fishy to me that the council voted unanimously in favor a month ago but now 7/9 are in favor of repealing it.
There has also been a lot of "we don't know what city council ia doing with this money and it should be repealed!" propaganda going around. Do these stupid neoliberals realize these businesses wouldn't have paid up even if Seattle had blueprints for buildings, full plans for services, full plans for housing, and had already chosen people to live there? Amazon would not just be like "yeah, looks good, heres your annual check".
Ian Walker
I've heard Vermont is ok. You also have a third party actual Socdem party on the Vermont ballots, so its almost like your in Canada or something.
The USA was fascist literally ever since Jim Crow started.
Grayson Phillips
...
Angel Hall
America has never been "fascist" because it doesn't need to be. It's already done what your typical fascist wants. It oppresses "undesirables" and tries it hardest to eliminate them entirely by either deporting them en masse or shoving them into massive concentration camps (i.e. prisons.) It has so far succeeded in destroying unions in the private sector and is working towards doing the same in the public sector. It regularly engages in imperialist wars which its media unquestioningly promotes and supports.
Anthony Richardson
Also the state in general is committed to privatization of even its most critical functions like education and mail delivery, all in the name of enriching those who already own fucking everything.
Christopher Perry
hurrrrr durrrr
Juan Gray
Learn to read.
Gabriel Nguyen
Those who called themselves fascists in the 30's never created a coherent definition for their so-called ideology. Quit defending them by pretending fascism exists. Just because a word can be spoken doesn't mean it represents anything. Fascism is just a funny word to use to make your opponents mad.
Gavin Long
Sure they did. Fascism is just as much of a distinct ideology than any other. Fascists have their own ideologues and intellectuals. You just haven't read up on them.
Alexander Reyes
Define it or piss off. Your empty insults aren't doing anything for this board's level of discourse.
Professionals are cancer. I pray every day for a recession that destroys the American tech economy and sends these rats tumbling off of the tops of their shitty sky scrapers in despair. They are making Seattle even worse that it already was. The only good thing about this is it means that the bullying of tech virgins by homeless people can continue, which is always good.
American professionals are super progressive about everything, just not when it comes to economics or anything related to their personal financial well being (i.e. their precious house(s) which must always be increasing in value.)
They are. But progressives are cancer. NIMBYism is supported by Democrat Cops of America and Bernie types
Brayden Powell
I thought YIMBYism was the new hotness? In the end it's the same shit though. More upper class housing isn't going to solve the problem.
Michael Ward
Seattlfag here. I work at farmers markets where these fuckers where constantly collecting signatures to repeal the head tax. I've told them off a few times when they asked me to sign. I'm pretty miffed that it went through.
William King
t. NIMBY in denial If you don't build "upper class housing", they'll just evict the poor from their lower-class housing and then renovate and live there.
Jose Nelson
That's not how capitalism works. If you build more they will just convert affordable housing to non-affordable housing just to make more money. The only solution is to build more AFFORDABLE HOUSING. If you don't like it you can, well, do nothing because you are impotent and probably some kind of loser programmer who cannot even open a bottle of soylent without a bottle opener.
Jaxson Brooks
The only good thing to come out of this is that we have a very clear, contemporary example of why bourgeois "democracy" is a farce. Amazon and Facebook straight up blackmailed the city government to get their way. It's also yet another example of why Jeff Bezos is human garbage to show to libs who think he's ok because he owns the Washington Post which goes after Trump.
Jacob Moore
They already do that. There is no affordable housing in Seattle or San Francisco.
Homeless people living under a bridge or in canals could be considered a form of "affordable housing" as well. Because you refuse to build more houses.
Why are you contradicting yourself? First you said this And now you defend them lol? Their houses increase in value because they have a monopoly on houses because no other houses are being built. NIMBY conservatives, liberals and suc-dems are the only ones who are causing this mess in the first place Dense housing is inherently more affordable than your sterile suburbs. NIMBYs refuse to build it altogether. Ahh, you're just another Zig Forumstard pretending to be leftist. Carry on then
Which is why we need to demand it. We need commie blocks in every major metropolitan area. For ever cancerous petit bourg condo there should be a couple hundred apartment units (preferably more) built as well. Housing should be as common as fucking lamp posts.
The absolute state of YIMBY scum.
Carson Jenkins
Of course, that's why suc-dem retards like you constantly side with the NIMBYs on this issue. How convenient, you can pretend any development is not "affordable housing" and you can cancel any new building while the value to your shitty suburban hellhole goes up.
