Red Mosquito

Bammer wrote:Name an issue, I’ll tell you what side of the fence I’m on.

Abortion

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bammer wrote:Name an issue, I’ll tell you what side of the fence I’m on.

Abortion

Depends on the family’s income.

Bammer wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bammer wrote:Name an issue, I’ll tell you what side of the fence I’m on.

Abortion

Depends on the family’s income.

Political career over

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bammer wrote:

verb_to_trust wrote:

Bammer wrote:Name an issue, I’ll tell you what side of the fence I’m on.

Abortion

Depends on the family’s income.

Political career over

Fun while it lasted.

To be fair I’d be handling stuff like the location of new speed bumps as opposed to abortion policy.

Speedbumps can cause abortions

Bammer wrote:To be fair I’d be handling stuff like the location of new speed bumps as opposed to abortion policy.

I hope your position on new speed bump locations is "at the bottom of the ocean".

tragabigzanda wrote:New affordable housing development in your district/ward/feudal parcel

I would cut way back or eliminate “impact fees” and other restrictions that developers face in order to make this financially feasible. Builders don’t build affordable housing because land is so expensive and all the red tape bullshit that they have to go through costs time & money. So they build huge expensive houses/properties in order to make a profit. Either that and/or tax incentives to keep a certain percentage of units in an apartment building in the “affordable” range.

Many places are talking about rent control (for the market at large) and locally here a lot of new laws have been passed which can be described as either “landlord restrictions” or “tenant protections” based on who you ask. I say legislation of the landlord/tenant relationship is an ineffective approach. The solution is to build more supply of housing so that supply & demand can find a happy medium.

Bammer wrote:The solution is to build more supply of housing

You are exactly why they are tearing down the Showbox

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Bammer wrote:The solution is to build more supply of housing

You are exactly why they are tearing down the Showbox

You shut your whore mouth!

I actually typed out then deleted a third paragraph about how this housing doesn’t have to be built in, for lack of a better word, “premium” neighborhoods.

Bammer wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:New affordable housing development in your district/ward/feudal parcel

I would cut way back or eliminate “impact fees” and other restrictions that developers face in order to make this financially feasible. Builders don’t build affordable housing because land is so expensive and all the red tape bullshit that they have to go through costs time & money. So they build huge expensive houses/properties in order to make a profit. Either that and/or tax incentives to keep a certain percentage of units in an apartment building in the “affordable” range.

Many places are talking about rent control (for the market at large) and locally here a lot of new laws have been passed which can be described as either “landlord restrictions” or “tenant protections” based on who you ask. I say legislation of the landlord/tenant relationship is an ineffective approach. The solution is to build more supply of housing so that supply & demand can find a happy medium.

Aren't you running for a city council type of office, or am I mistaken? If I'm correct, then there's probably little you could do from that position re: impact fees and the like (you could probably weigh in on property taxes). More likely you could work with the zoning board to increase mixed-use zoning to keep the bobos happy, and keep the service sector labor force housed in the neighborhood so the level of service stays high (due to lack of turnover).

If I'm mistaken and you are running for a county or state leg position, then there's certainly more you could do with regard to taxes or other fees.

I'm skeptical that it's the "red tape" that costs the developers. More likely it's the cost of land, as you mentioned; and the cost of construction labor, which is certainly a limited factor here in MT. That could be very different in WA though.

Next questions:

How might you help improve transportation in town, and to/from Seattle?

What might you do about the ballooning real estate market?

Do you support any sort of school choice program, and if so, from where will the funds for cross-town transport come?

Do you think your opponent is going to come across the phrase "red mosquito" as part of their oppo research?

Bammer wrote:I actually typed out then deleted a third paragraph about how this housing doesn’t have to be built in, for lack of a better word, “premium” neighborhoods.

Not allowing affordable and dense housing in those "premium" neighborhoods is exactly what leads to things like proposing to tear down the Showbox.

Mickey wrote:Do you think your opponent is going to come across the phrase "red mosquito" as part of their oppo research?

My work here has already disqualified me from running for public office. This is purely hypothetical.

Green Habit wrote:

Bammer wrote:I actually typed out then deleted a third paragraph about how this housing doesn’t have to be built in, for lack of a better word, “premium” neighborhoods.

Not allowing affordable and dense housing in those "premium" neighborhoods is exactly what leads to things like proposing to tear down the Showbox.

I said I deleted it!

tragabigzanda wrote:

Bammer wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:New affordable housing development in your district/ward/feudal parcel

I would cut way back or eliminate “impact fees” and other restrictions that developers face in order to make this financially feasible. Builders don’t build affordable housing because land is so expensive and all the red tape bullshit that they have to go through costs time & money. So they build huge expensive houses/properties in order to make a profit. Either that and/or tax incentives to keep a certain percentage of units in an apartment building in the “affordable” range.

Many places are talking about rent control (for the market at large) and locally here a lot of new laws have been passed which can be described as either “landlord restrictions” or “tenant protections” based on who you ask. I say legislation of the landlord/tenant relationship is an ineffective approach. The solution is to build more supply of housing so that supply & demand can find a happy medium.

Aren't you running for a city council type of office, or am I mistaken? If I'm correct, then there's probably little you could do from that position re: impact fees and the like (you could probably weigh in on property taxes). More likely you could work with the zoning board to increase mixed-use zoning to keep the bobos happy, and keep the service sector labor force housed in the neighborhood so the level of service stays high (due to lack of turnover).

If I'm mistaken and you are running for a county or state leg position, then there's certainly more you could do with regard to taxes or other fees.

I'm skeptical that it's the "red tape" that costs the developers. More likely it's the cost of land, as you mentioned; and the cost of construction labor, which is certainly a limited factor here in MT. That could be very different in WA though.

Next questions:

How might you help improve transportation in town, and to/from Seattle?

What might you do about the ballooning real estate market?

Do you support any sort of school choice program, and if so, from where will the funds for cross-town transport come?

I asked those who have met me if they’d vote for me - not running for anything. Based mainly on the premise that I have an electable face.

I will however get to your questions when I have time. I would consider a city council run after my kids are grown.

Bammer wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Bammer wrote:I actually typed out then deleted a third paragraph about how this housing doesn’t have to be built in, for lack of a better word, “premium” neighborhoods.

Not allowing affordable and dense housing in those "premium" neighborhoods is exactly what leads to things like proposing to tear down the Showbox.

I said I deleted it!

Just wanted to make that clear for others.

Transportation: I support investing in this infrastructure including light rail and widening lanes. We have a shit ton of people moving here thus a growing tax base.

Real Estate: Let resale values do what the open market will support. Create incentives for developers that will allow them to be profitable when creating new affordable housing. It would be nice if all the new homes in the neighborhood didn’t have to be 5000+ sqft and cost over $2M.

School Choice: People move here (my home town) in large part for the schools so I don’t have anything to change here. You go to school based on the zoning of where you live. Wanna go to another school? Pay for private school or move to another school district. Each school district should ideally have a mix of housing values. I would however take a look at funding distribution. I don’t think it’s great that wealthy neighborhoods get great school funding based on property tax income in the neighborhood, and vice versa in poor neighborhoods. Perhaps spread the money more evenly throughout the county.

A vote for Bammer is a vote well casted

verb_to_trust wrote:Speedbumps can cause abortions

If only we could be so lucky