Use this thread to tell the rest of us what`s going on where you are, whether they`re national or local initiatives, whatever sort of thing you thing fits in with the ethos of the group.

I`ll make a start. Local to where I live there has been a biggish environmental campaign, which is now over, and I`m not aware of anything else locally.

On a national level, these seem to be the big ones at the moment ;

www.putpeoplefirst.org.uk

www.no2eu.com

www.thepeoplescharter.com

As a more general thing, it will be interesting to see if PM Gordon Brown survives the next election. Pundits seem convinced his handling of the economic crisis lately may win him votes.

That remains to be seen. A relatively new development is that Labour is now losing votes in traditional Labour strongholds. Being seen to hobnob with world leaders might actually re-inforce the belief that he`s out of touch with ordinary people.

What`s going on where you are ?

Trying to stop the process of mountain top removal coal mining by amending the Clean Water Protection Act and encouraging the development of renewable energy. The practice has a devastating environmental impact locally and the United State's heavy reliance on coal fired power plants is a major contributor to climate change.

http://www.appvoices.org/index.php?/site...

#3 --

And Big Energy has adopted the "alternative fuels" mantra -- wind, solar, "clean" coal -- in order to renew their efforts to ingratiate their infatuation with the money to made from nukes.

A couple more from me ;

http://38degrees.org.uk

www.thepeoplescharter.com

The beginnings of the process of replacing the late Senator Ted Kennedy.

I think the world learned much about him -- I did -- during the several days after his death that was unknown to the public:

A woman whose son was killed in Iraq for lack of body armor contacted him about it, and shortly there was an "up-armoring" bill in Congress.

During the days immediately after 9/11 he personally -- not his staff, he -- called all 177 families who lost loved ones that day and offered his office- and staff-time in any way they needed the bureaucratic mountain moved.

A widow wanted an honor guard for her husband's funeral -- he was 12 years Navy -- but couldn't get it because she hadn't his service record. Skeptical, she followed up on Kennedy's invitation to call about anything needed, and within 48 hours she had the honor guard for her husband's funeral.

It's an Irish, or Kennedy, tradition that when a person dies, the body is kept company, 24/7, until interred. A widow who had received help from the Senator's office said she was "blown away" when she got a call asking if she would be willing to do a shift in that role. She didn't say during the interview, but I think it obvious she said "Yes!" to the honor.

Perhaps most moving, to me, were the scenes of family members -- including his widow and JKF's daughter Caroline -- spending hours, unscheduled, thanking people who came to the public viewing. I suspect that impressed the world more than most else during those days.
_____

In the polls, Joe Kennedy is way ahead of all other announced contenders, but it's reported he's "agonizing" over whether to run: he really doesn't like being in politics.

A Red Sox baseball player (I don't follow baseball so know essentially nothing about him) has hinted at running, but I think it mostly talk. And his politics include that his wife campaigned for Sarah Palin, so he wouldn't get more than a few votes outside Fenway Park.

Whether he runs or not he should be traded to the Yankees.

The politician I've been watching most -- MA AG Martha Coakley -- has announced and taken out nomination papers. It's reported that she starts with no money, which I think makes her the campaign finance equal of everyone else in the field.

Before she announced, political pundits said she would have the advantage because the only woman in the race. So much for the sexist oppression of women.

The only other announcee so far, Steven Lynch, is pretty much a non-entity. (The few times I've seen him has been on TeeVee.)

Martha Coakley is a sharp, focused legal professional. And it looks like she will be MA's next junior Senator. If so, alas: I love her and am in love with her, so that would mean the estrangement of and probable end to our non-existent relationship.

#6 -- Update.

Joe Kennedy has decided not to run. Martha Coakley was the first to announce, and she's doubtless in the lead: she has a name. The other two or three to announce are nameless non-entities (except perhaps to themselves: they're politicians), which is why I don't know whether it's two or three. I do know it's more than one.

Lets see, what's happening where I am.

I am in Guatemala since December 2009 working on research and day before yesterday, the major of Guatemala (who has also been the president of Guatemala and this is like his 3rd term as mayor) declared, in an audience for all the foreign diplomats and representatives, that all public schools of Guatemala should be militarized AND that all foreign development and human rights organizations are akin to the Inquisition.

Mind you, these are the same organizations that fund, via financial aid, most of his projects and development projects for the poor in this country.

Moreover, this comes after a) 30 years of civil war and horrendous abuses on the population by the military; b) international pressure was instrumental on ending the war and enacting peace accords and b) most of the population who attends public school come from the same populations that were oppressed or massacred by the military during the war years.

Moreover, a report published shows that the military was directly involved, during those years, in stealing babies from poor people--sometimes by killing the parents first--and basically selling them to adoption in the US and Europe via government adoption agencies. It became a tidy little business!

In short, the major proposes that despite this gruesome background, the public schools be militarized! Interestingly, there wasn't a huge uproar, but more of people shrugging their shoulders at the man's ideas and "oh yeah, typical of his class."

This place is surreal.

The area I live in has a large number of closed up shops because the council won't lower their rates. A local action group have started squatting these premises to open art galleries, swap shops, advice centres, theatres etc. It's a really exciting time.

An interesting and Utopian concept; we Yanks would get thrown in jail IMMEDIATELY, even if the buildings were owned by the city!

