Is KC Tenants destroying the development future of downtown KCMO?

[DColeKC]

If you think that helping landlords "protect their property rights and investments efficiently" is as important as -- or more important than -- keeping people in their homes and off of the streets, then no, you don't appreciate how serious eviction is. When someone gets run over by a car, do you also worry about the damage to the car?

Landlord rights are just as crucial as tenant rights, and striking a balance is essential. Unless the government takes over all affordable housing, we rely on everyday Americans to invest in rental properties. However, when situations like what KCT has done create hostility towards landlords, it discourages potential investors. This, in turn, reduces the availability of affordable housing. Many hardworking Americans painstakingly save every penny to buy their first income property, often as a retirement strategy rather than their primary income source. They require laws and regulations to protect their interests, but this doesn't imply permitting discrimination or irresponsible behavior.

To illustrate, if someone accidentally gets hit by a car, we aren't primarily concerned with the damage to the vehicle. However, if someone deliberately steps in front of a car, it's a different situation.

It's unrealistic to expect renters to stay in a property if they can't pay rent. Many landlords can only manage a few months of missed rent before they have to cover the expenses themselves. Most small-scale landlords I know don't see a profit until the mortgage is paid off.

I can sympathize with these challenges. In my 20s, I experienced financial hardship and had to plead with my landlord not to evict me. At one point, I fell three months behind on rent and struggled to catch up. Eventually, I had to quit my job and move back in with my mom, starting my adult life over. My rent at the time was technically affordable at $450, but this experience profoundly shaped my financial decisions. I never want to face homelessness again. I've lived through these hardships and genuinely understand them. It's often those who have never faced such struggles that advocate for rights without the same perspective.

I suspect that you may not have experienced financial hardship in your life. Based on your previous comments on topics like this, you come across as a stereotypical liberal elitist, espousing idealistic notions without practical, tangible solutions for real-world problems. It seems effortless to lean so far left, consistently emphasizing the plight of the disadvantaged without offering concrete, actionable strategies to genuinely improve the situation.

[DMNBT_RCJH]

I don't even think their heart is in the right place. I brought a cut and dry issue to KCT twice this past year that they could have jumped on, that would have easily gained them critical acclaim, but instead they didn't just turn the other way.. they explicitly refused to get involved because the issue didn't include the demographic that they *use* for their politicizing, and instead had to do with wealthy tenants in affluent areas and nice buildings. The hypocrisy is unreal, and fueled by their agenda of rent control and socialized housing.

I am very much against the tactics employed by KCT to prevent and hamper new developments. Cognitive dissonance is the correct term to use. I am also against socialized housing.

That said, need-based legal service and advocacy groups have existed for decades. In a similar vein, Legal Aid of Western Missouri/Kansas Legal Services would also assuredly refuse to help with the issue.

[phuqueue]

"Landlord rights" aren't just as crucial as tenant rights. Just because there are two parties to an agreement, it doesn't mean that the interests of each party in the agreement are equal. Striking a balance is, as you say, essential, but a proper balance must account for the in fact starkly unequal stakes that each party has. From the landlord's perspective, the rental is a source of passive income. From the tenant's, it is their home. It could in many cases be quite painful for a landlord to lose their rental income, but not more painful than losing a home. You argue that it's "unrealistic" to expect renters to stay if they can't pay, but where would you have them stay instead?

Which brings me to your anecdote, because you clearly did have somewhere to stay. I don't mean to make light of what you went through, because I'm sure it was a very stressful period that culminated in a solution that you didn't want for your life at the time, but it does not sound like you "faced homelessness" when you moved back in with your mom. You in fact faced a level of "financial hardship" that is incredibly common, and you had a ready, if less-than-ideal safety net to fall back on. If that's what qualifies as "financial hardship," then contrary to your assumptions, I have also faced at least as much "financial hardship" as that, though I don't think it's really germane. These anecdotes are meant to emotionally manipulate or to lay false claim to authority, they don't serve any real purpose in supporting any broader point.

It's funny that you should accuse me of never offering "practical, tangible solutions," because, well:

• One that immediately came to mind that I find very interesting is Germany's Tenement Housing Syndicate/Mietshauser Syndikat model, and then I started thinking about it and I felt really sure I had posted about it on this board before, so I went looking through my old posts, and lo and behold, I actually previously posted about it in response to you, but you never returned to that thread again.

• In that same post, I also noted the robust public housing programs in places like Vienna and Singapore. I would consider public housing a very obvious "concrete, actionable strategy," one that America has sabotaged as a political choice, not because public housing just inevitably can't work. Repeal the Faircloth Amendment and appropriate a bunch of federal money to build new public housing and bring existing housing back to a state of good repair. It's certainly not politically easy, but it is straightforward.

• On another occasion in this very thread (though it was months ago, not part of this particular discussion), I also mentioned New York's Mitchell-Lama program. Mitchell-Lama is not without its issues -- in particular, the program has been gutted in recent decades by the privatization of many of its buildings. But it is a good model, provided the privatization problem is addressed (the Mietshauser Syndikat has specific controls in place to prevent reprivatization).

