urbanSTL

DTGstl314 wrote: ↑

Apr 17, 2021

kipfilet wrote: ↑

Apr 17, 2021

The funny thing is that many of those shouting about Anglo-Saxon stuff are most likely of Scots-Irish heritage hence not Anglo-Saxon

For the purposes of Marjorie Taylor-MAGA and Paul Gosar's new Caukkkus, "Anglo-Saxon" is a not very subtle dogwhistle for "white".

I know, I was just being pedantic

Here is some details of GOP's counter infrastructure proposal.  No surprises as expected.   I honestly think we get too much including the kitchen sink from one party (home care is now infrastructure) and or way too less from the other (would be nice to deal with all the lead pipes in this country).   I do think the GOP characterization of Core infrastructure is representative of what I consider as core for the most part and glad that broadband is finally in that mix as well.  However, once again disappointed that GOP is unwilling to invest in any meaningful way beyond the automobile.  

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ ... lan--63296

A group of U.S. Senate Republicans led by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) yesterday introduced a five-year, $568 billion infrastructure plan — a much smaller and more narrow proposal than President Joe Biden's $2.3 trillion American Jobs Plan.

The GOP's plan would address what the senators characterized as core, physical infrastructure: roads and bridges ($299 billion); public transit systems ($61 billion); freight and passenger rail ($20 billion); water and wastewater ($35 billion); ports and inland waterways ($17 billion); broadband ($65 billion); airports ($44 billion); and water storage ($14 billion); and safety ($13 billion).

To pay for their plan, the senators called for user fees on electric vehicles and repurposing unused federal spending allocated by the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Congress passed in March, The Hill reported. 

I would have liked to see the GOP provide a proposal that wasn't dead on arrival. What they've presented seems completely unproductive.

user fees on electric vehicles and gasoline powered vehi... oh, wait. no, just electric vehicles. LOL. they're not even trying to hide their villainy any more.

^Wait . . . is that poison pill out there where everyone can see it? Crap, that was supposed to be hidden in a fake molar.

quincunx wrote: ↑

Apr 12, 2021

Stltoday - Missouri gets a C-minus in White House report on states’ infrastructure needs

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/sta ... 3bedf.html

"People who take public transportation in Missouri spend an extra 79.6% of their time commuting"
...geez that is so damning but still, these state summaries are crazy interesting! 
Here's the Missouri one for anyone else interested.

^It really could be. I don't know what they're using as a baseline, but it could reflect poor headways on small town or even major city bus systems. It could reflect poor route structures and difficult transfers. It could reflect poor speeds or overly long stops due to outdated vehicles. The baseline is a mystery to me, but there are real problems that make public transit commuting a lot less ideal here than in . . . oh . . . any country with decent public transit.

^ love that some influential people in this city see these things along with the crime that can happen on the metro and think "i think we should add guns to this equation". I beg for our city to get serious about public transit in the future. Especially with the city and county connections...making me feel like a hitchhiker in my own city

i'd like to know what % of homes are being sold to owner-occupants and what % are being sold to out-of-state investors, LLCs, etc. maybe it's fine, but on the surface it just doesn't add up, what with all the new construction and homes flying off the shelves, that the city is still bleeding so badly.

My guess is that the losses are absolutely staggering for neighborhoods on the North side, where the housing market cannot possibly be hot.

I've given that a lot of thought, the city is bleeding from the North but growing heavily elsewhere with 10,000 new units last year and 8000 planned this year.  There are a lot of young people entering the workforce and homebuying market and I'm guessing that's driving much of this. The same rate of people are not selling/dying/moving out of state as entering.  The population numbers will be fairly stagnant due to the older population and natural deaths of that bubble but there are in fact many younger families/individuals moving to the area and/or staying here.  With older cities, I've never given too much weight to census numbers. 

^^ & ^ both make sense. no doubt north side evacuation is still the loss driver. i guess i just expected the central corridor and near-south-side growth to more-or-less balance out the north side losses.

My partner is in lending and has told me that lots of investors are buying up homes.  It's too cheap not to right now.  This is across the board and not just an STL specific thing, sadly.

^ that's my concern. deep-pocketed investors out-bid would-be owner-occupants and then either sit on the properties or flip them and jack up the selling prices, leading to the illusion of high demand and inflation across the market.

Yep, on all the above.  Another sign telling to me is the recent spike of robo and cold calls I'm getting asking about selling my house.   The robo calls seem to come across as local real estate agents but my gut tells it is all about capital/big investors chasing assets because they can and have the financial muscle to outbid.  I think all you need to do is look at rental market for given area vs. a fifteen year mortgage on the rates that these investment companies would pay on.  Capital markets simply have the ability to go much higher on the upfront purchase.

