Hi Starchild,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my posting. I explained in
my recent posting to Marcy how I took a hiatus from politically related
Internet matters and that since it's been one month today since I
visited SF, I thought it was a good time to get back into the thick of
things, such as going to this Yahoo group and posting a reply to your
comments.
But I do apologize for the tardiness of my reply to you reply, in which
you said partly:
The spirit of the SF homeless? Ha! More like the spirit of the New >
York politicians who like those in San Francisco evidently choose to >
spend the taxpayers' money on priorities other than properly paving >
the streets!
I can't argue with you here.
Anyway, yeah, Lee's back in. From his time in Room 200 so far he >
appears to be a mushy moderate, probably no better or worse on the >
whole than most of those running, but I still think it's pretty >
galling that he got reelected, given how he blatantly broke the >
promise he made when appointed interim mayor that he would not run for >
a full term. Not to mention all the troubling rumors of how powerful >
interests engineered his running and possibly engaged in vote fraud -- >
apparently an "independent" Lee-supporting group was caught helping >
people fill out ballots to vote for him. Hopefully the city attorney, >
who was one of his competitors, will still have a full investigation >
of that, or get the Feds or other authorities to mount one.>
Somehow I'm not surprised that Ed Lee, a career politician, broke his
promise not to run. But that's politics for you. Or should I say "dirty
politics" based on your allegations of voting fraud? At least Lee only
broke his promise. Here in NYC, a referendum was voted in to limit the
Mayor to two terms. But in 2008, Mayor Mike had the Court overturn the
referendum so he could run for a third term in 2009. How's that for
chutzpah? (Was Lee's election ever investigated?)
Speaking of term limitations, do you know about the "grassroots" group
U.S. Term Limits? (http://www.termlimits.org/)
Regarding housing and homelessness, Alton, did you see my first >
message to you back on November 3?
Starchild, I recall seeing it as an e-mail you sent to my hotmail
account. I meant to reply to it, but I didn't get the chance. You've
re-posted that e-mail here, for which I thank you for.
> One precept that informs my perspective is what I see as a key> >
distinction between libertarians and conservatives.> >> > The
conservative attitude toward people who are poor, homeless,> >
unemployed, etc., tends to focus on blaming the individual -- "You're> >
lazy! Why don't you clean yourself up and get a job?", etc.
While I'm not a conservative, I must admit I sometimes "blame the
individual." Besides, can't it be argued that some individuals aren't
completely blameless for their situations?
> I would say that the libertarian attitude, by contrast, is informed>
by a greater awareness that these things are, in the aggregate,> >
consequences of public policy, and that government, which tends to> >
benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and> >
marginalized (despite paying *lip service* to the goal of helping the> >
latter and justifying its spending and programs on this basis!), is> >
the *main cause* of homelessness, poverty, and unemployment.
You're "libertarian attitude" is absolutely correct regarding
governmental policies that cause those problems. Just off the top of my
head, I think of rent control laws, minimum wage laws, endless
regulations on businesses and of course, the futile "War on Poverty,"
which ended up not eliminating poverty, but creating more poverty by
actually subsidizing it.
> Government has grown dramatically during the past few decades in
> United States, and during the same period the gap between rich
> poor has also grown. I don't think that's a coincidence, do you?>
It might surprise you to know that I'm unconcerned about the income gap
between the rich and poor. That to me is the stuff of politicians who
want to engage in class warfare and play to people's envy and
resentment. It's also the stuff of dopey liberals who want to engage in
class warfare and play to people's envy and resentment. And I can't
stand how those liberals get all smug and righteous about this "income
gap." May I remind you that the "solutions" proposed for closing this
"income gap" are always more government involvement to "redistribute"
wealth and income, by force--at gun point, if necessary?
Still, I think a fundamental problem is how politicians are allowed to
dish out favors to those who are politically well connected, and who are
usually "rich." Worse, most of the "favors" are not authorized by the
U.S. Constitution, such as loans and subsidies to favored people or
businesses. For example, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 gives Congress
the power "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States." Where,
pray tell, in the Constitutions is Congress given the power to lend
money?
The ideal solution, imho, would be to have totally free markets, >
which I believe would rapidly create such abundance that homelessness >
would soon be a non-issue. Politically, of course, this is unlikely to >
happen in SF (or NYC, or anywhere else in the country) any time soon.>
By "totally free markets," I imagine you mean things like repealling
rent control laws and highly restrictive zoning laws, and letting
builders freely build however much housing they want. It's simple supply
and demand, isn't it? Sadly, the economically ignorant can't see that if
the supply of housing increases to meet demand, prices will decrease.
(As a lesson in supply and demand, I remind people that when flat screen
TVs were introduced twelve years ago, a 42" Plasma would cost you a cool
$10,000 or around $14,000 in 2011 dollars. Today you could get a 42"
plasma that's much better and have more features for $500 or around $900
in 1999 dollars. Why? Simple. There is relatively little government
regulations on flat screen TVs, and manufacturers were free to make as
many flat screen TVs they wanted. Just as important, competition between
these manufacturers forced them to provide more, better and
cheaper--this should be the mantra of the free market--flat screen TVs.
Imagine if the housing market operated like the flat screen TV market.