• Montgomery County, MD also has a program that, though far from perfect, seems like a good step in the right direction. I suspect that this program is along the lines of what KCT would like to see happen in KC. I must admit though that I have never brought this one up before, as I only became aware of it when this article ran a couple months ago. So here is a "concrete, actionable strategy" that I have never previously shared (though I do feel like Fang might have posted this somewhere). My deepest apologies.

I don't expect you to particularly like any of these strategies. "Concrete" and "actionable" though they may be, they're intended to house people rather than extract profit, so I realize they aren't aligned with your priorities. But if you are demanding "practical, tangible solutions" from me, then these will have to do for now.

[CrossroadsUrbanApts]

Montgomery County, MD also has a program that, though far from perfect, seems like a good step in the right direction. I suspect that this program is along the lines of what KCT would like to see happen in KC. I must admit though that I have never brought this one up before, as I only became aware of it when this article ran a couple months ago. So here is a "concrete, actionable strategy" that I have never previously shared (though I do feel like Fang might have posted this somewhere). My deepest apologies.

The approach in Montgomery County is one that I think should seriously be considered by Kansas City. It would be a surprise to me if KC Tenants would actually support it because the model explicitly involves developers making a profit by building both market-rate and affordable housing. If the city was to offer developers inexpensive capital (and zeroing out property taxes) in return for including some number of moderately affordable units, many many local developers would sign up for that program.

Unfortunately, KC took the opposite approach of both (a) asking developers to build loss-making below-market-rent apartments and (b) reducing the property tax incentives available (and hence the amount of subsidy to offset said loss-making apartments). It should have surprised no one that developers would not take up such an offer. But apparently the whole council was mystified when new applications for tax incentives dropped to zero. Though in reality killing new apartment development was actually the goal of both KC Tenants and some of its allies on the Council due to gentrification concerns.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

It would be a surprise to me if KC Tenants would actually support it because the model explicitly involves developers making a profit by building both market-rate and affordable housing.

Correct. KCT is first and foremost anti-capitalist. Anything that involves private developers is a no go. They would not only not support this, they would protest it as a handout to developers. KCT technically cares about affordability but really only because they think it'll work out that way if they get what they want. They think profit is what makes housing expensive. What they want is for profit to be taken out of the housing market. What they're very clearly missing is that that is never going to happen in the US and isn't possible at a city-level.

If they're working from this fantasyland viewpoint and giving no quarter to any other perspective or idea, they will eventually fail and housing will become more unaffordable in the meantime. Preventing developments will restrict supply. Pushing the city to direct housing funds and resources to concepts that fail will waste time and capital. All the while, they get to play the moral high-ground while actively making things worse. But, hey, "people over profits", right?

[phuqueue]

I think that if KC or Jackson County proposed a program like Montgomery County's, you would probably see some (well-earned, in my opinion) distrust from KCT about what the program will actually do and who it will really benefit that would need to be overcome. And the Montgomery County program does have some issues that KCT might (rightfully) have a problem with, including that even the "affordable" units that it creates are not necessarily that affordable (the NYT article spotlights a resident who is well above the poverty line and is still severely rent-burdened) and that not enough units are set aside (the article notes that only 30% of units are set aside in a building in which the county has a 70% stake), so if it were sold as simply "we are going to try what Montgomery County is doing," maybe you would see some pushback, I don't know. It wouldn't be entirely undeserved.

It's not really my place to speak for KCT, but when I said I thought that the Montgomery County program was along the lines of what they were looking for, I was referring to the fact that the county is directly funding and taking an ownership stake in housing that is then meant to be kept affordable. I can't find the KCT platform now, since they no longer seem to provide a link to it on their website, but as I recall, that is what they were explicitly calling for. In practice, the devil would be in the details, but in principle, assuming the program worked as promised (providing safe, affordable housing to low-income residents), I don't believe KCT would reject it on purely "anti-capitalist" or anti-developer ideological grounds. The idea that they are "first and foremost anti-capitalist" is completely backwards. To whatever extent they are "anti-capitalist" (and I'd say good for them if they are), it's because they are in fact first and foremost a housing rights organization, and the capitalist system is failing to provide adequate housing for all. This thread is almost two years old now but a lot of you remain steadfastly committed to ignoring what actually motivates other people. Small wonder that they keep winning the political battles while you just gnash your teeth on an internet message board.

[Cratedigger]

Interesting.

This was their vision of a people’s housing fund from a June 2021. Appendix B (page 65) they list out models from other cities. Baltimore’s being the closest to their vision, Pittsburgh, Louisville and Philadelphia included as well.

Of the models we studied, Baltimore’s is most closely aligned with our vision for a People’s Housing Trust Fund. Theirs includes governance power for tenants, ongoing public sources of revenue, and programs that would support deep, permanent affordability for tenants.

