Hard to 'encourage' people to move closer to transit-friendly areas when those are exactly the areas that are hard to move to. Plus there's no parking in this city to begin with, but I suppose since that's already true, even less parking won't exactly be a big shocker.

What a bunch of dishonest fucks. No mention of the other $350,000 spent by the No Tax on Jobs campaign, the donors to which read like a Who's Who of anti-Labor conservatives, many of whom are not located in Seattle. No mention of the $276,000 given to Morning In America, the right-wing signature gathering firm. No mention of trustfunder Saul Spady funneling $20,000 from No Tax on Jobs into his own company.

Once you chased everyone away that can't hang on and you hit capacity at the top of the market developers stop building so they don't push their own prices down on current projects.

Rising prices on any other necessity like energy and food is seen as bad and the government has serious (probably need more) controls on these because they recognize markets are terrible for basic needs. Why the fuck do people think markets are great for housing?

Where does this statement about 'buying housing off the market' come from? Any evidence that the proposed increased spending on public housing was going to be directed toward buying existing stock rather than building more on city land? Why do I suspect this is made up?

Anyway, in most of the civilized world public housing is rather effective at providing an alternative to camping under a bridge for low income people. I'm wondering if there is any part of the world, civilized or otherwise, where 'the market' has had that sort of success?

Well gosh, who could have guessed that the party who likens taxes to slavery and rape would give an “elaboration” that lacks any solution, let alone a base level of empathy for other humans.

@4: “Why do I suspect this is made up?”

Because they live in a world of magical thinking.

Faster permits?

Ok, then the agency responsible for that needs to receive enough funding to pay enough people to process permits faster. So raise taxes to help with that, right?

Money and lobbying shouldn't buy more money in politics?

Totally agree... Now, if you've got any ideas on how to accomplish that, I'm all ears.

Exactly 0 out of your 4 points do anything to address homelessness.

Libertarians have no actionable ideas because there are no libertarian ideas successfully put into action that anybody can point to.

We're fine with making sure that nobody is falling through their floor because some contractor cut corners

As a Libertarian, I am NOT fine with that. Regulations like that raise prices on everyone and keep the free market from doing its job. If someone doesn't want to fall through their floor, they can choose to work with a contractor who does a good job voluntarily, instead of being compelled by the threat of force from the state. Contractors who make shoddy, dangerous floors will lose their customers that die from falls and will eventually go out of business. Please take your Sawant-esque ideas elsewhere, we don't want them in Seattle!!

5 Like no Socialist/Commie never compared Capitalism to slavery and rape...

7 Decreasing bureaucracy that causes 18 months of project permitting would open up a significant tax savings that could be funneling into constructive policy.

10 Someone who intentionally builds a house that collapses in on and kills a resident should be charged with negligence, and murder.

What I find interesting is how accepting Leftists are with housing people in tool sheds, but the second you bring up personal responsibility they fit their lid. Get your priorities straight.

12 You obviously didn't read the piece. Must suck having your head packed with so much commie derp.

Still expecting people with no boots to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

The people on the bottom or near bottom get on Libertarians nerves.

@15 That's a lovely disempowering message.

You didn't need to solicit a libertarian solution, Eli. You needed to ask for a PROGRESSIVE one. Washington has the most regressive tax system in America. On to that, you wanted to add another regressive tax on payrolls. You lied to people, said it was progressive/re-distributive when it wasn't, and totally ignored your obligation to be advocates for a better state tax system.

HOW MANY POSTERS HAS KSHAMA PRINTED OFF FOR THAT? (43% of you don't trust your the city to spend money wisely...)

You've done a great job reporting on how even an unexpected $100 expense can snowball into a working class family losing their home. It shouldn't be so hard to convince you that your state tax system-which takes 60% more from people in the bottom quintile than the national average-is responsible for this crisis.

BUT YOU JUST WON'T GET IT, AND YOU WON'T TALK ABOUT IT!

Washington and Seattle take almost 19% more from working families in sales taxes than California and San Francisco do.

CAN IT BE ANY MORE CLEAR?

That's the $100 expense that's snow balling and costing them a place to fucking live. That's the bus pass they can't cover, the muffler they can't get fixed, and the doctors bill they can't pay.

But "you" all throw up your hands an act like it can't ever be changed. And "you" do it while marching against trade and vilifying anyone who won't support pie-in-the-sky Bernie programs. You're show-liberals. YOU'RE FAUXGRESSIVES!

TALK ABOUT IT!

Meanwhile, if it needs to be said again...

Seattle already has a Business & Occupation tax. (A tax on gross receipts.)

That B&O tax already supports taxing different kinds of businesses at different rates. You already do it.

You could have easily passed a B&O tax on commercial property leasing. Which means that you'd take a percent of the gross revenue whenever a company or person rents commercial property to a business.

