Habitat And Housing Policy

Housing and housing policies are often accused of ineffectiveness and too much complexity. No doubt this should be seen as one of the consequences of the intense legislative production to which they have given rise for a good ten years. Rather than deploring what appears at first analysis to be inconsistency on the part of the legislator, we must try to understand the main determinants of this complexity. These come in four dimensions. The first two refer to the economic specificities of housing; the next two to the plurality of policies and their issues.

A market good

Housing is first and foremost a private good subject mainly to market mechanisms, you can choose what kind of house you want to choose, you can customize indoor and outdoor. In indoor you can buy some furniture for your room such as a sofa, lamp shades, storage beds, etc. Admittedly, it gives rise to public policies aiming at objectives to which we will come back, but not only are the authors of these policies not the direct actors of the system (with very rare exceptions, neither the State nor the local authorities build or do not directly manage to house), but in addition, if we exclude the social housing sector (which owns just under 5 million out of 34 housing units) and a few institutional investors (now less than 300,000 housing units), these are mainly individuals who operate this market. The result is a system governed by a very strong fragmentation of logic and individual strategies for housing, saving, investing, and transmitting.

Great inertia

The second dimension inherent in the housing sector is its very great inertia. From an economic point of view, housing is a durable good that is not destroyed by its consumption, its lifespan is particularly long. To understand how it works and try to act on it, it is, therefore, necessary to differentiate between stocks (what in the jargon of the sector is called the “park”) and flows (mainly construction, works, sales in the sector). ‘old, household mobility). An important part of public policies aims to act on flows (building, improving, facilitating access to housing, etc.). To measure the real impact, it is, therefore, necessary to relate these flows to stocks. If we know, for example, that the intensity of new housing construction (a little less than 330,000 housing units per year on average over the past 25 years) represents barely 1% of the country’s housing stock each year (34 million units in 2014 ), we can put into perspective the magnitude of the “supply shock” that could generate an increase in production, the main axis of the ELAN bill, which intends to facilitate the release of land and simplifies standards and procedures. The inertia of the system can also be read in terms of the slowness of the processes. It is estimated, for example, that between the decision-making, by a promoter or a social landlord, of the launch of the construction of a building and the handing over of the keys to its first occupants, it takes between three and four years.

Multi-stakeholder policies

The third dimension of the complexity of the sector relates to the diversity of the targets of the policies implemented. The idea that housing and housing policies have the sole aim of ensuring that the population is well housed does not stand up to scrutiny for long. Of course, this issue alone justifies a permanent ministry in charge of this policy, but this register masks others, economic and urban. The social issue of policies refers to the notion of “housing needs”: the “norm” is that everyone must be housed and well housed. As the market does not always succeed, it is necessary to correct the mechanisms. These corrections take two complementary forms but are often compartmentalized. The first seeks, in a very open way, to make possible the residential paths of all households in order to respond to changes in their family composition, their resources, their place of work, and even their aspirations. This is what justifies the support given to social housing, rental investment, homeownership, and, more generally, everything that encourages an abundant, diversified, and financially accessible supply. We are there in the registers of planning and construction. The second form that the social dimension of housing policies takes can be summed up under the label of the “right to housing”, a fundamental right enshrined in article 1 of the law of July 6, 1989. Its implementation, mainly focused on the resolution of the most difficult situations, “poor housing”, is based on individualized procedures, the prevention of evictions, the construction of integration pathways, in short on the register of social work. These two forms of public action around the social issue of housing policies use very different professional cultures and distinct political and administrative support, associating the State with public establishments for inter-municipal cooperation (EPCI) for the first and to departments for the second.

Why Businessman Must Not Mix Politics with Business

If you are a businessman, I would like to help you to stop the inevitable fate of the majority of small to medium businesses such as big truck towing san jose. We will now take a look at the top major reasons why you must not associate your business with politics. All of these reasons are interconnected and must occur in sequence.

1. Your business may lose loyal clients

The first thing that might happen if you openly flex your political party’s flag all over your store is a drastic loss of customers. The logic can be shown with basic mathematics using the official election as an example. For plainness, let’s think that half of your clients were Democrats that are fans of Joe Biden and the other half were Republicans that prefer Donald Trump. If you were to support either party’s campaign stuff in your store doors or windows, then there is a high chance that half of your customers that promote the opposing party might get insulted and never return.

2. Your business may eventually die

The next major reason why entrepreneurs must not combine their businesses with politics is that it could fall. This reason is normally the last result of the first two points above. If companies lose a lot of customers, then they will lose interest. If they lose a large amount of interest, then they might have to stop the shop from operating.

3. Your money may go to waste

The last major reason is that your money may suffer. When a business stops, the owner have to depend on some source of income to pay her money. If they do not have any other forms of income, then she will apparently have to get another job right away. Until that income is returned, she will have to use her present wealth to stay alive.

In conclusion, the three primary reasons why you must never think of linking politics with your business are: you will only have few customers; your business could compromise its income, and your money might go to waste.