Though we appreciated elements of the models we studied, our vision is more ambitious than any of these. Our ambition for a People’s Housing Trust Fund should not intimidate Kansas City decision makers. Instead, it should offer an opportunity for Kansas City to lead the country towards transformative local housing policy.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LaxUMF ... p=drivesdk

[CrossroadsUrbanApts]

Well, rather than "gnash [my] teeth on an internet message board" the past two years, I've been out trying to build new housing in the city. Which probably means I've done more for tenants in the city than KCT has over the same time frame. But if we are at the point where you are just insulting me, I'll go ahead and end my participation in the conversation.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

It's not really my place to speak for KCT, but when I said I thought that the Montgomery County program was along the lines of what they were looking for, I was referring to the fact that the county is directly funding and taking an ownership stake in housing that is then meant to be kept affordable. I can't find the KCT platform now, since they no longer seem to provide a link to it on their website, but as I recall, that is what they were explicitly calling for. In practice, the devil would be in the details, but in principle, assuming the program worked as promised (providing safe, affordable housing to low-income residents), I don't believe KCT would reject it on purely "anti-capitalist" or anti-developer ideological grounds.

If you believe that they would support any policy that involves private developers, you just haven't been paying attention to anything they've said or done. Their sole vision for new construction is social/public housing. They do not care about housing affordability so long as it's built by private interests. They want ownership, not affordability.

The idea that they are "first and foremost anti-capitalist" is completely backwards. To whatever extent they are "anti-capitalist" (and I'd say good for them if they are), it's because they are in fact first and foremost a housing rights organization, and the capitalist system is failing to provide adequate housing for all. This thread is almost two years old now but a lot of you remain steadfastly committed to ignoring what actually motivates other people. Small wonder that they keep winning the political battles while you just gnash your teeth on an internet message board.

I understand and empathize with their motivations. But, that doesn't mean I have to agree with all of their goals and tactics. If they were an organization that advocated for tenant's rights and social housing and stopped there, I would be in complete support of them. But, that's not where it stops. They protest any and all midtown (not sure why they only care about midtown but that seems to be the case) residential development that they have any ability to stop. It doesn't matter if it's 20% affordable or 80% affordable, they're still going to have a problem with it if the owner will be a private developer/landlord. They think supply is a dirty word. They say that housing built on parking lots is displacement. They call themselves anti-racist but don't care about zoning's racist origin because it serves their motivation to stop housing construction. They say they hate incentives but haven't one time ever even mentioned any incentives for non-residential projects, let alone protested.

Like I said, their vision is impossible to achieve in the US, which would be fine if they were willing to compromise, but they're not.

[phuqueue]

Well, rather than "gnash [my] teeth on an internet message board" the past two years, I've been out trying to build new housing in the city. Which probably means I've done more for tenants in the city than KCT has over the same time frame. But if we are at the point where you are just insulting me, I'll go ahead and end my participation in the conversation.

The gnashing teeth comment was prompted more by Chuck, who was complaining that KCT is just an "anti-capitalist" organization that will never settle for anything less, which was the point I was responding to when I made it. But really it wasn't even necessarily aimed specifically at Chuck, nor at you, nor at any other individual, but more at basically what this entire thread has been since its inception, as well as the discourse around KCT in other threads on this board in general. It was meant to be dismissive of an argument that I feel deserves to be dismissed for refusing to engage with what actually animates housing activists in favor of latching onto ideological strawmen instead, but I didn't consider it or intend it to be a personal attack, though I guess you're free to take it however you will.

It's not really my place to speak for KCT, but when I said I thought that the Montgomery County program was along the lines of what they were looking for, I was referring to the fact that the county is directly funding and taking an ownership stake in housing that is then meant to be kept affordable. I can't find the KCT platform now, since they no longer seem to provide a link to it on their website, but as I recall, that is what they were explicitly calling for. In practice, the devil would be in the details, but in principle, assuming the program worked as promised (providing safe, affordable housing to low-income residents), I don't believe KCT would reject it on purely "anti-capitalist" or anti-developer ideological grounds.

If you believe that they would support any policy that involves private developers, you just haven't been paying attention to anything they've said or done. Their sole vision for new construction is social/public housing. They do not care about housing affordability so long as it's built by private interests. They want ownership, not affordability.

The idea that they are "first and foremost anti-capitalist" is completely backwards. To whatever extent they are "anti-capitalist" (and I'd say good for them if they are), it's because they are in fact first and foremost a housing rights organization, and the capitalist system is failing to provide adequate housing for all. This thread is almost two years old now but a lot of you remain steadfastly committed to ignoring what actually motivates other people. Small wonder that they keep winning the political battles while you just gnash your teeth on an internet message board.

I understand and empathize with their motivations. But, that doesn't mean I have to agree with all of their goals and tactics. If they were an organization that advocated for tenant's rights and social housing and stopped there, I would be in complete support of them. But, that's not where it stops. They protest any and all midtown (not sure why they only care about midtown but that seems to be the case) residential development that they have any ability to stop. It doesn't matter if it's 20% affordable or 80% affordable, they're still going to have a problem with it if the owner will be a private developer/landlord. They think supply is a dirty word. They say that housing built on parking lots is displacement. They call themselves anti-racist but don't care about zoning's racist origin because it serves their motivation to stop housing construction. They say they hate incentives but haven't one time ever even mentioned any incentives for non-residential projects, let alone protested.

Like I said, their vision is impossible to achieve in the US, which would be fine if they were willing to compromise, but they're not.