It's not impossible to exempt revenue from renting to non-formula retail (your planning departments already have a way of deciding which businesses are non-formula), nonprofits, warehouse space, and public offices.

Instead of hitting companies PAYROLLS and creating perverse incentives to outsource and automate, a B&O tax as I've described would hit the revenue of commercial landlords--businesses that never operate at a loss and have an extremely hard time moving their assets.

This is not the first time I've outlined this idea for you. But you put together a literal fucking commission tasked with finding progressive revenue ideas and they brought back...

...a fucking payroll tax!

They did a bad job, and they should feel bad about it.

@2 Yea dude, conservatives hate taxes. Wake the fuck up. Maybe next time don't make their job so fucking easy for them by passing shit taxes that hurt poor people.

"Figure out how to not waste tons more money than every other city—because we assure you, that wasted money gets passed on to buyers and renters. Examples include lowering parking requirements. This would have the added benefit of encouraging more people to move close to transit."

Libertarians are in favor of public transit now?

The "housing first" blinders is only making the problems worse. That dangerous illegal camps can't be "cleared" because of a lack of shelter space and that many homeless refuse to go to "pad-on-the-floor" downtown shelters because they see them as dangerous and unhealthy, shows where the relevant "supply shortage" is - 24-hr shelters and lower barrier legal encampments providing a full-range of essential services/resources (sanitation, water, garbage collection/recycling, storage, power, showers, laundry, kitchens, mailboxes, social services, nurse visits, treatment/therapy referrals, etc.).

If this was the result of a physical tsunami (rather than a socio-economic one), the county would already be dotted with authorized trailer villages and tent towns that might acually help some get a "leg up", rather than getting even more deeply enmired.

Why is the permitting process so slow and expensive?

The city dept of construction and inspections isn’t understaffed only for developers - it’s hurting residents that live near construction sites hard. Like for 2 months an Apodment construction site across the alley from my property has been parking their backhoes and mixing concrete in wheelbarrows on my own property without permission from me. The builders are also closing off the alley at both ends without the permits and they don’t give notice to the neighbors. Since residents of my block enter their buildings and parking via the alley this really sucks. My fellow building residents and owners submit photos of this to the city every day but the city construction dept is too overburdened to contact us back at all. I got one call back from a city clerk that told me “to call the towing company.” What the fuck is the towing company supposed to do about the Apodment builders stacking iron columns in my yard?! So yeah, the city construction and permits office needs funds badly but shouldn’t it be coming from the developers and not taxes on us?

What is costing the ordinary people is how expensive it is to prop up these huge corporations who have a very difficult time giving back to the communities they have been using for their profits. Many people have left the city because they can’t afford to live here anymore despite having jobs. I miss my friends who no longer live nearby.

So the richest people on the planet cannot pay out a few million to help destitute people. That’s all they were being asked. It was a tax on them not on employees. It wasn’t even what they should have been paying. Sure the city should do better but that’s not an excuse. What a bunch of creepy, demented, loathsome, greedy people.

The original city hall tax proposal was an across the board Bolshevik-style, poorly written bill that should have been amended in the first place.
This “libertarian” response is even more vague on details, not to mention the confusing writing at times.

Unfortunately today’s “libertarians” often come across as conservatives with racist inclinations, attempting to present themselves more positively under the guise of an “ideology.”

To The Stranger editorial staff:
Thank you for publishing this response!

As a Libertarian, I am gratified that you made good on what seemed a rhetorical request for libertarian ideas last week.

We don't always agree-- and that's ok! We all have unique experiences and backgrounds that lead us to our own respective opinions. We Libertarians may not tend to agree with the solutions offered by democratic socialists, but we certainly respect the fact that they come from a place of love and empathy for our fellow humans in Seattle.

We share that love for our fellow humans even though, admittedly, the empathy rarely comes through to the extent that we would hope. Our ranks, like yours, are filled with passionate people who feel driven to fight for a more fair and caring Seattle. Sometimes we lose sight of the good will on all sides in the midst of that fight.

I, for one, am glad to see The Stranger putting politics aside and showing a willingness to listen to an opposing viewpoint. It is this type of bridge-building which I believe could ultimately solve Seattle's homelessness problem, and I would love to see the Libertarian Party of King County reciprocate in kind.

@23-call the cops. That is trespassing and it is a crime. Document that you put them on notice first. Then call the cops every single time they set foot on your property.

@22- I was told that they have switched to a new computer system that is tying everything up. I went down for a simple over the counter permit and they were very easy to deal with but an actual building permit is apparently taking forever.

A libertarian's response to the homeless crisis? Are you seriously kidding? Who has a more selfish, narcissistic, "fuck you Jack, I got mine" outlook on life than a republican? It's a libertarian. Libertarians actually make republicans look sane and possessing a conscience in comparison. Libertarians hate people and love themselves.

So this article is a complete waste of everybody's time.