House’s Jan. 06 Investigations Advance to Requesting Telecom Firms to Save GOP Phone Records

The House Select Committee investigating the Jan 06 Capitol siege has advanced into asking telecom firms to save the phone records of some GOP House members. The request also includes the phone records of former President Donald Trump and his immediate family members. The purpose of which is to further determine their roles in the “Stop the Steal” rally that instigated the Jan. 06 Capitol insurrection.

It is still not clear how the committee will persuade the companies to cooperate as requesting information from members of the Congress can lead to a legal battle. To date, request letters have been sent to 35 different private-sector entities, including social media sites, email platforms and providers of telecommunication services.

Although the House Select Committee did not disclose which members of Congress are linked to the “Stop the Steal” rally, multiple sources have provided a partial list of names to CNN. Currently, the list includes Republican Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Jody Hice of Georgia, Andy Biggs and Paul Gosar of Arizona, Mo Brooks of Alabama, Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Jim Jordan of Ohio, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina.

Not only do they have a connection to the rally, they are also some of Trump’s most loyal advocate in the Congress. Most of them continue to spread the former president’s false claims of being cheated in the Nov. 2020 election, after they voted against the election results.

It is emphasized in the list that it can be updated any time soon as the committee has been stepping up their investigation, which denotes that additional names could pop up.

Strong Negative Reactions Coming from Republicans Mentioned in the List

After CNN revealed the partial list, a number of Republicans have been reacting negatively to the committee’s latest investigation action. In a statement conveyed via CNN, Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed that the requests are attempts launched by Democrats to smear their reputations and remove them from office including sending to jail the strongest Democratic oppositions. Rep Jim Jordan warned the committee that they request could lead to political retributions.

How Politicians Leverage Text Messaging for the Elections

A warning on few fraudulent text messages claim there have been changes to polling places was issued by The Oklahoma State Election Board. A male escort service owns the number from whom the text came.

Person using a smartphone

 

This kind of incident is not new. In 2018, a period of time prior to the midterms, Monroe County in Michigan warned of texts that falsely claimed that several voters’ absentee ballots remained “outstanding”.

With just over 234 million eligible voters, most Americans have received a couple, and people in swing states or in pivotal voting groups have gotten clobbered with a complete inundation. The info is quite scarce, but political texts weren’t as popular during the last presidential election. A replacement class of tools that leave mass, personalized texting are developed within the last four years that seek to take advantage of gaps in communications and disclosure laws.

Though it is simple to assume the texts are annoying and fairly useless, new research out of the middle for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin paints a far darker and meaningful picture of the trend.

Automated and personalized disinformation

On the day of Florida’s election back in August, residents of the 19th dominion received text messages falsely claiming that Byron Donalds, a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives within the primary, had dropped out of the election. The Donalds campaign placed blame on an opposing Republican, who had employed a conservative political consultant who had been accused of an analogous tactic when he worked on Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential bid. The study found that while both political sides are using various kinds of peer-to-peer messaging to contact potential voters, the disinformation campaigns that the researchers identified came from right-wing operators, as in Donald’s case.

The reason some contact these tactics are straightforward: Using text messages to broadcast information, whether true or false, is very effective. Political texts get opened anywhere from 70-98% of the time, which is significantly above email open rates or answers to phone calls.

The study showed that political groups actually shall enter into dialogues with users via text, during which responses are chronicled and wont to build a good more data-rich profile of the person. It also recognized that the detection of disinformation messages relies solely on recipients reporting the texts to official channels—and that independent monitoring of the data sent by text is almost impossible.

What initially appears to be one-to-one communication may of course be one-to-many, however. Prominent texting companies like GetThru, Hustle, Opn Sesame, and Rumbleup have created functions that allow campaigns to send vast numbers of texts that appear to be personalized.

 

ALSO READ: 10 Best Methods for Social Media and Politics

 

Text your friends

An important nuance of direct messaging is that intimacy and trust in-built. Both the Biden and Trump campaigns have developed apps that arouse access to your contacts, and their goal is to know the networks of users and draw on existing relationships to push information about their candidate. The Biden campaign provides users of their Vote Joe app with a script that they will tweak to text their own contacts, for instance. The result is a network of micro-influencers who can use campaign-created language and priorities to steer friends and families behind closed doors.

The report says that the mix of texting, relational organizing, and data-centric campaigning creates “mass-scaled, highly organized messaging from a source that’s able to leverage established rapport with the intended targets in ways in which are poised to become increasingly invasive.”

Overseas, if this happens in a country like Korea, politicians might even use sites like to send SMS internationally.

The loophole game

Text messages currently exploit a loophole with the Federal commission which implies they don’t need to be sent with typical political disclosures or attached to identity The source of texts is obscured even further when the numbers used to belong to texting companies or subcontractors, instead of the sponsoring party. But this, in step with the report, is often supported by an outdated definition of texting that assumes texts are low-volume and acquire sent between individuals, instead of high volume from companies or organizations.

The good news is that regulation about how political groups can use this type of messaging is anticipated. The bad news is that political groups are already planning for methods around a crackdown by experimenting with push notifications—potentially using Wallet passes, the systems for storing digital assets.