I'm going to take a step back from the argument about what specifically KCT would or wouldn't support (though the Montgomery County program is public housing, funded and owned by the County; yes, built in partnership with private developers, but NASA also doesn't build its rockets in-house and Medicare doesn't run hospitals either), because it's not really that important to me. DCole challenged me to provide alternative models, not specifically to placate KCT but just in general, and I named the Montgomery County program because, regardless of what KCT would say about it, I think it's a net positive (albeit not without issues). I noted that I thought it was similar to what KCT was looking for mainly as a side comment, which was based on what I recalled seeing on some 2-3 page high-level bulletpoint list they had published however long ago. I hadn't seen the more detailed PDF that Cratedigger posted and I don't follow KCT on social media, so I don't have a lot invested in being right or wrong about what they would or wouldn't support. If I was wrong to say that they would support something similar to the Montgomery County program, then ok, I stand corrected.

The comment that they are "first and foremost anti-capitalist" and the idea that they won't settle for anything less than dismantling capitalism bothered me on a broader level, though. They're not "first and foremost anti-capitalist," their "anti-capitalism" (such as it may be) flows from their material circumstances. Regardless of what the person in charge of the KCT Twitter account would say, I think the rank and file membership of the organization would melt away if there were a program in place to meet their material needs -- permanently safe, affordable housing -- even if it fell short of the organization's ideological rhetoric. Arguments that elevate the ideological aspect over the material feel manipulative to me, because ideology is emotionally charged and can be wielded to smother the material concerns, even though the material concerns are what actually matter. That emotional charge is also why organizations like KCT employ ideological rhetoric, so obviously it cuts both ways, but I think it is important to keep our eye on the ball. "Capitalism" and "socialism" don't house people, a house houses people. Provide KCT's members with housing security and there will not be a KCT anymore.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

The comment that they are "first and foremost anti-capitalist" and the idea that they won't settle for anything less than dismantling capitalism bothered me on a broader level, though. They're not "first and foremost anti-capitalist," their "anti-capitalism" (such as it may be) flows from their material circumstances.

Look, I'm not calling them anti-capitalist as a criticism. It's an observation. An observation that many people, which seemingly includes you, don't seem to understand. And, I think it's an important point to understand, especially if you're going to defend the organization and say they would support things that they most certainly wouldn't. The Montgomery County thing isn't important. What's important is to understand what they're trying to do. Affordability is not a priority for them. It just isn't. Yeah, they want housing to be more affordable but the ONLY path they see that happening on is by removing all private ownership of housing. And, you know what? They could be right. But, being right is irrelevant if it's impossible to achieve. And, it just is in the US (barring a communist revolution or something).

One can be an anti-capitalist but also realistic and willing to compromise. My criticism is that they're unrealistic and uncompromising. And, I think they would wear that criticism as a badge of honor. They are proud of their unreasonableness.

Regardless of what the person in charge of the KCT Twitter account would say, I think the rank and file membership of the organization would melt away if there were a program in place to meet their material needs -- permanently safe, affordable housing -- even if it fell short of the organization's ideological rhetoric.

I agree with this.

Arguments that elevate the ideological aspect over the material feel manipulative to me, because ideology is emotionally charged and can be wielded to smother the material concerns, even though the material concerns are what actually matter. That emotional charge is also why organizations like KCT employ ideological rhetoric, so obviously it cuts both ways, but I think it is important to keep our eye on the ball. "Capitalism" and "socialism" don't house people, a house houses people. Provide KCT's members with housing security and there will not be a KCT anymore.

And, again, I agree with this. But, their ideology drives their material concerns. They don't care about affordability. It does not matter to them (their leadership, if you want to be more specific). Look at any project proposing affordable housing that they've commented on or protested. Is their reaction: "we need to do better than this"? Ha. No. It's "not one cent goes to slumlords and gentrifiers". Every time. No matter the details of the project. It doesn't matter if we're adding needed supply. It doesn't matter if it's being built on an abandoned lot displacing nobody. They don't need the details on the pricing or the project or the developer. Because every landlord is a slumlord, every developer is a gentrifier and every development is displacement. And, anyone that would dare support a project that they don't is a neo-liberal. The "housing rights organization" is against housing. Not sure how they expect to build anything when their only tool is a sledgehammer.

I get where they're coming from. I really do. And, again, they could be completely right. But it doesn't matter if they're right because it's impossible to achieve. And, if they're unwilling to compromise on that path then they're just going to make things worse.

[DMNBT_RCJH]

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/17/real ... =url-share

Recommended reading. These stories, while seemingly anecdotal, are not in the aggregate--they number in the tens of thousands.

Those willing to work 40+ hours per week should not be forced to live in their car. Don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. Among other things, medical debt is a fairly common denominator.

[phuqueue]

For what it's worth, I found the document I remembered seeing: https://kctenants.org/assets/uploads/kc ... orm-2-.pdf Looking through it again, it doesn't suggest any kind of hardline refusal to accept any proposal that includes private developers or landlords. On the contrary, it seems to take for granted that these will continue to exist and provide housing for most people, while it focuses on government interventions that KCT hopes/expects could ameliorate the situation for low-income tenants.