#10 --

Perhaps where you are that would happen. More generally it isn't necessarily true.

Well our authorities are not delighted by the developments, but they cannot argue that their fiscal decisions have adversely effected the culture and community of our area. The activists claim that are rescuing the area from decline, and as all their projects are joyful and creative, I agree.

That's good to hear; you will understand what I mean when I tell you I live in Texas! I've heard of people squatting in abandoned buildings in large cities like NYC to live; I wasn't aware people in the US were squatting to do art or theater; it would be interesting to find out where this was going on.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Set 18, 2009, 12:04pm.

#13 --

Judging from her English, Amy is likely in Britain.

As for Texas: to what conditions do you refer?

laissez-faire, right wing, private property is private whether it's occupied or not, no free lunch, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, right to work, no state income tax, no government control, no stimulus money, if you want it you got to earn it yourself, no hand outs, no sleeping in the park, lowest expenditure on health and education outside of Mississippi, no welfare, if you're poor it's your fault, god will provide to those who are worthy; creationism in textbooks, if you're on welfare you're lazy, insurance companies rule, I could go on.......

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Set 21, 2009, 10:30am.

#15: private property is private whether it's occupied or not

Would you think it ok if I squatted in someone's house while they had gone out for groceries? Not that I would think that property ownership magically happens when you receive a deed written down on paper, but there are certain cultural norms by which people understand the legitimate transfer of property to take place. I think a property that had business close down doesn't quite fall into that category. I should hope that the squatters had the courtesy to ask the permission of the property owners at some point. It would present a good opportunity for business owners down on their luck to receive a modest rental fee for use of the property, and if the squatters aren't total jerks, they might find the arrangement equitable.

No, I'm not referring to owner-occupied housing; I think the original post was made by a British woman about council property by which I take it to mean property owned by the city whereby no tenant could meet the rental price; the cultural norm in western Europe is different than in Texas; even than in liberal Austin; the city of Austin has owned property that has lain fallow for years at a time and no one would think to squat in it, or if they thought about it, they'd never do it. A better analogy would be apartments owned by the University of Texas: married student housing (which I think has finally been privatized after decades of the University owning it) If married students could not meet the rental price, they would not think to occupy it because you can bet the police would be called to perform an eviction if the tenant refused to leave. An area would have to be really depressed economically for a property owner or a city to entertain the notion of squatters offering a small fee for occupation rights. There are different cultural norms and expectations here; take Las Vegas for example; property value has plummeted but the populace that could not meet the mortgage price just moved on to the next city, because Americans are such a mobile society and are so conditioned to think their inability to pay their mortgage due to job loss is their fault not the fault of the market or the system or the government or the lending agency....

#17: I think the original post was made by a British woman about council property by which I take it to mean property owned by the city whereby no tenant could meet the rental price

I see. That element escaped me in #9. Reminds me of the time this past April when AnarchoJesse engaged in his gardening disobedience in the central square of Keene, New Hampshire. He was doing it in protest of the city council wasting $5000 for a "feasibility study" of a food co-op. He was arrested and fined, and he refused to pay the fine. He was found guilty at his trial contesting the fine, but the judge decided it would be too expensive to try to collect the fine from him and that the fine would be "closed." Jesse thought this meant the fine had been dropped until last week when he received a summons to report to jail to serve some time. Being fed up with all the bureacracy that would be involved to move the time to a more appropriate hour, he decided just not to appear.

You may find that she`s referring to privately-owned but vacant/derelict shops which are not in use because the rate of business council tax set by the local authority at a rate that is discouraging their use. I would be surprised if the premises werre publicly owned.

I`m quite surprised to hear of that problem. In most areas where I`ve lived the local authority (council) is usually desperate to avoid having any number of empty shops.

I do quite admire the initiatives she outlines - I certainly agree with #12, on the info she provides - but another option might have been for local residents to lobby the council to behave more realistically.

Thanks for the explanation; so it's a tax protest (gee, tax protests of the British government....rings a bell :-) do cities in the UK own housing units? ie, what do you refer to when you talk about a "council flat"? I remember from my travels in Europe that the railroad workers in France got to live in subsidized? housing or free housing? provided by the railroad and I assume paid for by the French government.... In Austin, the city owns apartment buildings whereby elderly can live at a reduced rate; otherwise, for those of lower economic circumstance, the government subsidizes individuals, who in turn look for individual apartments, privately owned, whereby the owner accepts "Section 8" tenants: part of the rent comes from the tenant, part comes from a government entity, federal, I believe (US as opposed to state or city or county monies)

The question of council housing is actually very interesting, but I`d be here all day if I tried to do it full justice.

Yes. Local authorities do own council housing, but nothing like the situation you outline in France. Council housing is basically property in which the council is the landlord and council house tenants pay them rent and for services in the usual way.

As I understand it, council housing was introduced in the immediate post-war period. I assume it was like the health service, the politicians who introduced it did so from an equal mix of altruism and self-interest. Just to pick the most obvious example, anyone who knows anything at all about the privately owned slums of pre-war Britain that they replaced will immediately begin to see a few good reasons why this was done !

Council estates tend to get a bad press these days, but in truth they are very varied in character. The worst are very bad indeed, most are just a bit dull.