You're going full retard now. NIMBYs are the ones who keep the standards of housing luxurious in progressive cities. This how you get "shitty upscale housing":
NIMBYism inherently makes the houses more expensive. Dense high-rises are not more expensive than giant suburban houses, this isn't an economics issue this is plain fucking logic. Leave it to american dumbasses to think having less apartments are better for rent.
I live in a former communist country in an actual commie block. They're not just slabs of concrete you imbecile. It has all the amenities that you consider "luxury". My apartment has 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, 1 kitchen, a big hallway and a balcony. It had wooden floors and centralized heating and it was way better than the garbage rural homes where my parents used to live. This was all thanks to Ceausescu, not to suburban hipster shits like you who want poor people to live in barracks.
You're talking past one another. YIMBY is not the opposite of NIMBY, it is rather an expression of the idea that a housing crisis can be solved by allowing private developers to build more housing of their choosing, in line with the "demands of the market". In practice it means upscale development that does nothing to alleviate a housing crisis at the bottom. Both NIMBY an YIMBY are wrong approaches, and the only thing that will work is large public investment, which will not come about so long as housing and land is left to the devices of the free market and the real estate vampires.
Caleb Jenkins
you're just agreeing with the other guy because you're also a retarded suc-dem
NIMBYism is about restricting development (both public and private) based on dumbfuck liberal regulations that indirectly help existing owners of McMansions and landlords. YIMBism is about removing those restrictions.
That's the very point of this thread, Seattle is filled with liberal nimby shits.They have zero problem with cutting taxes that fund housing for the homeless because they're obsessed with maintaining their wealth achieved through rising housing costs.
You can't do proper public housing without being YIMBY. nimbyism is nothing more than the petty bourgeoise using the state to defend their assets.
communists did not give a fuck about gentrification, muh culture, muh city character pretty views and any other retarded shit that stops you from supporting dense housing.
You're trying to make the conversation about free markets and "upscale apartments" (as if there's anything more upscale than suburban mansions and villas) because you don't want dense housing in your backyard because you're a retarded upper class twit who needs to be hanged
Lincoln Thomas
Don't call me a sucdem you liberal. Public housing doesn't need YIMBY, YIMBY is only necessary in free market logic. If you have a sufficiently empowered popular government, you can just ignore the concerns of the landowners - no "yes" required on their part.
Bentley Collins
Ignoring the "concerns" (coercive powers) of the landowners is literally the point of YIMBYism. Still doesn't explain why a so-called socialist would ever defend exclusionary zoning legislation under any circumstances.
You're essentially shilling for "FUCK YOU GOT MINE" in this thread and in another thread you're pretending Trump isn't a warmonger. Can't get more cointelpro than that.
Christopher Cook
Sectarianism is fun and all, but this is just ridiculous
Seattle is full of neoliberal NIMBY shitheads sitting on beat up housing worth millions. They won't allow zoning laws to change so there is something like 7 new apartment buildings going up in the entire city of Seattle, most of it downtown housing for the wealthy. No affordable housing is built because there is little to no ROI. Because we have like 50+ people move here every day and we're only building housing at like 1000 luxury units per year, the competition is going up and driving prices through the roof.
These property owners bought this property in like the early 2000's or earlier and are paying next to nothing on a mortgage but are raking in rents of $2kmo-$4k/mo while their property value continues rising at $54/working hr. Cushy life for them, why change it? Why wouldn't they be greedy in a country that glorifies money.
Jordan Miller
Seattle in the 70s/80s used to have a perfect mix of eco-anarchists and industrial trade unionists. The history of labor activism in this city is amazing.
Since the 90s tech boom and the slow loss of manufacturing, most of that is gone. It's sad but outside the city a lot of the old guard is still there.
there are like 4 apartment buildings going up in walking distance for me. People have been building these ugly condo buildings everywhere too. Also don't forget that property tax is pretty high in Seattle too (since WA doesn't have an income tax). Still though Amazon is going to continue to destroy our housing market the longer it exists
Jaxon Clark
Yeah, YIMBY really doesn't make sense in Seattle. They are building new expensive housing units all the time.
Jordan Roberts
WTF is this thread
Justin Perry
Despite all the construction downtown and a few designated 'urban growth areas' the vast majority of land in the city is zoned for single family housing only. There are entire neighborhoods full of homes that would be illegal to build under current zoning.