And the document Cratedigger posted, providing a deeper dive into their proposed housing trust fund (which is only one of the planks in their platform, albeit seemingly the one most important to them), also implies a continuing role for private entities (e.g., on page 36, the "Lease and Affordability Requirements" section refers to "owners," who, based on context, are presumably private; page 45 proposes various taxes on "gentrifiers," which makes clear that the housing trust fund is a backstop meant to protect low-income, vulnerable tenants, not eradicate privately-owned housing throughout the city). The document is rather antagonistic toward capital, but probably no more than capital has been antagonistic toward the people KCT represents. It certainly doesn't call for "removing all private ownership of housing."

It does seem like we're just talking about different things here, though. I'm talking about KCT to refer to, well, KCT, as in the organization, but it seems like you're only referring specifically to the handful of people who publicly represent it on social media or in soundbites for the local news. Having found the platform document again and looked through the housing trust fund proposal, I'm starting to think you're not even right about the leadership's position, but I haven't been tracking their Twitter feed, or if one of them went on channel 5 to say "we will accept nothing less than the abolition of private ownership of real estate," then ok, I missed that. But if we agree that providing real housing security would be the end of the organization itself whether capitalism persists or not, then I'm not really sure why we should get hung up on what one person or a few people personally believe.

[Highlander]

Along the lines of a housing trust, a good place to start would be to start infilling some of the urban neighborhoods in Kansas City with inexpensive but closely spaced single family homes. Looking at google maps the urban landscape in KC is replete with vacant space in residential areas.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/1531+ ... ?entry=ttu

There are literally dozens of residential blocks in KC's urban core missing multiple homes.

It's not an overnight solution to the problem but it's better than much of the denser social housing that's been created in KC.

[Cratedigger]

For what it's worth, I found the document I remembered seeing: https://kctenants.org/assets/uploads/kc ... orm-2-.pdf Looking through it again, it doesn't suggest any kind of hardline refusal to accept any proposal that includes private developers or landlords. On the contrary, it seems to take for granted that these will continue to exist and provide housing for most people, while it focuses on government interventions that KCT hopes/expects could ameliorate the situation for low-income tenants.

And the document Cratedigger posted, providing a deeper dive into their proposed housing trust fund (which is only one of the planks in their platform, albeit seemingly the one most important to them), also implies a continuing role for private entities (e.g., on page 36, the "Lease and Affordability Requirements" section refers to "owners," who, based on context, are presumably private; page 45 proposes various taxes on "gentrifiers," which makes clear that the housing trust fund is a backstop meant to protect low-income, vulnerable tenants, not eradicate privately-owned housing throughout the city). The document is rather antagonistic toward capital, but probably no more than capital has been antagonistic toward the people KCT represents. It certainly doesn't call for "removing all private ownership of housing."

It does seem like we're just talking about different things here, though. I'm talking about KCT to refer to, well, KCT, as in the organization, but it seems like you're only referring specifically to the handful of people who publicly represent it on social media or in soundbites for the local news. Having found the platform document again and looked through the housing trust fund proposal, I'm starting to think you're not even right about the leadership's position, but I haven't been tracking their Twitter feed, or if one of them went on channel 5 to say "we will accept nothing less than the abolition of private ownership of real estate," then ok, I missed that. But if we agree that providing real housing security would be the end of the organization itself whether capitalism persists or not, then I'm not really sure why we should get hung up on what one person or a few people personally believe.

To be fair, it can be difficult to get a read on KCT's exact position. From what has been explained to me by members, KCT does not take a stand or make a statement unless there is consensus among their group. Which can be unpredictable...

May also indicate that there is room for some form of a compromise though. For instance, I wonder how KCT would respond to a public-private partnership focused on missing middle housing involving the housing trust fund, the KC Land Trust and some private developers?

[TheBigChuckbowski]

For what it's worth, I found the document I remembered seeing: https://kctenants.org/assets/uploads/kc ... orm-2-.pdf

So, I think this is what they originally put out when they started and were an exciting organization. I don't believe they're the same now. And, of course they're not, any organization evolves as it gains membership and changes leadership. That's not surprising, nor is it a criticism on its own.

I just ask that people actually pay attention to what they say before they blindly support this organization.

I'll just pull some quotes from a quick scan of the housing trust fund doc:
"It is important that we recognize that these problems are neither natural nor accidental, but rather the product of the City’s longstanding prioritization of profits and private property over people. The root cause: racial capitalism. Racial capitalism is a system built on race and class in which wealthy people, who are overwhelmingly white, gain wealth, profit, and power from the exploitation and oppression of the working class and poor people. This theory suggests that race and capitalism are not separate systems, but that race is fundamental to capitalism and vice versa."
"Our housing system is one of the clearest expressions of American racial capitalism. The manifestation in terms of Kansas City’s housing reality: there are people and institutions who profit from our pain, and those people and institutions often call the shots, building and maintaining the system that protects their profits."
"We will not get there through incrementalism, or through pouring more money into the pockets of private profiteers. We will only get the Kansas City we deserve through intentional investments in our people."
"We cannot keep subsidizing our own oppressors."