There have been two big changes to the original council house scheme since the `40s. One came when the Conservative Thatcher govt introduced the `right to buy` scheme, enabling council house tenants to buy their own homes. It did reflect the aspirations of many council house tenants, but it was a poisoned chalice to a friend of mine.

The other big change now is that councils can now eject unruly tenants. Before that, they were obligated to house them. I believe that this is absolutely esential to the future of the council house scheme, and my level tolerance for what the press call ASBO families (it stands for `Anti-Social Behaviour Order`) is about zero.

It does throw up two anomalies - one is that former council house tenants who are ejected are normally classed as having chosen to become homeless, therefore not entitled to seek council housing elswhere. The evidence seems to indicate that they then turn to the private sector, and I have occasionally heard things that make me wonder if we might see the return of the gangster landlord. On the bright side, private landords rarely own large concentrations of property in a single area, so the return of old-style slums seems unlikely.

The other anomaly is that `good` council tenants now have more rights than dwellers in private accomodation. At two addresses I`ve lived at (and owned) in the past I have had problems with neighbours who were involved with drugs etc - one couple were renting a property adjoining mine from a private landlord, the others owned their home. No way in this world did I have the level of protection I would have had if they`d been council tenants. As I say, I think it is absolutely right that councils have these powers, I just think it`s interesting.

I hope that`s fairly clear. I`d be happy to discuss it further if anyone wants to, though I do struggle to find much time for LT generally.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Set 23, 2009, 9:58am.

Thanks for your post. It was very elucidating and very interesting. In the US property owners are at the mercy of gun-toting drug dealers. If it happened in city owned housing I'm sure the police would be dispatched immediately; so it sounds like a situation similar to that in the UK; if you live in a home in a neighborhood where one of the houses is occupied by a drug dealer, I hear, you can call the police every day and if they don't have the manpower to patrol and stake out the property and catch the drug deal as it's happening, nothing gets done. What the police do here is focus on one neighborhood at a time to "weed and seed": catch the drug dealers arrest them, and try to get legitimate businesses and law-abiding tenants or owners into the houses. The manpower depends on how healthy the economy is, ie how many police can be hired to get the job done. Consequently, some neighborhoods suffer and some neighborhoods have been totally cleaned up.
Yes, it's hard to find time for LT, isn't it? For me, it started as a project for my mater's degree in library science: one of our professors required that we open an account here. Thanks again for taking the time to post.

@10: I recently heard about a "Bank Tenants Association" occupying a vacant foreclosed building in Roxbury, MA. So far, this article from a month ago is the only other information I can find about it.

Yes, in casual conversation I've learned of some squatting going on around the US; one of my work colleagues mentioned an arts collective in Wisconsin. Apparently living in Texas has made me myopic!

#22

As regards the policing thing, I`m not sure I`ve ever heard the suggestion that the UK Police respond more quickly to crimes on council estates than to private homes. The point I was making is that if I had problems with a council tenant living nearby, I could complain to the council and if the tenant kept being a problem, they`d be `out on their ear` as we say round our way. I couldn`t have the same effect complaining to a private landlord or mortgage lender.

Interestingly, my wife and I moved to a small town from a city area about two years ago. There certainly are social problems round here, but perhaps not on the same scale as a big city sees. One big thing I`ve noticed is that the drug dealers look nervous if they see a Police Officer, and often seem to try to be as unobtrusive as possible. It would be interesting to know what makes the difference. One particular officer does get mentioned sometimes as being particularly effective, though as he had a bit of national media attention a while ago, I don`t know if a bit of a myth has grown up from that.

Anyway, I digress, I was only really replying as a courtesy. Thanks for your comments.

#16 --

You clearly haven't looked beyond the advertisements for capitalism and property ownership, and how those are always perfectly benign and a constructive contribution to society, etc., etc., etc.

More likely the squatting is being done in residential-rental properties which have been abandoned by the owner -- which is usually why they aren't already occupied*. In parts of urban areas that is the "blight" you see, or hear about: properties abandoned by their owners which end up not only removed from the tax base, but also deteriorating, while at the same time there are homeless people sleeping in cardboard boxes.
_____

*I've known of instances of landlords being sentenced by housing court to live in their sub-standard out-of-codes properties until brought up to legal standard for habitation. Until then, the landlords ignored all court orders to bring the property to within the legal requirements; but having to spend time in their own property does tend to get it brought up to standard overnight.
_____

Such properties are, from time to time, squatted in by those who are priced out of the market (there are two sides to the economics -- only one side having the cash with which to advertise theirs), and or those making of it a political protest: there isn't sufficient affordable housing, so why not turn this property into affordable housing, even if that means taking it for back taxes and turning it over to those who are "illegally" occupying it.

On one hand, the property isn't generating either income or taxes; on the other, squatting tends to at minimum protect the property from destruction or even burning. (Sometimes the burning is for insurance purposes . . .)

At any rate, the issue is more complicated than simply asking an ABSENTEE landlord who couldn't care less about the conditions of his properties even when rented -- what's a building code? oh, right: over-regulation -- if it's "okay" to squat in his abandoned properties, because the squatting is usually the politicoeconomic result of the abandonment.

And as the post re. the "Bank Tenant Association" shows, finding an absentee landlord of whom to make such naive request isn't as easy as one can imagine.

