this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
511 points (97.1% liked)

politics

19159 readers
5938 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 61 points 8 months ago (3 children)

Sure. Because doing something about landlords charging way too much for rent would help too many people.

[–] NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world 47 points 8 months ago (3 children)

There's tons of legislation, proposed and enacted, aimed at lowering rent prices, primarily aimed at increasing supply. Things like prohibiting zoning restrictions that limit single family housing, providing incentives for infill developments and affordable housing bonuses, and allowing rent control ordinances.

The article doesn't say "there is only one bill related to housing this legislative session and it's for pets". Just because a bigger problem exists doesn't mean you have to ignore every other problem until the big one is fixed.

Landlords prohibiting pets is a housing issue because it effectively limits the housing that is available to people. I know when I was looking for an apartment because I had two cats that eliminated probably 50% of housing options I had. I don't know what this does to the market overall, but I'd bet it does something.

Per ownership is also an objectively positive thing, both for animals in shelters that need homes and for the mental health of people. Landlord restrictions functionally turn pet ownership into a privilege only available to the landed gentry. It's shitty.

So anyway, this bill addresses a problem and does some good. Just because it won't singlehandedly solve all the country's housing affordability problems in one swoop doesn't mean you have to dismiss it.

[–] elooto@lemmy.ml 14 points 8 months ago

Love this take. Thank you!

[–] rambaroo@lemmy.world -1 points 8 months ago

I haven't seen any of this in my state. California isn't the whole world

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 18 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Amazingly we can have multiple conversations at once.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Great, when are lawmakers going to start having multiple conversations at once?

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

When we break the Repuglicans hold on the legislature.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I see you don't have any pets.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

I have two dogs and a fish.