@10: "As a Libertarian, I am NOT fine with that"

Nobody's preventing you from being scammed by going with a developer who doesn't do work to code.

You can do this now! I encourage you to build your home for the cheapest that you can.

And as a proper dipshit libertarian, you're also for the architects and engineers behind the project not having any certifications (beyond self!)

Please practice what you preach and go with just anyone to build your arson shack.

@28: "We all have unique experiences and backgrounds that lead us to our own respective opinions"

If only your amazing snowflake opinions ever amounted to anything but "fuck you, I've got mine!"

@20: I know, right?

Coming from Boston (which has empirically better public transit and empirically worse weather, no matter what you might think listening to respective locals complain) one the Big Downsides was the parking snafu. Here it translates to a high vehicle property crime rate but there it translates to really REALLY bad feelings and some rediculous levels of social stratification just based on whether someone had a place to put their vehicle. Singular, because if you weren't a multimillionaire you didn't have two cars.

It's even more amusing to say 'just get rid of parking' though because I think the only thing I have heard more mad ranting about in Seattle than the head tax is the plan to put bike lanes on 35th ave. I swear there will be people there with signs saying 'you can take my parking from my cold dead hands' if the plan actually makes it far enough to see broken ground. Maybe we can get some libertarians to advocate for the change.

But oh, wait, all these suggestions require increases in infrastructure which, while music to my progressive ears, sounds exactly against the libertarians agenda, unless the writer is directly getting kickbacks from infrastructure construction, since government support of industries populated by libertarians always seems more than welcome.

Libertarianism: The autism of politics

@8 Well, I think the point of their post was addressing ways to reduce the cost of owning or renting a home, mostly by increasing supply and lowering costs of development. That would have to be part of any comprehensive strategy for reducing and preventing homelessness.

There's something to that. Zoning codes can very easily turn into an exercise in NIMBYism and "Screw you, I got mine" on the part of existing homeowners, who generally hate density. Yeah, that mentality flourishes among solid liberals as well once it's their applecart being overturned.

I'm personally a big fan of any development that encourages more transit, walking, and biking on environmental grounds. Any "city" that requires a car to survive isn't much of a city in my books. Of course the infrastructure does need to be in place. But once it is, then people grousing about lack of parking is basically people grousing about not living in a suburb.

You want to live in a place where you can enjoy the commutes between your work and your McMansion with a three-car garage? Phoenix, Houston, Dallas...all these cities beckon.

This does't sound like a libertarian as much as Econ 101.

@39 Yeah ace, I'm sure you are an expert on that subject.

@20, 36 it seems in fact they are not, according to this just-posted NYT top story:

"How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country"

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html

This is nonsense. The mayor and the city council (and regrettably the Libertarians have bought into their deflection), are absolving themselves of their responsibility to enforce the law. Instead of doing their number one job, they'd rather point the finger instead at "privileged," and "racist" "NIMBY's" who want a say in the future of their own neighborhoods. Even if you resort to (free) "market urbanism," rent control, "social housing," or upzoning, and the cost of housing magically becomes a fraction of what it is today (it won't), this doesn't address the issue of tents and lawlessness. When the city finally gets around to sweeping an illegal encampment, very few, if any, of the campers accept offers of shelter and help. Many of them get these offers literally dozens of times, and still they'd rather tent it in our parks, off ramps, and green spaces.

And let's face it, the ones causing the problems aren't single moms fleeing DV. They'll gladly accept help. The campers are overwhelmingly addicts, all of who need to steal hundreds of dollars worth of goods every day for their fix. And many of them are hardened, career criminals. There's a reason why they're homeless, and it's not a good one.

When it comes to the tents, derelict RV's, filth, assaults, and other crimes, it's an ADDICTION and lack of enforcement problem, not a housing affordability one.

These comments seem harsh. Basically this says make building easier, increase density, and close the supply demand gap so housing is more affordable. Look past libertarian, democrat, Republican, that’s what it says. Also, it says no one method will win the day, but this article says that the long game for fixed housing affordability is to close the gap. Someone posted it’s like an economics lesson; yes, it is. Shouldn’t we listen to the basic rules of economics.

I would add to this, fast track light rail. The north gate segment is under budget right now. That savings should be turned directly into expediting completion and opening that segment. The sooner people can live in these further out locations, the less pressure there is to have density in the city.,

“These comments seem harsh.”

‘Libertarian’ is a trigger word for a lot of folks here. What the Libertarians actually wrote didn’t matter; it was the label that counted.

Affordable housing, however defined, has nothing to do with our homelessness crisis. Persons who need mental health care, treatment for drug addiction, or are fleeing DV, haven’t the ability to pay rent, no matter how low it might be. They need shelter and stability now, not in some as-yet unbuilt place. (And as noted @43, the career criminals who simply don’t want to contribute to our city should be forced to leave.)