I'm not saying any of those quotes are wrong or problematic, just that it shows, even in a document that probably had multiple editing passes to come across as reasonable as possible, that they are clearly anti-capitalist, even if they never explicitly say it.

It certainly doesn't call for "removing all private ownership of housing."

Of course it doesn't. That's not what a Housing Trust Fund would do.

It does seem like we're just talking about different things here, though. I'm talking about KCT to refer to, well, KCT, as in the organization, but it seems like you're only referring specifically to the handful of people who publicly represent it on social media or in soundbites for the local news.

That's fine. The rank and file of any organization probably isn't as passionate or necessarily has the same ideaology as leadership and as soon as their own individual problem is solved, their passion disappears. I get that and I'm not disagreeing. But, we can't just ignore the goals and tactics of KCT's leadership. They're the ones setting the agenda.

But if we agree that providing real housing security would be the end of the organization itself whether capitalism persists or not, then I'm not really sure why we should get hung up on what one person or a few people personally believe.

Because providing housing security for every citizen of Kansas City is a gigantic massive problem that will require multiple solutions and public AND private capital and, if we ever get there, it's going to take decades. So, the idea that they'll ever cease to exist because all of their problems have been solved is just a fantasy.

Their narrow-mindedness and increased ability to influence politics will not only slow that progress but make affordability and Kansas City, as a whole, worse. You really think funding the housing trust fund is going to provide real housing security for every citizen of Kansas City? Or social housing? On their own? In under a decade? No. Of course not. We need a multi-pronged approach: housing trust fund, social housing, shelters, zoning reform, incentives for strategic private capital investments, higher rents in some neighborhoods that can justify investment without incentives, selling the city's land for housing, demolition reform, pre-approved missing middle housing plans, parking maximums, abolishing parking minimums, no longer investing in sprawl, etc etc etc.

And, that's just the housing piece, which they understandably focus on. But, the rest of us should also care about the progress they could prevent in the city. Densification, transit, walkability, bikeability, environmental concerns, pollution reduction, etc are all dependent on continued infill and restoration of the urban core, something they will proudly stand in the way of. Meanwhile, a neighborhood of million dollar McMansions can go up by Staley High School and they won't say a word.

[phuqueue]

The thing is that I don't care whether they're "anti-capitalist" or not. I've never argued the point. I've pretty explicitly not taken a position on it either way, because regardless, I think it's the wrong thing to highlight, for reasons I've already explained. But I think the actual documents that they've published don't support claims like "they don't care about affordability" or that they're only interested in "removing all private ownership of housing." Those documents in fact appear to be specifically about achieving affordability and to assume that most housing will continue to be privately owned. I read the whole document you pulled those quotes from, so I don't know what you think I'm "blindly" supporting. To keep harping on their "anti-capitalism," regardless of whether or not it's true about them ideologically, misrepresents what they're actually tangibly trying to achieve or would be willing to accept.

You propose a multipronged approach, and that's great. But KCT is basically the only organization advocating for the first two prongs you list. KCT is the only reason those prongs are in the conversation at all. Many in this thread, to say nothing of people who actually hold power, reject those prongs, but KCT believes (correctly, in my view) that without them, their constituency will be left behind. I don't think KCT actually cares in principle whether or not you overpay to live in some generic new 5-over-1, but they can't do that. KCT doesn't oppose these projects because they're "against housing," they oppose them because they have no reason to be for housing that's not for them and that they fear will ultimately cost them their own homes. Blocking projects is the only lever they can really pull to force anybody to pay attention to them, and they'll keep pulling it until their needs are taken seriously. You've accused them of being unwilling to compromise, but what compromise has been offered to them? A few units set aside in new buildings (a solution that seemingly nobody on any side likes) and facile economic arguments that a rising tide will lift all boats?

Because providing housing security for every citizen of Kansas City is a gigantic massive problem that will require multiple solutions and public AND private capital and, if we ever get there, it's going to take decades. So, the idea that they'll ever cease to exist because all of their problems have been solved is just a fantasy.

This isn't really the point, though. To recap: I suggested that a proposal similar to Montgomery County's public housing program was something KCT might support, then you replied that they would never support it because it still includes a role for private developers. The abstract discussion about dissolving the organization by solving the housing crisis isn't about setting a concrete goal, it's about showing the falsity of your claim, at least as it pertains to "KCT" as I was using it, to refer to the overall organization. But as we established in my last post, we are using "KCT" to refer to two different things, so it's not really a productive discussion. I don't know or care whether your claim is true or false as it pertains to specific individuals within KCT.

Along the lines of a housing trust, a good place to start would be to start infilling some of the urban neighborhoods in Kansas City with inexpensive but closely spaced single family homes. Looking at google maps the urban landscape in KC is replete with vacant space in residential areas.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/1531+ ... ?entry=ttu

There are literally dozens of residential blocks in KC's urban core missing multiple homes.

It's not an overnight solution to the problem but it's better than much of the denser social housing that's been created in KC.

I really don't want yet more SFHs in the urban core, but have to agree this would at least be better than a bunch of vacant lots.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

You propose a multipronged approach, and that's great. But KCT is basically the only organization advocating for the first two prongs you list. KCT is the only reason those prongs are in the conversation at all.