And it can be worse: I know of an entire working class neighborhood that was demolished by a famous health care facility with the intention of building their new facility on it. But, after the neighborhood was demolished, the facility was built elsewhere, and the land on which the working class neighborhood had been remained empty -- "undeveloped" -- for decades: holding onto it was a good investment for the non-profit owners. That an entire population of working class human beings had been displaced didn't bother them.

Ultimately, because of years of effort by affordable-housing activists, they finally agreed to negotiate the sale of the property for building affordable ("mixed") housing -- but only after minority protestors with signs began showing up outside their facility in their lily-white suburban location.

Worse than that was the adjacent neighborhood being demolished one, or several, houses at a time by its owner: a Baptist church. That non-profit was also holding the property (23 lots with 7 houses remaining, all of the latter out of codes) as an investment. They were using the least expensive way of clearing the land: renting the housing, while allowing the housing to deteriorate -- they did nothing to maintain them, legal requirements be damned -- to the point at which they were condemned by the city. Then the church would evict the tenants and tear the buildings down.

It was squatting activists who ultimately got both properties turned over to an affordable-housing non-profit (one for $1 per acre; one for free -- the church was finally shamed when the congregation learned of the unChristain actions of its Board of Deacons), which then rebuilt the neighborhoods with afforable ("mixed") housing. Achieving that took from 8 to 15 years of struggle and effort -- that prolonged by years of refusals by the property owners to even negotiate to meet with the affordable-housing non-profit, to then discuss negotiating sale of the properties.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Set 27, 2009, 1:50am.

#15 --

"if the squatters aren't total jerks, they might find the arrangement equitable."

Those in the know are well aware that there's more than enough of such "jerkiness" to go around. And, as with everything else, those with the greater wealth can afford the greater amount of it.

I know: you're told the trashing of properties is done by tenants. If only the matter were so simple, so black-and-white (ahem) as that.

See my prior post for a brief -- very brief -- summary of the actual realities behind most instances of "squatting". Certainly the landlord has property rights; but as with all other rights, there are limits to the abuse to the community a property owner can inflict. As that post indicates, such jerks can be defeated; but it takes enormous commitment in blood, sweat, time, and insufficient resources to accomplish it.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Set 27, 2009, 1:16am.

#18 --

Ah, yes, one of the "Free Keene" half-wits showing how to "beat the system" by rejecting it altogether. Does he also refuse to put license plates on his motor vehicle?

#22 --

"In the US property owners are at the mercy of gun-toting drug dealers."

Perhaps that's the problem in Tejas. Where I am there are more than that one cause of problems. Let's just say that non-gun-toting non-drug dealers are as subject to illegal exploitations by landlords. Drug dealers tend to be rounded up fairly quickly; it's the landlords who get away with years, even decades, of "scoff-law" conduct, while tenants are at their mercy. In part it's because landlords contribute to political campaigns -- whereas tenants haven't the financial wherewithal to do so.

"If it happened in city owned housing I'm sure the police would be dispatched immediately; . . . ."

Actually, as indicated, it'll be dealt with promptly if the housing is privately owned: one wouldn't want to alienate campaign contributions. Unless, of course, the landlord doesn't want it to be dealt with; the powers-that-be can accommodate that reality also.

As with practically everything, it is the one with the least power that is the last to be heard -- if they are heard at all. Poverty talks, money walks.

". . . if you live in a home in a neighborhood where one of the houses is occupied by a drug dealer, I hear, you can call the police every day and if they don't have the manpower to patrol and stake out the property and catch the drug deal as it's happening, nothing gets done."

You HEAR!? I'd got the impression you actually had experience with those "realities".

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Set 27, 2009, 1:53am.

#23 --

"Bank Tenant Association" simply means that they are tenants of "the" bank (trying to find the real owner in the circularity of responsiblity-passing being played is itself exhausting), and that they've established their own common/shared-interest -- the unstable living condictions resulting from greed combined with irresponsibilty -- "Association".

It is precisely this sort of mutual support -- essential to survival in such circumstances -- that "Libertarians" and "free market" religionuts preach are not only not necessary but also that they are "socialist".

And they are the result of nasty well-financed targetting of people who stand in the way of profits -- i.e., tenants who are given leases, but not told that they are only temporary place-holders.

#29

I was checking out a patron in the library and noticed his name was the same of an owner of a house I was considering buying; the owner talked me out of it; he said he couldn't back out of his driveway in the morning to go to work as there were cars parked up and down his street to visit the drug dealer next door to him; he said he frequently called the police but that hadn't, in your parlance, "rounded up (the drug dealer) fairly quickly" After I checked the book out to him, he repeated several times: you don't want to buy the house"

I agree that landlords can be exploitative and tenants can be at their mercy; but the neighborhood safety issue of drug dealers is very long and ongoing in Austin and they put the neighbors at risk due to shoot-outs; this same scenario happened to me several times as I was looking for houses to buy; same story: you don't want to live there (from people living in the neighborhood) the house you're looking at had a bullet come through the window.

Also, city housing authority has an "in" with the police department as they are both city government entities and the administrators know the police chief; so, indeed, police will be dispatched quickly to city owned housing when there is a problem

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Set 27, 2009, 2:04am.

