Your editorial lamenting that the tech industry finds the housing crisis beyond its reach stops short of identifying the worst policies that discourage anyone, tech or otherwise, from providing affordable housing.
The cost of evicting tenants discourages housing from being supplied. If tenants could be quickly and inexpensively evicted, landlords would take more chances on tenants with poor credit, lower income or little residence history.
Because it usually costs thousands of dollars and many months to evict a tenant for not paying rent, committing crimes on a property, or causing problems that make other tenants leave, most landlords are careful to require higher credit scores, adequate income and good rental history. Progressives think their policies help tenants, but they actually discourage more affordable housing from being supplied.
Government policies also prohibit providing basic, minimal shelter. Many homeless persons could be sheltered if government would allow the construction of rows and rows of inexpensive, easy to police, 10’x10’ cinderblock rooms with stainless steel toilet, sink and shower combinations (similar to an RV), stainless steel cooktops, small refrigerators, 8,000 BTU heat pumps for heating and cooling and a drain in the concrete floor.
Tenants could be sheltered for $5/day. When they leave or don’t pay the rent, the inside could quickly be hosed down for the next tenant. Progressives would rather the homeless live in tents in the desert, scorched by heat and bedraggled by rain, than in what sounds like a prison cell, but prisoners rarely freeze to death and these residents can leave any time they want.
Thousands of such dwelling units would be built by investors on the many acres of local vacant land.
Would it be bad policy to allow either of these scenarios? Would it solve the housing shortage? I think the answers are obvious.
A sanctuary state
The governor and other elected California officials have taken it upon themselves to declare California a sanctuary state.
They do not Inform I.C.E. of prisoners that can be deported because of their illegal status and they are then being released.
If so, the officials should be willing to take full responsibility and liability for future crimes that these offenders commit.
Born which way?
LBGTQ? I’m trying, as an old school heterosexual who is happy being in the body I was born with, to understand all this.
I know L. That’s lesbian. B would be bi-sexual. G is gay, of course. T would be transgender. What is Q? Queer? No, that’s covered in gay.
I asked my wife, who is more up-to-date on the scene and she said it means “questioning.”
Questioning what? Whether or not you are one of the other four things? Because I find myself questioning what all this means.
Am I now on this list because I ask a question? A question like, “What bathroom do I feel least threatened in?”
Should we have a potluck dinner? L brings salad. B brings the meat. G brings desert and T does the clean-up.
Q is lucky to be eating and not having any requirements placed on them until they are done questioning and ready to join one of the other labels or leave quietly.
If you are none of the above, you need not attend.
I remember Bruce Jenner on a box of Wheaties. He taught me you can accomplish anything if you put your mind to it.
He is now a woman who is still attracted to women. I also know a young lady who is transitioning to a man, but still attracted to men.
I’m not sure what letter applies to them, but I hope they are happy now.
I thank God everyday that I’m happy with the body and urges I was born with.