I agree and said that I completely support their advocacy on those issues. We need an organization to push for those things and tenant's rights.

I don't think KCT actually cares in principle whether or not you overpay to live in some generic new 5-over-1, but they can't do that. KCT doesn't oppose these projects because they're "against housing," they oppose them because they have no reason to be for housing that's not for them and that they fear will ultimately cost them their own homes.

It's not going to cost them their homes. You know what will? Not building housing and letting our existing housing stock slowly rot. That will cost people their homes. Just look at the Eastside. And, social housing and the housing trust fund alone won't prevent that. There's not enough money there. We need private capital. Being opposed to new residential construction on a parking lot generally makes little to no sense. Sure, try to get the most public benefit out of the building as possible, especially if it involves incentives, but that's not what they're doing. They just flat oppose it and accuse the developers and incentive granting bodies of purposely causing displacement, oppression, gentrification, etc.

And, why are these accusations only lobbed at apartment buildings in the urban core? We're just going to ignore $800,000 SFHs going up where four-plexes could be built? We're just going to ignore the hundreds of millions spent on greenfields in the Northland? We're just going to ignore every other kind of incentive? Land banking? Parking requirements? And why ignore the transit element to all of this? Forced car ownership is okay so long as rent is low?

Blocking projects is the only lever they can really pull to force anybody to pay attention to them, and they'll keep pulling it until their needs are taken seriously.

That sounds more like a temper tantrum than a political strategy and isn't even true. You clearly haven't been following them that closely so I don't know why you continue to try to speak for them in this manner. You're discounting their views and not taking them seriously. I think if you said to them: "Oh, I get it, you're not actually against this building, you're just using it as a bargaining chip." They'd respond: "The fuck we aren't!"

You've accused them of being unwilling to compromise, but what compromise has been offered to them?

And, again you discount them. Actual funding for the housing trust fund. Seats on multiple boards. The right-to-counsel program. Tenant Bill of Rights. Killing Mac's project at Armour/Main multiple times. Etc. Are you really trying to act like they've gotten nothing accomplished?

it's about showing the falsity of your claim, at least as it pertains to "KCT" as I was using it, to refer to the overall organization. I don't know or care whether your claim is true or false as it pertains to specific individuals within KCT.

You seem to be claiming that the membership is separate from the leadership and that leadership doesn't speak for membership and it doesn't actually matter what leadership thinks or how the organization communicates. That's awfully convenient considering it allows you to believe whatever you want about the views of membership and ignore anything that leadership communicates publicly. Also, if membership is actually opposed to what leadership is saying/doing, wouldn't they leave the organization or elect new leadership?

[phuqueue]

It's not going to cost them their homes. You know what will? Not building housing and letting our existing housing stock slowly rot. That will cost people their homes. Just look at the Eastside. And, social housing and the housing trust fund alone won't prevent that. There's not enough money there. We need private capital. Being opposed to new residential construction on a parking lot generally makes little to no sense. Sure, try to get the most public benefit out of the building as possible, especially if it involves incentives, but that's not what they're doing. They just flat oppose it and accuse the developers and incentive granting bodies of purposely causing displacement, oppression, gentrification, etc.

And, why are these accusations only lobbed at apartment buildings in the urban core? We're just going to ignore $800,000 SFHs going up where four-plexes could be built? We're just going to ignore the hundreds of millions spent on greenfields in the Northland? We're just going to ignore every other kind of incentive? Land banking? Parking requirements? And why ignore the transit element to all of this? Forced car ownership is okay so long as rent is low?

But you actually have no basis whatsoever for saying that new developments won't cost them their homes. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, the proposition that developers will eventually build enough housing to stabilize or lower costs across the city (doubtful, but no need to rehash that right now), you can't establish individual-level benefits from aggregate-level effects. The fact that you lowered the average cost of rent doesn't mean that people dependent upon paying the very lowest rents can continue to find places to live at those rates. And one of the prongs in your own multi-pronged strategy is "higher rent in some neighborhoods," which isn't great for people already living in those neighborhoods who can't afford the higher rents, is it?

I don't know why KCT picks the specific battles it does and ignores others, but it's easy enough to take some guesses. Are $800,000 SFHs receiving incentives from the city? Does an organization like KCT have the resources to fight every proposed SFH, or do they have to focus on specific marquee projects that have the most money behind them and will get the most attention? When you raise questions like "why are they going after this but not that?" it is helpful to remember why they actually do what they do, which, again, is not because they are "anti-housing" but because they are trying to exert leverage to achieve their housing agenda.

That sounds more like a temper tantrum than a political strategy and isn't even true. You clearly haven't been following them that closely so I don't know why you continue to try to speak for them in this manner. You're discounting their views and not taking them seriously. I think if you said to them: "Oh, I get it, you're not actually against this building, you're just using it as a bargaining chip." They'd respond: "The fuck we aren't!"