At any rate, the issue is more complicated than simply asking an ABSENTEE landlord who couldn't care less about the conditions of his properties even when rented -- what's a building code? oh, right: over-regulation

Yes, over-regulation in the form of higher than reasonable fees being set by the town council as pointed out by the person who originally brought these squatters to the thread's attention.

I know: you're told the trashing of properties is done by tenants. If only the matter were so simple, so black-and-white (ahem) as that.

That's not what I'm told. A great deal of the problem lies with landlords who have been over-regulated by the government. Because of laws like rent-controlled housing, landlords lose any incentive to keep their customers happy. Because of the artificially low prices, even if the most awful landlord in the world loses his tenants (and anyone in communities with rent-controls will tell you that no one moves out), plenty of other prospective tenants are ready to fill the void to seize upon the sweet deal. Relationships between landlords and tenants living under rent-control are often very acrimonious and I've even had the chance to see a slideshow lecture in which pictures of rent-controlled housing was indistinguishable from pictures of urban war zones.

Ah, yes, one of the "Free Keene" half-wits showing how to "beat the system" by rejecting it altogether. Does he also refuse to put license plates on his motor vehicle?

Perfect segway. On that very same city square for the past week, activism for the repeal of marijuana prohibition has reached a fever-pitch status with activists smoking marijuana openly in full view of the police and crowds grown to brimming. Here's a video of one of the event's organizers being singled out and arrested on Saturday. Here's a video of the second person arrested on Sunday for smoking chocolate mint. And here's a good video from Sam Dodson (who is the guy shown with the megaphone talking about forgiveness and compassion) covering the event more generally. Only downside is the handful of college kids there acting like jerks.

I know you think politics is the "proper" way to get things changed, but that only "works" when the population is already on your side. Civil disobedience, when done correctly, is the most efficient way to persuade populations. A town council setting high fees will never be accountable to politics because no voting majority will ever get upset against enough of the council members about some obscure real estate mismanagement somewhere. If they were private landlords, at least they'd have to worry about going out of business as a check againt mismanagement. But you know that no matter how often government fails, it almost never has to worry about going out of business when left to politics.

"A town council setting high fees will never be accountable..."

I can`t see that at all. I would say it`s demonstrable that, if people are regularly confronted by streets of boarded up shops, they will in fact kick out the local council, at least that often happens in the UK, particularly in the current political atmosphere.

In fact one of the biggest trends in UK politics at present - largely ignored by pundits and politicians of course - is that the traditionally loyal Labour voters in the Midlands and the North are simply staying home on polling day. That`s very true in areas like the one where I am , but the posts concerned are not going to the Conservatives (still viewed with open hostility) or (as yet) the Liberals, Greens or any far left groups, but often to fringe candidates with little support who take up post simply because the bulk of voters stay home as a form of protest.

At any rate, the issue is more complicated than simply asking an ABSENTEE landlord who couldn't care less about the conditions of his properties even when rented -- what's a building code? oh, right: over-regulation

"Yes, over-regulation in the form of higher than reasonable fees being set by the town council as pointed out by the person who originally brought these squatters to the thread's attention."

You don't get the core issue. Let's start with your learning the meaning of the word "regulation". A synonym for that word is real easy to spell:

L-A-W.

When you grasp that reality -- the word game being played -- then you understand that they are protesting against RULE OF LAW.

The regulations to which I refer as protecting tenants -- and which many landlords couldn't care less about: it's their "over-regulation" -- are building codes and sanitary codes.

I know: you're told the trashing of properties is done by tenants. If only the matter were so simple, so black-and-white (ahem) as that.

"That's not what I'm told."

Exactly: that's not what you're TOLD. Whether it's true? -- you don't know, and don't show any interest in determining whether it is. So let's look at your specific examples -- each of which is a generalization, and predictable cliché:

"A great deal of the problem lies with landlords who have been over-regulated by the government."

"Over-regulated by the gov't". And who, pray tell, do you propose, as alternative, should do the regulation? Oh, right: landlords should regulate themselves -- until, of course, they demonstrate, over long periods of time, that they will not regulate themselves; and that their refusal to regulate themselves harms not only other human beings -- tenants are human -- but also not only the community at large but also property values

"Because of laws like rent-controlled housing, landlords lose any incentive to keep their customers happy."

1. Tenants are not "customers".

2. "Rent-control" is typically also subsidized . What that means is that the "rent control" keeps the portion of the rent the tenant pays within the tenant's means; and the rest of the rent -- to bring the total rent up to "market"/what the landlord wants -- is paid by means of such as Sec. 8.

Landlords don't have any actual beef on the point; except as they have beefs against all regulation which equalizes the relationship between the person with the power -- landlord -- and the least powerful -- the tenant.

"Because of the artificially low prices, even if the most awful landlord in the world loses his tenants (and anyone in communities with rent-controls will tell you that no one moves out), plenty of other prospective tenants are ready to fill the void to seize upon the sweet deal."

You don't know what you're talking about; and show no interest in learning the facts. The "sweet deal" to which you refer is often in substandard housing -- i.e., housing which is "out of codes"; that is, housing that the landlord doesn't bother keeping legal, his false whine being that he hasn't the money because of "rent control".

He has the money: he simply doesn't give a damn.

