119th Congress or Red Wave In Adult Land

[chop2chip]

I simply don’t trust the government to turn this into anything more than a massively lucrative investment for companies that already own a bunch of land to sit on until the statutory requirements are met, and as such find the more affordable housing argument hilarious.

I like you mqt, but you’re not exactly offering a compelling counter argument. More private land will lead to more housing development (and cheaper lots).

 

[mqt]

I like you mqt, but you’re not exactly offering a compelling counter argument. More private land will lead to more housing development (and cheaper lots).

I’m likely being a bit obtuse regarding some of the possible positive results and I’ll read further on the lands being discussed and the provisions on how the lands can be sold and utilized. But Senator Lee has not earned a level of trust in the honesty of his statements or intentions for me to not be a bit skeptical of the outcome here.

 

[mqt]

I have a hard time squaring the reaction McBride gets from the right with the way that she goes about politics and governance. She is consistently one of the best Democrats in Congress already and does a phenomenal job of discussing her identity and its place in the public discourse.

I’m not asking anybody to change their mind on the science of gender identity or how we should handle trans rights, but I do dare anybody to listen to this conversation (particularly from about the 9 minute mark to the 16 minute mark or from 23 minutes to 30 minutes for the illiberalism of the left) and come away with the conclusion that McBride is just some radical trying to push an extreme ideology.

“We shouldn’t treat the public like they’re a Republican politician” is exactly the message the mainstream Democratic Party is missing at every level today, and it’s why I think McBride is a rising star within the party, not because of her identity, but because of her philosophy. Yes, her identity is an integral part of her political profile and her personal perspective, but it’s the way she talks about everyday Americans and the role of elected officials that makes her a leader.

 

[mqt]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936087056788377893

It’s kind of wild that John Fetterman just basically became Mitt Romney in a pair of shorts one day and never stopped. There’s nothing wrong with being Mitt Romney and I’d take an entire senate of Mitt Romneys over the extremes on the left or the right, but I’ve never been more surprised by a politician’s path.

 

[chop2chip]

I’m likely being a bit obtuse regarding some of the possible positive results and I’ll read further on the lands being discussed and the provisions on how the lands can be sold and utilized. But Senator Lee has not earned a level of trust in the honesty of his statements or intentions for me to not be a bit skeptical of the outcome here.

Agreed on Lee

 

[mqt]

One additional thought to tie my last two posts together and clarify my general point. It’s difficult to listen to McBride’s interview with Klein and Fetterman’s own criticisms of the left and not see the difference in approach. McBride’s overall thesis is her statement that voters will see Republicans be assholes to others and might not like it, but will see Democrats be assholes to them and it makes the choice obvious between the two for someone just living their lives.

Fetterman’s brand of moderation skips all that by being an asshole to the left instead. McBride is every bit as critical of the orthodoxy of the left as Fetterman, but is offering a more constructive framing and some solutions for how she’d change the messaging and policy priorities of the Democratic Party to align with American voters. I know I’ve always erred supportive of McBride, but for those of you that are open to hearing someone you disagree with talk substantively about the ills of the left, I’d recommend watching the interview as it’s genuinely one of the more encouraging approaches to national politics I’ve seen from any elected official on the left since Obama.

 

[zitothebrave]

I like you mqt, but you’re not exactly offering a compelling counter argument. More private land will lead to more housing development (and cheaper lots).

I'll believe it when I see it. More likely it will lead to more second homes/air bnbs

I could fix the housing costs, raise the taxes on AirBNBs. Make sure their insurance compnaies know they're using it as an Airbnb too.

 

[chop2chip]

I'll believe it when I see it. More likely it will lead to more second homes/air bnbs

I could fix the housing costs, raise the taxes on AirBNBs. Make sure their insurance compnaies know they're using it as an Airbnb too.

The supply for “second homes” is the same bucket as “first homes”. If you make more housing the price will go down.

 

[zitothebrave]

The supply for “second homes” is the same bucket as “first homes”. If you make more housing the price will go down.

I could go into some of the financial aspects of it. But we're already a pretty damned heavily developed country. I get that a lot of people here don't know it because they didn't grow up in the Northeast. But we have one of the most densely populated metropolitan areas in the world.

I don't see republicans talking about buying up golf coarses to build houses, you have good viable flat building land that's just unused most of the year. Why not build on those?

 

[chop2chip]

I could go into some of the financial aspects of it. But we're already a pretty damned heavily developed country. I get that a lot of people here don't know it because they didn't grow up in the Northeast. But we have one of the most densely populated metropolitan areas in the world.

I don't see republicans talking about buying up golf coarses to build houses, you have good viable flat building land that's just unused most of the year. Why not build on those?

Okay. But the northeast has nothing to do with Lee’s bill.

70% of the West is empty federal land.