BTW, another important lesson about the flat screen TVs is that only the
"rich" could have afforded them when they first came out. Since someone
bought those TVs, the manufacturers, Fujitsu and Pioneer, could recoup
some of their development costs and, just as important, see that there
was a market for these TVs. The main lesson is the "rich" had the
disposable income to buy those TVs. But if they were taxed as heavily
then, as Lord Obama and his ilk currently proposes, they would had been
left with little disposable income. They would then not have bought
those TVs and the industry might have stalled for several years, if it
even took off at all. This is true for cell phones. Remember what they
first cost? I remember a colleague, a "rich" lawyer who bought a cell
phone when it came out. He complained he had to pay $700 just to have
the phone and that it cost $2.95 per minute for both incoming and
outgoing calls. Today, just about everyone has a cell phone at much
cheaper prices, better quality and more features. All thanks to the rich
who had the disposable income to buy them when they first came out. )
But, as you said, politically this is unlikely to happen in SF or NYC,
since those enjoying cheap rents at the expense of their housing
providers (isn't that better than calling them "landlords"?) constitute
a bigger voting block than housing providers. Besides, don't
politicians love to provide benefits such as "affordable housing"? (You
probably read it, but if you didn't or if you want to read it again,
here's what Henry Hazlitt said about rent control:
http://economylessons.blogspot.com/2010/04/economy-lessons-what-rent-con\\
trol-does.html)
Speaking of "affordable housing," I saw an ad for such housing in the
Dec 7 edition of AM NY, a local free newspaper. The rents in the ad were
enticing and certainly "affordable," but the ad named no government
alphabet agency that usually provides such "affordable housing." But
when you go to the website to get an application,
Affordable & Workforce Housing | Related, you'll see that "Related" is a huge
real estate concern that owns properties worth tens of billions of
dollars. It even owns "The Paramount" at 680 Mission in SF where a two
bedroom apartment is available for $4,995. (See
The Paramount | Related)
The Related Company is also planning to build "Hudson Yards," an
ambitious, to say the least, project to develop the West Side of
Manhattan. You can see a brochure of the plan in PDF here:
Request Rejected
Brochure.pdf. I think the City had strong-armed Related to provide
"affordable housing" so the City might move faster to approve the
planned development. What do you think?
But hey, while not exactly "free market," at least Related had increased
the supply of "affordable housing" by however small amount.
Short of this, one approach that might fall more within the realm of >
political possibility is homeless people being given housing vouchers >
in a manner similar to how school choice proponents advocate kids >
being given school vouchers. While I don't personally think taxpayers >
need to be paying for housing any more (nor any less) than they need >
to be paying for education, I would rather see government budgets for >
housing/homelessness spent in a manner that provides direct assistance >
and empowers choice, than in paying generous salaries to bureaucrats >
and people in non-profits to provide services.
I see where you're coming from. While I also "don't personally think
taxpayers need to [or even should] be paying for housing [for the
homeless]" I'm afraid your voucher plan would still require bureaucrats
to administer any such plan. After all, someone must determine who
qualifies for those vouchers and distribute them monthly. BTW,
Starchild, how much should those monthly vouchers be valued at? $400?
$500? $1,000? How about $4,995 so the homeless could get a home at the
Paramount?
But the biggest problem with your voucher plan is that with so little
"affordable" housig in SF, where would the homeless spend their
vouchers? Perhaps at the "Roach Motel" in the Tenderloin where "Nima," a
FedEx employee I met at the FedEx store on Kearny, stayed when he
arrived from Utah a couple of months ago. He stayed there a week or two
so he could look for permanent housing. The Roach Motel only cost $200
per week or $800 per month. But Nima rejoiced when he found literally a
closet in an apartment he has to share with four other people. It only
cost him $800 per month. Certainly he got less space, but it's in a much
better neighborhood, and presumably it has no, or less roaches.
In my reply to Marcy which I posted earlier on this board, I asked her
this question, which I like to ask you: Do you know that New York City
has it very own "Department of Homeless Services (DHS)" that "caters" to
the needs of the homeless? You may like to know that in 2008, DHS spent
$785,533,004. (See:
http://www.council.nyc.gov/html/budget/PDFs/fy_10_exec_budget_homeless.p\\
df) How much did SF spend in 2008 on the homeless ("homless" is the
preferred pronunciation by those in "the know")? Does SF have a
dedicated DHS?
That's all for now. Thank you again for your thoughtful posting and for
providing, what Marcy called, a "comprehensive insight" into how some
at the LPSF would approach the homeless problem. I hope I was helpful
with my comments.
Love & Liberty,
Likewise ((( Alton )))> > P.S. - I have posted this message to the
LPSF-discuss list, instead of > the activists list, as it seemed more
appropriate to this forum.>
Sounds good to me.
The spirit of the SF homeless? Ha! More like the spirit of the New
York politicians who like those in San Francisco evidently choose to
spend the taxpayers' money on priorities other than properly paving
the streets!
Anyway, yeah, Lee's back in. From his time in Room 200 so far he
appears to be a mushy moderate, probably no better or worse on the
whole than most of those running, but I still think it's pretty
galling that he got reelected, given how he blatantly broke the
promise he made when appointed interim mayor that he would not run for
a full term. Not to mention all the troubling rumors of how powerful
interests engineered his running and possibly engaged in vote fraud --
apparently an "independent" Lee-supporting group was caught helping
people fill out ballots to vote for him. Hopefully the city attorney,
who was one of his competitors, will still have a full investigation
of that, or get the Feds or other authorities to mount one.
Regarding housing and homelessness, Alton, did you see my first
message to you back on November 3?
> One precept that informs my perspective is what I see as a key
> distinction between libertarians and conservatives.
>
> The conservative attitude toward people who are poor, homeless,
> unemployed, etc., tends to focus on blaming the individual --
"You're
> lazy! Why don't you clean yourself up and get a job?", etc.
>
> I would say that the libertarian attitude, by contrast, is informed
> by a greater awareness that these things are, in the aggregate,
> consequences of public policy, and that government, which tends to
> benefit the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and
> marginalized (despite paying *lip service* to the goal of helping
the
So, please bear with me. Of course, I do invite