Add in that landlords -- unlike tenants -- are sufficiently well-heeled to not only lobby state and local authorities, but also has ins with "inspectional services". "Inspectional services" are intended to enforce building and sanitary codes, but too often look the other way, sometimes in exchange for cash. And in at least one instance of which I know there's a cute technicality -- a hurdle for tenants: until "Inspectional Services" certifies the code violations, they don't exist; try getting beyond that hurdle, without legal representation, while simultaneously fighting -- again without legal representation -- eviction.

Yes: a complaint about substandard housing conditions will usually result in receipt of eviction notice. In some jurisdictions that is, in specific circumstances, illegal as "retaliatory" eviction. But to fight that, one must -- again -- get "Inspectional Services" to certify the code violations, else one cannot plead those violations in court. And that is not in itself necessarily sufficient defense against eviction, though it can sometimes win one a delay -- during which the court will require the landlord bring the property into code. If those violations are bad enough, the court may schedule the eviction hearing for after the violations are cured.

"Relationships between landlords and tenants living under rent-control are often very acrimonious and I've even had the chance to see a slide show lecture in which pictures of rent-controlled housing was indistinguishable from pictures of urban war zones."

Yes: you saw a slide show prepared by landlords with an whine to grind; but you made no effort to determine whether they were telling the truth, let alone get the tenants side of the issue.

What I'm telling you is based upon years of work in tenant and affordable housing advocacy. It isn't a "sweet deal" when one must both defend against retaliatory eviction, and sue "Inspectional Services" also in order to motivate them to actually do the inspection, and actually make record of the violations, and then actually certify that -- yes -- those violations are the reality; and that those violations endanger or damage tenants' health and property.

Bottom line: you don't know what you're talking about.

"I know you think politics is the "proper" way to get things changed, but that only "works" when the population is already on your side."

Not correct. Then again, stupidity and laziness will have you quitting before lifting a finger to make the effort to organize "around" specific issue/s.

"Civil disobedience, when done correctly, is the most efficient way to persuade populations."

It is nothing of the kind. And it needn't be the only tactic one uses. One of the basic problems for tenants living in substandard conditions is that they don't know the codes, let alone what to do or where to go once they learn they are being illegally subjected to code violations. Information empowers. Establishing a legal rent strike -- that is not civil disobedience -- can free up sufficient funds which, pooled (and I don't advise this, as it is not the same as "escrowing," which the law requires), can pay a lawyer who already knows the laws and ropes. That alone will accomplish most of what needs doing.

"A town council setting high fees will never be accountable to politics because no voting majority will ever get upset against enough of the council members about some obscure real estate mismanagement somewhere."

When your roof leaks it is not "some obscure real estate management somewhere". It is specific and immediate. And it is probable that it isn't the only code violation. Learn the codes, talk to your neighbors about remedying the situation, then go from there.

"If they were private landlords, at least they'd have to worry about going out of business as a check againt mismanagement."

Nonsense. Did I explain about the famous medical facility which destroyed half of a working class community -- then built elsewhere? And the Baptist church which destroyed the other half -- and then held the property as a profitable investment? What are the chances those private landlords would "have to worry about going out of business"?

The latter landlord was taken to court -- and ultimately donated that property to a CDC which rebuilt the neighborhood. And the former turned over the property it held to the same CDC for $1.00 per acre. There is now a thriving neighborhood where there had been devastation -- an apparent "urban war zone" which had been created by the landlords.

And, no, those private landlords didn't go out of business (in addition to which one is untaxed and the other negative-taxed). Rather, they simply got rid of assets which tenants, organized, transformed into noise, headache, and picketing.

One doesn't do "civil disobedience" in such circumstances because the intent is to get the relevant gov't entities to act in behalf of the tenant-side of the laws.

"But you know that no matter how often government fails, it almost never has to worry about going out of business when left to politics."

Gad I hate the ignorance of "Libertarians". "Gov't is the means by which the community regulates itself" -- James Madison.

Ours is a REPRESENTATIVE gov't, and its power is derived from We the people. That means that We the people ARE the gov't. It's the disengaged, the lazy, and those who distort freedom as being separate from responsibility, and freedom separate from rule of law, who sit on their asses and whine against "the gov't" as being the problem.

Every elected representative has more constituents than YOU ("Inspectional Services' proper constituency is mostly tenants; but one must force them to do that). And not all constituents have the same concerns or make the same demands on that representative. Democracy is COMPROMISE and CONSENSUS. YOU don't get all you want -- but no one else does either.

It is up to We the people to make gov't work. The only alternative is irresponsibility, and whining.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Out 21, 2009, 3:35am.

What I'm telling you is based upon years of work in tenant and affordable housing advocacy.

That actually goes pretty far in explaining how deeply invested you are in insisting all those superstitions you laid out above must be true in complete contravention of human psychology or economics. You can insist all you want about how you think the system is supposed to work, but at the end of the day it's like an "experienced" clergyman trying to explain to an athiest about how to "save" his soul.

But I can quote famous 18th century thinkers as well,

"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished.... Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government." -Thomas Paine

What I'm telling you is based upon years of work in tenant and affordable housing advocacy.

"That actually goes pretty far in explaining how deeply invested you are in insisting all those superstitions you laid out above must be true in complete contravention of human psychology or economics. You can insist all you want about how you think the system is supposed to work, but at the end of the day it's like an "experienced" clergyman trying to explain to an athiest about how to "save" his soul."

