On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 19:33:41 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > > >Too bad it still is being 'phased out'. NYC despite any claims that > >it is being phased out is still a rent control city. > > No, actually the proportion of rental units subject to rent control (the > term used here for the more senior rent regulation law) is now very small, > although the proportion subject to some kind of rent regulation (including > rent stabilization) is considerably higher. But remember that units came > under rent stabilization in return for a big tax break.
I am not sure why you accept the terminology the city governemnt has fed you. I never did care for the terms nor recognize a signifigant difference while living in that city. I techincally lived in a rent stabalized apartment. The CITY GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED THE PRICE. it was rent controlled REGARDLESS of what the city called it. Both classifcations of apartments it has are classes of controled apartments and this control screws up the housing market to much the same degree. As for the tax break? Who cares? Sure it is great they gave a tax break. Would be better if they ddi not have taxes to begin with and still does not excuse the controls they put on the rent. > >Sure some more units each year get phased out, but eventually people > >will complain and the city council will put it right back in to full > >effect. > > That's never happened. Not a single unit subject to rent control that > lapsed has ever been put back under it. And the NYC council can't even do > it, because the state law won't allow it. If you notice, my comment was speaking of the future. The people in NYC and state for that matter love their rent control and EVENTUALLY they will demand more rent control. Why? Because the market was never freed as it was in other places so they are paying above what they should be and they THINK it is because of a lack of rent control. It does not help that supposed free market libertarians are accepting the governments terminology. > > This will happen because people have lived with it for so > >long. Had it been elliminated long ago as it should have and most > >likely could have been it would not be around and the market would > >have corrected itself. > > But NY never had someone like Germany's Erhard who, in the postwar turmoil > usurped constitutional authority and abolished controls. No. But neither did many cities and counties across the country that abolished rent control in the past 50 years without silly 'rent stabalizzation' plans. All it would have taken in NY is for the republicans in the state legislature to grow a backbone and vote against reauthrizing the 'temporary' 2 year rent control law that has been on the books since WW2. They have a chance every 2 years, but have failed to do so for 50+ years now. Yet you insist that I should vote republican because they are on MY SIDE? > >> Am I reading you write? There's a tide of public pressure to repeal the > >> federal income tax??! > > >Yes. Did you notice the vote in Taxachusetts a few years back? > > Of course that was about a state income tax, and it lost, albeit more > closely than was anticipated. Apparently it got a boost from the element > of surprise. Had the element of surprise been combined with a more modest > goal -- say a big CUT in the income tax -- it might've passed. But now I'm > told the pro-tax forces are on the alert, the element of surprise is gone, > and even a cut wouldn't pass. An opportunity wasted by demanding too much. So you were told by your republican freinds? How convienent. If a state as tax happy as Massachusettes could vote 45% in favor of repealing the state income tax, then surely the country as a whole would be above 50% in repealing the federal income tax. > >> When the individual budget items are brought out, yes it is indeed scary > to > >> them. > > >No, not really. Tell people that we change our military budget to the > >levels that it was at at the end of the cold war and people actually > >would think you are increasing their budget. > > Yes, but tell them about closing, say, Fort Dix. Or canceling an order for > the submarines produced in their town. Then see what answer you get. Is that the same fort that was open in 1989? Is that the same town that was paid to produce subs in 1989? I am sure you could cut only waste and be back at the 1989 level of spending. The key is making BIG jumps to force the government to actually cut waste rather than just borrow some more and keep spending. > > Tell em that we are > >going to return to the amount of regulations we had in 1980 at the end > >of a large boom in the economy and people will be glad. > > Look at the popular backlash against loosening ownership controls in > broadcasting. Look at the agitation for stricter and more rigid air > pollution controls. I do not see a popular backlash. I see some anti corporate people complaining. Nothing serious. Most people do not care. > > Tell them we > >are going to get federal government nearly out of education and people > >will rejoice. > > Yes, that one would be popular with the largest segment of voters. > However, it would be unpopular with advocates for the handicapped and other > such interests. And are handicap advocates a majority? no? Why then is bush braggin about increasing the federal dept of education by 60% and Kerry claiming that Bush has not spent enough on education? I will tell you why! Because there is no third party pushing the issue that people want to hear. But your answer is to just support bush because he only increased 60% and the democrats want to increase it faster than that! > >> And as the article mentioned, gov't has been reduced in many respects > other > >> than spending. > > >Spending is a good measure of overall size of governemnt. > > It's a fairly good "snapshot" measure. However, it's not a good prognostic > device. For example, you'd never know from the current level of spending > (in this and other countries) how much Social Security (and similar > programs in other countries) is likely to lay out over the years down the > line. No. Because the federal governemnt is essentially cooking the books in the same way enron did. But that only makes the picture even worse in any given year. > >> >There will not be reductions in cost (as you can see from Bushs > >> >budgets), the programs will grow instead. > > >> That's just your prediction. > > >You seriously think that bush will all of the sudden start proposing > >smaller budgets? Get real! His 2005 budget is bigger than ever > >before. > > I think a lot will depend on H.R. elections this year and in 2006, and a > little on the Senate, plus how big a win Bush gets. The squeaker over Gore > said something. If he wins more solidly over Kerry, that'll send a signal > that it's safe to be more cutthroat with spending. MORE cutthroat? That implies he has been cutthroat in the past. HE HAS NOT! > >> >Elliminate the government programs now. > > >> I think they would if they could. > > >They are in charge. The control congress. They control the > >whitehouse. > > Not permanently! There are still elections in the future. No not permanently. Is that what it takes to get republicans to reduce government? Silly me! I thought they were supposed to do something during their term of office. > >> Article #0: Get what's right, regardless of the letter of the law. As > far > >> as I'm concerned, libertarian interest trumps everything in > constitutions, > >> statutes, or regulations. > > >It is in a libertarians interest to get governemnt and especially the > >federal government out of education. You may like what one person > >does with the power but government should be granted to do things that > >you would only want an enmy of freedom to have the power to do. > > I gave the Ehrhard example. He acted unconstitutionally, which was > probably the only way to get controls abolished at that time. So I say if > you're the good guy and can get away with it, cheat! You are ignoring what I am saying. Is the cheating worth setting the precendant that WILL be followed when the 'bad' guy gets in office. History has shown us that it is not. Our founders kept this in mind when creating the constitution. Unfortunately you and the republicans have forgot. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