In same breath, listening to economist this morning take on Biden's address and his/her comments that Jeff Powell's/Feds action of not even considering moving the needle on interest rate directly contradicts Biden's efforts.   Pretty good argument on how monetary policy is directly benefiting financial markets going higher and therefore benefit big investors when it is really time to start moving needle to get that capital to flow differently - to wage earners wanting to buy house and companies putting in capital investments in play instead of a big investment company looking to ways to investment by buying up the same assets at inflated prices because they simply can at money this cheap or say a company buying bitcoin.   

^ we sold our house last summer and city property records reflect the change in ownership but i'm still getting calls and texts from randos offering to pay cash for it.

Another thought to say what people think in terms of the Covid rescue package that was already approved.   A lot of funds will be coming across to the states and locals with very little strings attached  and very radical approaches depending on politics.   Florida is looking at some of the funds to fill some budget gaps but looking for most of it to support a big capital budget plan as per ENR article.    I'm still trying to figure out where California falls but will be a lot different.   California is literally looking at a budget surplus of +$15 to 20 billion on top of State $26 billion covid aid.   But current Cali politicians are mostly talking about more cash payouts and expanding programs. 

https://www.kron4.com/news/california/b ... tra-money/

https://www.enr.com/external_headlines/ ... 1021934J9T

My two cents for St. Louis City.   At least put a decent share of that funding towards long term capital investments such as city streets, sidewalks and fleet replacement as well as set aside some funds to leverage other investments..  I especially like the idea above of setting aside funds for some type grant funding to build housing on LCRA property.  The other bucket is set aside some funds as matching for Fed grant programs like RAISE to support highway replacement, or greenway development, or transit grants.    In other words 

Any thoughts? how much of the covid aid from state on down to locals be setaside for capital improvements.   I honestly want to see something in between, maybe a 60/40 split, 60% max to budget gaps & assistance and at least 40% min to capital.     I'm also biased working for a contractor/aggregate company in state that needs to rebuild a lot of infrastructure and deal with the next water crises after having third driest winter on record.   
 

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Apr 29, 2021

i'd like to know what % of homes are being sold to owner-occupants and what % are being sold to out-of-state investors, LLCs, etc. maybe it's fine, but on the surface it just doesn't add up, what with all the new construction and homes flying off the shelves, that the city is still bleeding so badly.

"It's like déjà vu all over again."

Good point

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/opin ... nship.html

dredger wrote: ↑

Apr 29, 2021

In same breath, listening to economist this morning take on Biden's address and his/her comments that Jeff Powell's/Feds action of not even considering moving the needle on interest rate directly contradicts Biden's efforts.   Pretty good argument on how monetary policy is directly benefiting financial markets going higher and therefore benefit big investors when it is really time to start moving needle to get that capital to flow differently - to wage earners wanting to buy house and companies putting in capital investments in play instead of a big investment company looking to ways to investment by buying up the same assets at inflated prices because they simply can at money this cheap or say a company buying bitcoin.   

This is a good read about what the Fed can or cannot do right now, from a St. Louis Fed economist:

^^Short answer: The fed is buying assets despite sky-high asset prices because it needs to increase inflation and employment, and setting interest rates and buying bonds are the only tools it has to pursue its goals. 

Of course that money gets concentrated almost entirely at the top of the income strata, and gets used primarily to buy all sorts of financial assets, many of a highly non-productive and dubious nature (Fine art, designer trees, NFTs, SPACs, Coins (yes, Coins), etc.). It almost never finds its way to the poor, working, and middle classes (except perhaps in the form of mortgages) who might actually spend it on real goods and services and thereby drive both (non-sectoral, demand-push) inflation and employment. 

^ & ^^ thanks.   As I try to understand monetary policy better I get back to what seems like a pretty good option in life sometimes and that is do nothing approach when comes down to a good ol cost vs benefits, or pro vs con, so on.   Sometimes using the only tool you have available in the tool box is not really a great outcome.   Loss track a long time ago on how many screws I have stripped in my life trying to use a flathead and I need a phillips screwdriver.   

SB in BH wrote: ↑

Apr 30, 2021

^^Short answer: The fed is buying assets despite sky-high asset prices because it needs to increase inflation and employment, and setting interest rates and buying bonds are the only tools it has to pursue its goals. 

Of course that money gets concentrated almost entirely at the top of the income strata, and gets used primarily to buy all sorts of financial assets, many of a highly non-productive and dubious nature (Fine art, designer trees, NFTs, SPACs, Coins (yes, Coins), etc.). It almost never finds its way to the poor, working, and middle classes (except perhaps in the form of mortgages) who might actually spend it on real goods and services and thereby drive both (non-sectoral, demand-push) inflation and employment. 

Because the Fed cannot literally give money to people, only Congress can.

kipfilet wrote: ↑

Apr 30, 2021

Because the Fed cannot literally give money to people, only Congress can.

Figuring out why Congress empowered an entity to freely print money for distribution to the rich, but no such entity for workers, is an exercise left to the reader.