In other words: I know what I'm talking about; you don't know what you're talking about; ergo, you are correct and I am not.

You saw a presentation by landlords about landlord woes. I've seen the reality behind the slideshow. That makes you the expert?

The fact is that laws exist because they must: the human race already tried it the other way, and it didn't work; the result: laws and gov't.

It is also the fact that laws need enforcement. And that powerful forces will always endeavor to game the system in their favor. It is compliance with, and when that doesn't happen enforcement of the laws, that makes the system work as intended.

But it's easier to reject the rule of law than it is to learn, and know what you're talking about --

"But I can quote famous 18th century thinkers as well,"

Did I quote an "18th century thinker"?

"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished.... Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government." -Thomas Paine

I love you assinine "clever" "revolutionary" illiterates who find it so easy to quote such as Paine without knowing the first thing about him.

1. Paine was a propagandist.

2. After he served his purpose -- helping stir up the "masses" as phase one of the "revolution" -- he was discarded by the Founders because no longer needed. They had moved on from "revolution" and instability to establishing stability of laws -- i.e., establishing gov't.

3. Paine's writings are not law; so you can imagine yourself a brilliant "revolutionary," and quote such as Paine, all you want. But none of that will ever substitute for rule of law.

Ultimately, it amazes how many of you jerks quote the Founders -- selectively, of course -- yet reject everything they fought for, and the means they established to secure and perpetuate that.

When you know the realities of landlord-tenant relations, and have hands-on experience with that, and with landlord-tenant laws, and the enforcement mechanisms, including psychological and economic, let me know. Until then you'll have nothing to offer on the issue except secondhand landlord "slideshows" -- and labeling, like a good little self-centered "Libertarian" anti-intellectual, everything contrary to that self-serving pro-landlord PR "superstititon".

In short: when you wake to the fact that reality is not "superstition," despite your flip nonsense.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Nov 8, 2009, 8:03pm.

Yes, Paine was a propagandist, but he made coherent arguments about how and why society functions as it does rather than making absurd blanket statements like the Madison quote you gave above. It's that kind of anthropological understanding that is lacking from your posting as well which no number of claims of personal investment you make can dispel. There are many steps between a collection of sob stories and a comprehensive framework for understanding. I used the analogy of a clergyman arguing salvation with an athiest, but maybe a closer analogy would be a cop harping on about the "necessity" of the drug war. Then again, crap like the drug war is probably "divine law" in your book too like the rest of it.

All you have are your imaginary words on paper absent the reality of their consequences. That is true anti-intellectualism right there, thinking you can make an emergently complex system bend to your own personal wishes just because you scribble some indignant backwater moralism down on some piece of legislation. You think you or your "representatives" can be some creationist "intelligent designer" for society when processes like evolution or social dynamics are bigger than you will ever be. Complete hubris.

And before you start exalting the founders (or your particular understanding of them), don't pretend that they stayed true to their revolution. They abandoned all of that when they took the country over in place of the king and put down tax rebellions on their own watch.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Out 22, 2009, 3:52am.

I was referring to privately owned retail units in which legitimate business flounders due to high council rates. Since I posted here, the community initiatives have really flourished.

#37 --

"Yes, Paine was a propagandist, but he made coherent arguments about how and why society functions as it does rather than making absurd blanket statements like the Madison quote you gave above."

And yet it is Madison, not Paine, who is credited with Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Probably because the mass of people are your inferiors in reasoning capacity. Or perhaps because those who formulated Constitution and Bill of Rights continued the established tradition of freedom of conscience and belief. The "origin" in humans that Paine talks about is also the source of the impulses and acts which require the constraints of rule of law, and the enforcement of those -- the origin of which is also: humans.

Paine was a propagandist, therefore did not make coherent arguments; the appeal of propaganda is to emotion. The irony is that Paine was appealing to a tabla rasa "divine law" which you both assert and reject simultaneously.

And you want us to believe you're rational and coherent?

Basically you "response" is incomprehensible gibberish. But this, which is "clear," reveals your lack of understanding of the process of "revolution," and why Paine was discarded (I made this point above, but you ignore it):

"And before you start exalting the founders (or your particular understanding of them), don't pretend that they stayed true to their revolution. They abandoned all of that when they took the country over in place of the king and put down tax rebellions on their own watch."

First, the Founders were not anarchists -- lunatic chaotists. "Libertarians".

Second, the beginning of the "revolution" is marked as occurring during 1775. During 1776-77 (and 1780), the states, at the urging of the "revolutionary" Continental Congress, adopted constitutions. Constitutions are LAW.

Those constitutions established -- or rather, continued -- among other things, taxation. No one in his right mind can conceive of a gov't that can run without funds; and that is the first purpose of taxation.

In short: the Founders continued numerous "traditions" to which they had no objection -- from taxation, to gun control (including "gun-grabbing" and prohibition), to representative -- yes -- gov't. If you believe British rule was a "tyranny" in some accurate modern sense, then you are a victim of the propaganda.

But what is "revolution"? If "revolution" is about "overturning" or "overthrowing" gov't, then it was not a "revolution"; that's why it was called "war of" or "for" "independence": there was never an absence of gov't during the "revolution". No one -- not even the British -- shot at any gov'ts -- the Founders', or that in London. As had been the prior reality, elections occurred regularly, under established procedures, law-making continued as usual.