Most people I know, even those who live in quiet residential areas, aren't necessarily against density but they think the infrastructure isn't there to support it. Maybe that's their excuse, I don't know.
Christian Ross
buhhhhh we have to immediately heel to their interests instead of setting out abolishing them as a class. they are so universally opposed to housing for all (as that would ultimately inconsequentialize their noble concept of ownership their entire personality is downhill from) they've infected the discourse to the point of this brainrotten consequentialist YIMBY bullshit to pass it off socialist praxis. STOP PLAYING BY THE MARKET YOU FREAK
I would rather that we have construction of luxury condos than construction of no new housing. The petit bourgs and urban professionals will vacate their lower-level apartments to go live in the luxury condos. And the rents on the apartments that these people vacated will in turn go down, giving the poor more of an opportunity to live in these units.
Increasing the raw number of housing units is always beneficial for the poor. Even if you're not building new affordable housing units.
Blake Robinson
Public transit in North America is shit. North American cities were designed to be sprawling metropolises. European cities on the other hand were designed with density in mind. So yes there are infrastructure problems with density-building. I don't understand why every fucking business has to set up shop in metropolitan areas like Seattle. Why can't they set up shop elsewhere? This is the fucking problem when you have private ownership of the means of production. Private employers just build offices wherever they want, not giving a single thought as to whether the city has the housing and infrastructure capacity to support the workers and the commute, etc.
You need to have some sort of central planning. 80% of the new jobs in my province of Ontario are created in the Toronto metropolitan area. Leaving only 20% of jobs outside of Toronto. That shit needs to fucking stop. They need to put a head tax on corporations here in Toronto. Private actors are not as smart as libertarians give them credit for. In Silicon Valley, Google, Facebook, etc. are offering top engineers $350,000/year salaries because engineers won't bother moving to Silicon Valley for any less because housing costs a fortune there. Small IT start-ups in Palo Alto, etc. are pissed off because they can't afford to hire engineers in this fucked up market. They need to either set up shop elsewhere (which is what the head tax would encourage anyways) or offering telecommuting to workers.
Connor Sullivan
The reason jobs are setting up shop in cities is because people want to live there. If you open a business in Bellingham or Spokane you're going to get different employees. It might be hard to convince the talent you need to make the move.
There is plenty of room in Seattle for more housing, it's just not profitable. The Aurora corridor alone could fit hundreds of thousands of people without displacing anything but motels and car lots. Developers won't waste time building family-sized housing for middle and low income people when luxury studios are so much more profitable.
I'm not sure what the solution to that is but it's really obvious the free market is failing.
Isaac Young
ORRRR they renovate them and increase rents by +100% in order to attract the growing population of professionals in the area (which is what actually happens by the way.)
Jaxon Campbell
You're on Zig Forums m8, like a third of the posters here live in metropolitan areas, or are hicklibs envious of life in those metropolitan areas. The countryside and small towns can die out for all they care ("Hey, it's inevitable under capitalism anyway, so why stop it?")
That's what happens when you pursue economic policies that encourage the hollowing out of the heartland. Corporations/executives don't care, because they get all the amenities of BIG CITY LYFE without having to deal with the problems facing interns/grads on the bottom rungs, or the drones on the ground level. And since the Left currently is concentrated in cities (due to impoverished immigrants/drones and students), there's a complete apathy towards changing anything outside the city.
Zachary Butler
The left is concentrated in cities because rural politics are dominated by religious favoritism and very difficult to penetrate, even for the secular right wing.
Kayden Gonzalez
Also rural areas often are infected with the petit bourg disease. The only proles are usually heavily exploited/marginalized migrant laborers who are effectively excluded from politics.
Wyatt Thompson
aka weed-addled tranny fucking lolbertarians.
Yes, as we all know the Battle of Blair Mountain was fought over public transportation rights in Pittsburgh
Nathan Wright
Even people who live in cities usually have family in rural areas. I choose not to live in a rural area because I'd be bored out of my mind but I know why some people prefer it. I agree money shouldn't be as concentrated in major cities as it is now but that's always been the case, even long before capitalism. The entire human history after hunting/gathering is a history of urbanization, capitalism just makes the inequality worse.
Even when telecommuting and automation become the norm I'm almost certain cities will continue to exist. There isn't enough room on the planet for everyone to live a rural lifestyle.
