Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

The unions seem to cause more trouble than developers. And it's quite obvious who's in the union pockets.

You must mean the member who sponsored the bill to give the unions full control over the pension funds while leaving taxpayers on the hook for any shortfalls and the expensive new offices. That one even made Elrich blush.

And I disagree that Friedson seems knowledgeable. He is OK in soundbytes but he totally falls apart as soon as he has to go off script. I lost count of how many times his colleagues and council staff corrected him on facts during the budget.

I have watched quite a few meetings and I absolutely find Friedson knowledgeable. No he isn't always right (none of them are). I don't like that he is in bed with developers. But Jawando wants to "partner" with the unions which means giving them everything they want (they sure af aren't "partnering" with the county) and Glass is just the prototypical performative and ineffectual liberal who offers no real solutions, just gimmicks that themselves can be costly and/or harmful.

Agree to disagree on Friedson being knowledgeable. He’s more knowledge than Glass, Balcombe, and Sayles. He’s less knowledgeable than Mink, who I vehemently disagree with, but I have to admit that she does her homework. Jawando when he’s tuned in (which is definitely not all the time) is better than all but Mink, but I disagree with him almost as often as I disagree with Mink.

Sounds like by knowledgeable you actually mean "ideologically similar to me".

If you were actually talking about how knowledgeable they are you would recognize how utterly ignorant Sayles is. Her ignorance is on another level but you lump her in with Glass and Balcombe who while not my favorites, are generally prepared for meetings and not constantly derailing them.

Balcombe said multiple times you had to use an accountant to get the ITOC. I got mine by filling out the form the county sent me and mailing it back. I’m no accountant.

And, yes, I’d rank Sayles below Balcombe and Balcombe below Glass. Nothing ideological about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

The unions seem to cause more trouble than developers. And it's quite obvious who's in the union pockets.

You must mean the member who sponsored the bill to give the unions full control over the pension funds while leaving taxpayers on the hook for any shortfalls and the expensive new offices. That one even made Elrich blush.

And I disagree that Friedson seems knowledgeable. He is OK in soundbytes but he totally falls apart as soon as he has to go off script. I lost count of how many times his colleagues and council staff corrected him on facts during the budget.

I have watched quite a few meetings and I absolutely find Friedson knowledgeable. No he isn't always right (none of them are). I don't like that he is in bed with developers. But Jawando wants to "partner" with the unions which means giving them everything they want (they sure af aren't "partnering" with the county) and Glass is just the prototypical performative and ineffectual liberal who offers no real solutions, just gimmicks that themselves can be costly and/or harmful.

Agree to disagree on Friedson being knowledgeable. He’s more knowledge than Glass, Balcombe, and Sayles. He’s less knowledgeable than Mink, who I vehemently disagree with, but I have to admit that she does her homework. Jawando when he’s tuned in (which is definitely not all the time) is better than all but Mink, but I disagree with him almost as often as I disagree with Mink.

Sounds like by knowledgeable you actually mean "ideologically similar to me".

If you were actually talking about how knowledgeable they are you would recognize how utterly ignorant Sayles is. Her ignorance is on another level but you lump her in with Glass and Balcombe who while not my favorites, are generally prepared for meetings and not constantly derailing them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

The unions seem to cause more trouble than developers. And it's quite obvious who's in the union pockets.

You must mean the member who sponsored the bill to give the unions full control over the pension funds while leaving taxpayers on the hook for any shortfalls and the expensive new offices. That one even made Elrich blush.

And I disagree that Friedson seems knowledgeable. He is OK in soundbytes but he totally falls apart as soon as he has to go off script. I lost count of how many times his colleagues and council staff corrected him on facts during the budget.

I have watched quite a few meetings and I absolutely find Friedson knowledgeable. No he isn't always right (none of them are). I don't like that he is in bed with developers. But Jawando wants to "partner" with the unions which means giving them everything they want (they sure af aren't "partnering" with the county) and Glass is just the prototypical performative and ineffectual liberal who offers no real solutions, just gimmicks that themselves can be costly and/or harmful.

Agree to disagree on Friedson being knowledgeable. He’s more knowledge than Glass, Balcombe, and Sayles. He’s less knowledgeable than Mink, who I vehemently disagree with, but I have to admit that she does her homework. Jawando when he’s tuned in (which is definitely not all the time) is better than all but Mink, but I disagree with him almost as often as I disagree with Mink.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

The unions seem to cause more trouble than developers. And it's quite obvious who's in the union pockets.

You must mean the member who sponsored the bill to give the unions full control over the pension funds while leaving taxpayers on the hook for any shortfalls and the expensive new offices. That one even made Elrich blush.

And I disagree that Friedson seems knowledgeable. He is OK in soundbytes but he totally falls apart as soon as he has to go off script. I lost count of how many times his colleagues and council staff corrected him on facts during the budget.

I have watched quite a few meetings and I absolutely find Friedson knowledgeable. No he isn't always right (none of them are). I don't like that he is in bed with developers. But Jawando wants to "partner" with the unions which means giving them everything they want (they sure af aren't "partnering" with the county) and Glass is just the prototypical performative and ineffectual liberal who offers no real solutions, just gimmicks that themselves can be costly and/or harmful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

The unions seem to cause more trouble than developers. And it's quite obvious who's in the union pockets.

You must mean the member who sponsored the bill to give the unions full control over the pension funds while leaving taxpayers on the hook for any shortfalls and the expensive new offices. That one even made Elrich blush.

And I disagree that Friedson seems knowledgeable. He is OK in soundbytes but he totally falls apart as soon as he has to go off script. I lost count of how many times his colleagues and council staff corrected him on facts during the budget.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

The unions seem to cause more trouble than developers. And it's quite obvious who's in the union pockets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...