You reduce their activism to a "temper tantrum," but somehow I'm the one not taking them or their views seriously. I'm not trying to speak for them at all (unlike you, who are now literally attributing hypothetical quotes to them), but I am interested in what actually animates them (again apparently unlike you, who believe that the city's low-income renters have come together to mount a dishonest, bad faith attack against new development out of nothing more than a deep-seated and evidently intrinsic hatred of capitalism). It seems like maybe you don't understand how this actually works. People who have power can just directly do what they want done, but people without power have to act in different ways to try to induce people with power to do what they want. In a way, I guess "temper tantrum" is an interesting way of putting it, since it's ultimately similar, an upset child unable to get what they want themselves throwing a fit to try to make an adult get it for them, but infantilizing KCT like that doesn't actually make their demands as frivolous as you want to portray them.

And, again you discount them. Actual funding for the housing trust fund. Seats on multiple boards. The right-to-counsel program. Tenant Bill of Rights. Killing Mac's project at Armour/Main multiple times. Etc. Are you really trying to act like they've gotten nothing accomplished?

I'm not acting like they haven't accomplished anything, but I am acknowledging that their membership still faces a precarious housing situation, which is their core concern. The Tenant Bill of Rights was basically symbolic. It literally cites to existing law establishing each of the rights it protects and then states support for "the creation of legislation" to protect other rights (but is not itself legislation to recognize those rights). Killing projects is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. To tie back once more to the origin of this whole discussion, you argued that they would never accept a program similar to the Montgomery County one because they'd consider it ideologically impure, but when were they ever given the opportunity to reject something like that?

You seem to be claiming that the membership is separate from the leadership and that leadership doesn't speak for membership and it doesn't actually matter what leadership thinks or how the organization communicates. That's awfully convenient considering it allows you to believe whatever you want about the views of membership and ignore anything that leadership communicates publicly. Also, if membership is actually opposed to what leadership is saying/doing, wouldn't they leave the organization or elect new leadership?

You already agreed several posts back with my overall point that rank and file membership is just looking for housing security, not the eradication of private property, and that the organization itself is dependent upon its membership, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue about now. I guess we can go ever more abstract about what the relationship is between a group's leadership and its membership and who better represents the views of "the group" in aggregate, but to what end?

[TheBigChuckbowski]

We've veered so far off course at this point, we're just arguing about arguments so probably best to move on. But, I'll just point out a couple things from this.

But you actually have no basis whatsoever for saying that new developments won't cost them their homes.

Explain to me how a development that doesn't directly displace anyone will cost KCT their homes.

Are $800,000 SFHs receiving incentives from the city?

Beacon Hill. Mount Prospect. Every suburban development that gets infrastructure built for it (which is all of them). Every infill SFH can be built by-right without any redtape but every multi-family project has to go through an arduous approval process. Not a direct incentive but an incentive to choose to build SFH rather than something else that would build more homes that are more affordable.

But, also, my point about SFHs had literally nothing to do with incentives so not sure why that was your question. Nor do I expect them to protest every single SFH but it does seem like the process that leads to $800,000 SFHs being built would bear mentioning every once in awhile especially if they're going to protest $1,300 studios.

You reduce their activism to a "temper tantrum," but somehow I'm the one not taking them or their views seriously. I'm not trying to speak for them at all (unlike you, who are now literally attributing hypothetical quotes to them), but I am interested in what actually animates them (again apparently unlike you, who believe that the city's low-income renters have come together to mount a dishonest, bad faith attack against new development out of nothing more than a deep-seated and evidently intrinsic hatred of capitalism). It seems like maybe you don't understand how this actually works. People who have power can just directly do what they want done, but people without power have to act in different ways to try to induce people with power to do what they want. In a way, I guess "temper tantrum" is an interesting way of putting it, since it's ultimately similar, an upset child unable to get what they want themselves throwing a fit to try to make an adult get it for them, but infantilizing KCT like that doesn't actually make their demands as frivolous as you want to portray them.

LOL, dude, my point was that they aren't throwing temper tantrums but that's how you are describing what they're doing. Did you read what I said?

I'm not acting like they haven't accomplished anything, but I am acknowledging that their membership still faces a precarious housing situation, which is their core concern. The Tenant Bill of Rights was basically symbolic. It literally cites to existing law establishing each of the rights it protects and then states support for "the creation of legislation" to protect other rights (but is not itself legislation to recognize those rights). Killing projects is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. To tie back once more to the origin of this whole discussion, you argued that they would never accept a program similar to the Montgomery County one because they'd consider it ideologically impure, but when were they ever given the opportunity to reject something like that?

"What compromise has been offered to them?" ...here's a list... "No, not those. Those don't count. The kind of compromise I'm talking about is one they haven't asked for and don't want."

You already agreed several posts back with my overall point that rank and file membership is just looking for housing security, not the eradication of private property, and that the organization itself is dependent upon its membership, so I'm not sure what you're trying to argue about now. I guess we can go ever more abstract about what the relationship is between a group's leadership and its membership and who better represents the views of "the group" in aggregate, but to what end?

I agreed that the passion would evaporate if they got everything they want and they likely wouldn't continue to exist. I didn't agree that everything you want to believe about what membership thinks (based on no evidence whatsoever) is accurate, nor did I agree that the opinions and communications of leadership don't matter.