zlacker

The list of demands is extremely tame for a fricking anarchist commune. Look at the list of "economic demands." The biggest ask is de-gentrification and rent control.

>>rayine+(OP)
Those asks seem pretty incompatible with property law and the legislative process. You can't just unilaterally demand something like rent control and de-gentrification measures. The city government shouldn't even have (and probably doesn't have) the power to meet such demands.

>>maland+cn1
Degentrification could trivially be achieved by eminent domain, condemning existing residential property for public housing for which eligibility would be governed on rules which are incompatible with gentrification. It might be expensive, even prohibitively so, to do on a broad scale, but in terms of legal authority it's well within the scope of powers that local governments usually have.

Note that rent control, even if the city doesn't have the power to establish it for private rentals, can effectively be achieved by the same means.

>>maland+cn1
But they should try something. Maybe degentrification could include a city requirement not to displace people when building new housing. The developer puts the previous occupant up and then guarantees them their same rent for, say, a decade going forward

>>rayine+(OP)
defunding police pensions is a bit much.

>>mmcgah+2w1
True, but we can start using them for court settlements instead of taxpayer money.

>>mmcgah+2w1
Don't you think qualified immunity is a bit much? Take the pensions and subtract the money that would have been awarded in lawsuits and it probably evens out to $0.

>>mmcgah+2w1
I’d rather see a blanket ban on defunding any pensions (public or private).

>>dragon+Qr1
There is legal precedent to use imminent domain to transfer wealth from one individual to another. Usually it’s stealing from the poor, and giving to real estate developers.

There’d be a certain amount of deferred justice in doing that, but I’d rather the practice simply be banned.

>>dragon+Qr1
IANAL but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to use eminent domain to confiscate the homes of citizens based on their race. The law doesn’t make provisions for unpopular races as far as I know.

>>ian-g+7u1
The problem with imposing restrictions on real estate developers is that it reduces the amount of housing, which increases the cost. (Look at California, for example.)

I’d rather they force commercial developers to put in two bedrooms worth of housing for each full time employee worth of office space they add.

If the developers are short-sighted and only add high end McMansions and condos, that’s fine.

The housing market will eventually oversaturate, and those properties will end up selling at a loss to people that couldn’t afford them at the original price.

The Microsofts and Amazons of the world will end up paying eye watering premiums for open space floor plans, or luxury real estate developers will take a bath. Either way, not a tear will be shed.

>>hedora+WD1
Your proposal is merely a preference for housing over commercial space. Presumably you have your reasons, but if covid sticks around a few more months (which it is certain to do) commercial space might be rented like crude oil: landlords paying tenants! We'll soon see office/retail space converted to expensive housing even without this aggressive intervention. Everyone is working from home now.

>>throwa+MD1
Further, any use of eminent domain must be bundled with fair market value compensation for the value of the property being acquired.

>>hedora+WD1
That's fair. I'd be ok with forcing two bedrooms of housing for each worker space added.

I don't think all the McMansions and condos are good however. I'd rather you force people to add space for lots of people. Otherwise there'll be a period where you drive a lot of poorer folks away. Artists and retail workers and mechanics. People who don't work tech or finance or real estate. I don't know that cities can readily recover from it.

It's why I left San Jose. If it continues too long, it'll be why I leave Seattle. Give people reasonable rents, please. I want to live with artists and civil servants and retail workers and chefs and vets and all these people. It makes life so much more interesting

>>throwa+MD1
> IANAL but I’m pretty sure it’s illegal to use eminent domain to confiscate the homes of citizens based on their race

Good thing I never suggested that. Gentrification has a racial dimension because race correlates with economics, but it simply is the rich displacing the poor in a particular region; if you take housing units by eminent domain and establish a process for renting them out as public housing that doesn't distribute them to the highest bidder, you prevent gentrification. You neither have to acquire nor distribute based on race.

>>dragon+Do2
I figured you would take that tack. In my defense, the term often does refer to whites specifically. In either case, however, I'm of the impression that a law may not disproportionately target one race or another (it's insufficient to show that a law doesn't explicitly target one race; it must also be shown that it doesn't cause disproportionate harm to one race), but again, IANAL and would be very interested in hearing from an expert (even suggestions on search criteria would be helpful).

>>throwa+6P2
> I'm of the impression that a law may not disproportionately target one race or another (it's insufficient to show that a law doesn't explicitly target one race; it must also be shown that it doesn't cause disproportionate harm to one race),

You are incorrect. Laws may both explicitly (or otherwise intentionally) target race and may disproportionately impact race without explicit targeting.

Laws doing the former are subject to “strict scrutiny”: the discrimination must be the least invasive means of achieving a compelling government interest. The latter isn't prohibited at all, though it can be evidence of discriminatory intent. (You may be thinking of employment law, where disparate impact is generally prohibited discrimination, unless closely tailored to a specific legitimate non-discriminatory business need.)

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause for a discussion, especially the section under “tiered scrutiny” and “disparate impact”.

>>dragon+W83
Interesting and disappointing. Thanks for the correction.

>>deathg+jC1
Retroactively taking retirement funds from people that were expecting them is wrong. Even if 99% of the police deserved it, it would still be wrong.

>>maland+cn1
No one owns any property. They are rented property by the society and a functioning government.

As such, it's totally right to take and redistribute things that doesn't belong to rich people only.

>>AuryGl+os3
Ah, so maybe teargassing the 1 "innocent" person in a crowd of 99 "rowdy" protesters is wrong?

Police believe in collective punishment. So deliver it to them.

>>dragon+Do2
> establish a process for renting them out as public housing

and the process for renting them as public housing will be fairer how? You're just switching out one filtering system (price) for another based on arbitrary rules proposed by petty bureaucrats and politicians. At the end of the day you're still discriminating. The only difference that in your system, you're hoping that you or someone with your sensibilities has the power to do the discriminating.