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. Because that's the easiest way to communicate. Yes, New Yorkers have resisted the name change of 6th Ave. to The Avenue Of The Americas, but otherwise it's clearest to refer to things the government has made (such as streets) by the names the government has given them. If you want to refer to rent control & rent stabilization together, and you're writing about New York, then you'd best use a term not technically applied to either, such as "rent regulation". That's what I do when I want to be clear. >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, and it would also be better if we had beer piped in, and robots to change baby diapers, but that wasn't what you asked -- see the subject line. >> >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. How convenient of you to pull evidence from your crystal ball. >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. Why do you describe that as growing a backbone? Is it not the essence of backbone that politicians stand up for what they think the voters want? >> >> 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? No. I never talked to any Republicans about it. It's simple politicial analysis that should be obvious to anybody who pays att'n to Mass. I listen to David Brudnoy on WBZ, Boston, and I also heard from LPers in Mass. about it, including some I helped get on the ballot a few years ago. >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. All I know is, they're above 60% in wanting state or federally supplied health insurance even when they're asked if they'd be willing to pay for it via increased taxes on themselves. >I am sure you could cut only waste and be back at the 1989 level of >spending. Depends what counts as "waste". > The key is making BIG jumps to force the government to >actually cut waste rather than just borrow some more and keep >spending. Actually, according to what I took from Jeff Friedman at the Oct. Junto, the key is making jumps that are small enough that no potential opposition notices. >> 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. As with almost all public policy issues. But so what? It's the politically active people who care; it's the people who care who are politically active. Most people don't care about this issue, but of those who DO care -- the squeaky wheels -- sentiment seems overwhelmingly against, except probably among stockholders in that sector. >> > 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, but they're a huge majority of those who care strongly enough about the issue to make noise, and they have practically no opposition. There's no organized defund-the-handicapped movement. And anyone who organized a defund-the-handicapped movement would be stabbed by a crutch. Federal spending on education is but a tiny fraction of total education spending. If you count federal mandates, it gets bigger, but still proportionally small even if you made the very unrealistic assumption that in no case would such money be spent without the federal mandate. Knowing what I know now, I would never campaign specifically against gov't spending (at any level) for the educationally handicapped, and if asked as a candidate I'd say I'm all for it. I would bring up various follies in spending on education handicaps, but I would use those as examples of the need for the money to be spent more wisely, not that it not be spent, and that would have the same voter-education effect as coming out against the spending. If it caused the voters as a side effect to be more stingy, fine, but I certainly wouldn't take the lead in appearing tight-fisted against the handicapped. >> >> >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. If there were stringent term limits or if they were elected for life, they would be less responsive to voters in office. There is no great anti-statist sentiment in the electorate. That's another point Jeff Friedman made. He pointed out the the libertarian movement in the USA in the 1970s was more realistic, and realized the populace is not on our side, but that since about 1980 libertarian activists have induced themselves to think there's a great wellspring of anti-statism out there we can tap into. >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. So? Are you saying the bad guys will set better precedents? In Your Sly Tribe, Robert _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
