YoyoMa 38 Posted June 28 Share Posted June 28 On 6/26/2026 at 12:05 PM, gagzus said: Him literally being the only politician in the whole western world in the last decade to keep his pledges is crazy. Y’all should protest vote for him en mass in the presidential election — they can’t call themselves a democratic society and ignore if he got the most votes. He can't join the presidential election though - as he's not born in the US... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 27,549 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 8 hours ago, Economy said: Meh, ik it often isnt cost effective either tbh ive seen failure examples here But id still take it over rent control. Im just trying to emphasize that im not indifferent to housing crisis and impact on ppl but I just really think rent control is among the worse of the worst housing policies long term. Id rather squander some tax dollars for less than steller results on increasing supply than a policy that actively makes it worse long term Honestly, rent controls only fail because housing has predominantely been abandoned by the state and left to private developers. Private developers aren't building property to meet societal needs, they're building property for profit. And often pursue that profit to the detriment of society. When the state actually builds, owns and manages it's own social housing stock; then we don't need rent controls or to try and beg private developers to make homes affordable. We'd solve a lot of issues if states got back into the habit of actually providing social housing. The gays know how to party 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roughhouse Dandy 13,850 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) 9 hours ago, YoyoMa said: He can't join the presidential election though - as he's not born in the US... I mean technically you're right but Ted Cruz was born in Canada and he ran soooooooooooooo 👀👀👀 I fully believe they'd straight up a*********e him if he tried though, so he's good staying where he's at. Edited June 29 by Roughhouse Dandy This is my Hannah Montana™️ lipgloss. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 55,280 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) 1 hour ago, Roughhouse Dandy said: Ted Cruz was born in Canada Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents who were American citizens, tho, so he was technically a US citizen from birth. Mamdani didn’t become a naturalized US citizen until 2018. Edited June 29 by Ladle Ghoulash We have forgotten our public MANNERS Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roughhouse Dandy 13,850 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 53 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said: Ted Cruz was born in Canada to parents who were American citizens, tho, so he was technically a US citizen from birth. Mamdani didn’t become a naturalized US citizen until 2018. Ted Cruz needs to go back to where he came from. Mamdani is a real American and Ted is NOT one of us. Spoiler Jk ofc you're right but just let me babble please This is my Hannah Montana™️ lipgloss. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 55,280 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 2 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said: Ted Cruz needs to go back to where he came from. Mamdani is a real American and Ted is NOT one of us. Hide contents Jk ofc you're right but just let me babble please DEPORT TED CRUZ NOW We have forgotten our public MANNERS 1 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dutchmonster92 221 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 21 hours ago, YoyoMa said: He can't join the presidential election though - as he's not born in the US... Classic Amerikkka so racist Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUTELLA 29,869 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 8 hours ago, Ladle Ghoulash said: DEPORT TED CRUZ NOW He deports himself any time there’s inclement weather lmao 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ladle Ghoulash 55,280 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 30 minutes ago, Dutchmonster92 said: Classic Amerikkka so racist I mean, that’s not really a racist qualification (even though I do think it is arbitrary) We have forgotten our public MANNERS Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nagini 4,283 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 For rent-stabilized apartments. Nice win, but key qualification there. Overwhelming majority of NYC apartments are not rent-stabilized or under that type of regulation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Economy 53,076 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 14 hours ago, Bronco said: Honestly, rent controls only fail because housing has predominantely been abandoned by the state and left to private developers. Private developers aren't building property to meet societal needs, they're building property for profit. And often pursue that profit to the detriment of society. When the state actually builds, owns and manages it's own social housing stock; then we don't need rent controls or to try and beg private developers to make homes affordable. We'd solve a lot of issues if states got back into the habit of actually providing social housing. I agree 100% but doesnt change the fact that the current system as it exists now means Rent Control tends to backfire Unless u fix the supply issue and how homes are built as well the reality is rent control has unintended consequences that in a few years tend the make the situation worse than it started with 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Defmix100 7,172 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 On 6/28/2026 at 10:25 PM, Bronco said: I don't think this works tbh. The UK has been incentivising affordable home building for 10+ years. And it often amounts to 1 house in a developement. Which then don't get built due to "unexpected difficulties". I thought it was usually at minimum 10% of the development? I moved a few years ago and the full row at the end here are those homes, I also couldn't get the place I wanted at a different development because it was set aside for affordable housing. You can see people complain about them a lot in new build uk groups online so they do seem to be common and multiple houses in a development Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco 27,549 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 1 minute ago, Defmix100 said: I thought it was usually at minimum 10% of the development? I moved a few years ago and the full row at the end here are those homes, I also couldn't get the place I wanted at a different development because it was set aside for affordable housing. You can see people complain about them a lot in new build uk groups online so they do seem to be common and multiple houses in a development The rule is 10%, but having been involved in local politics and having friends on my local council you'd be amazed how common it is for developers to short change the allocation. Plus, the national policy framework Even pulling **** as stupid as "forgetting to build" some of it. And then there's also the fact that affordable housing is loosely defined and has opened up avenues for abuse like we are seeing with built to rents & shared ownership deals. Also, affordable housing in some cases can be avoided via simply paying it away - primarily where developers can provide evidence that creating the affordable housing would make the development unprofitable. The gays know how to party 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.