The argument against "taxation" -- which was settled during the 1760s -- was false to begin with: Franklin was the colonies' representative in Parliament at the time. The beef was mostly about the colonies demanding a free lunch: they were opposed to paying a portion of the costs of their defense by Britain against the French and indians. The Founders were not opposed to taxation per se, so they "abandoned" nothing.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Nov 8, 2009, 9:15pm.

#38 --

They've floursihed? Great.

Except that, according to "Lunar," they couldn't have flourished . . . :)

Paine was a propagandist, therefore did not make coherent arguments; the appeal of propaganda is to emotion. The irony is that Paine was appealing to a tabla rasa "divine law" which you both assert and reject simultaneously.

Richard Dawkins is also a propagandist. Doesn't invalidate his arguments either. Appealing to emotion as a communications tactic can only impugn his style, not his substance. He describes an anthropological understanding of how mutual dependency shapes human behavior. Whether he attributes the origin of such behavioral laws to a magical sky pixie invalidates his actual observations no more than it would for Isaac Newton.

Basically you "response" is incomprehensible gibberish.

That means a lot coming from someone who uses legalist mumbo jumbo in place of any understanding of human interaction.

But this, which is "clear," reveals your lack of understanding of the process of "revolution," and why Paine was discarded (I made this point above, but you ignore it):

No, I did not have any bone to pick with your assertion that the founders disassociated themselves with Paine. It's almost like you were trying to back me up on how they merely replaced one regime with another that was little different. Certainly wouldn't have wanted Paine to point out anything about the new regime that he had of the old regime. Awkward!

First, the Founders were not anarchists -- lunatic chaotists. "Libertarians".

Within their historical context, I would absolutely agree with you. But by modern standards? Libertarianism is little more than the modern re-branding of the Classical Liberal school of thought that had developed out of the Enlightenment. Hate to burst your bubble.

But what is "revolution"? If "revolution" is about "overturning" or "overthrowing" gov't, then it was not a "revolution"; that's why it was called "war of" or "for" "independence":

Is this another one of your literalist semantic arguments? I don't care if it's called a "revolution" or not. That is immaterial to anything I said about Thomas Paine.

there was never an absence of gov't during the "revolution". No one -- not even the British -- shot at any gov'ts -- the Founders', or that in London. As had been the prior reality, elections occurred regularly, under established procedures, law-making continued as usual.

This is what is called "to debate a strawman." I never made any assertions to that effect, but I'm sure it makes you feel like you might be saying something relevant. But most debates are not settled just because someone shouts out "the sky is blue!" out of the blue.

The Founders were not opposed to taxation per se, so they "abandoned" nothing.

I thought you said they abandoned Thomas Paine? Whether or not taxation had been settled, you admit yourself that it was crucial for popular support. How is anything you said about that in disagreement with what I said before about the founders abandoning "their revolution"? Or are your circumlocutions just an excuse to keep calling me an assinine jerk?

Something in a previous post of yours worth high-lighting:

Paine's writings are not law; so you can imagine yourself a brilliant "revolutionary," and quote such as Paine, all you want. But none of that will ever substitute for rule of law.

It's the same theme over and over again. Your reverance for politicians and special interests making backroom deals and putting them down on paper means that anything outside that realm should simply be dismissed out of hand.

They've floursihed? Great.

Except that, according to "Lunar," they couldn't have flourished

If you'd ever learned how to read in context (which must be hard for a literalist/legalist to do), it would be clear to you that the "community initiatives" amy is referring to are the squatters who have brought back economic activity in contravention of the law. So according to you, they couldn't have flourished.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Nov 17, 2009, 2:40am.

Boulder, Colorado, USA: In 2007 Boulder resolved to meet the carbon-reduction terms of the Kyoto protocal and passed a tax increase on energy use to fund the effort. Until now, the effort has been focused on education leading to voluntary efforts but that approach failed to meet interim goals.

Recently, the first proposal for mandatory action has been presented by a citizen work group and involves requiring upgrades to energy efficiency in order to renew a rental license--since Boulder is a college town with a high proportion of tenants the proposal would impact many people.

The landlord class tends to call a muster over everything that might affect them with no exception on this issue, so we're expecting a vociferous Winter as the proposal is deliberated.

Derbyshire, UK : In Erewash, a developer is propsing to build houses on the redundant Stanton Iron Works site. The area concerned is considerably larger than you might think, the ironworks was not just a matter of a few buildings. The proposal is for "between 4,000 - 7,000 houses", which seems a little vague, but you get the picture.

Campaigners object to proposals to provide access by simply putting a major new road across the Derbyshire countryside, and have put forward alternative routes linking in with existing roads.

There are also objections to the use of such a large area for purely residential and not commercial properties, with calls for "a sustainable community that values jobs over housing". We have excellent countryside in Derbyshire ( I live in Amber Valley ), but , trust me, jobs are a sensitive issue.

As a prediction of my own, I think there may be a schism amongst campaigners between those who support the existing call, which is essentially, "yes to development, no to inappropriate development" and those who may suggest that the area could become a nature reserve, given that wildlife moved in as industry moved out. However, that`s purely speculation on my part.

Form your own opinions, visit the campaign web site at www.greensqueeze.org.uk.