[jboog]

" If this kills a business then so be it. Businesses are not entitled to"

or

"Yeah my policy is toxic political poison that will ensure the defeat of any politician who runs on it outside SF and Manhattan but SO WHAT?"

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

Your rebuttal is that change is a hard sell? Did I read that right?

In that case why have politicians at all?

[jboog]

No my rebuttal is that if your solution is laughably extreme and unserious.

You can advocate for Soviet style collectivization and liquidating all businesses in the US if you want but no one outside of SF is ever getting elected on it in our lifetime.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

Your banal misinterpretation of my ideas is more applicable to your own trite comments than my own.

If you think taxing zombie landowners and forcing a more equitable evolution in the archaic property market is too extreme wait until you hear some other ideas like:

Nationwide rent and mortgage strikes

Renters unions

Actually collectizing housing by taking property, some people aren't even ashamed to say they'd be forceful about it if their positions continue to deteriorate.

We can keep debating solutions to these problems until the worst effected take matters into their own hands, and pay more to clean up the mess, or we can behave like rational humans and make sure that everyone has the basic necessities of life as a prophylactic against mob violence from those with nothing to lost but their miserable lives.

So please, take a stand and share with us what your solutions are and how you're so confident they're better than the ones I've mentioned. Casually calling ideas extreme and unserious without honest consideration is at minimum rude and at worse a disingenuous bad faith distraction from the merits of my statement.