infinitesunrise

To be clear I'm parodying the people who think there are corporate safe havens where they can vote with their dollars.

I think you're picking up subtext in my comment that isn't actually there. If you don't have more info that's OK, I can do my own research.

"Time to find a CEO who has yet to publicly express their fascist sympathies..."

Wait til they hear that Tor was developed and is largely run by the US military.

This is a decontextualized post from 2015 that theorizes a DDoS attack on Proton at the time was coercion to "help" them by offering to proxy their traffic through Bynet in Israel for the purpose of tampering. Is there any other info out there to support this theory? It's intriguing and believable but also complete hearsay absent any other corroboration, context, further info, etc.

This article talks at length about the cause of this rise being increasing economic stress / government cuts and the affordable housing system not having been adjusted to meet the rising demand. Literally it points to a Housing First program under-powered relative to economic needs as the reason for the rise. I don't know if I necessarily agree with the person you're replying to but this article strongly supports their argument.

Is the goal here to provide everyone with access to a home or to force everyone into a home?

Weird place to start a debate over it

Capital controls the government. Unless white house policy actually changes, this is a load of hopium.

Make a Windows install USB but instead of putting the Windows installer on it put a Linux installer on it /s

The irony is that developers building housing that meets Oregon's mandated affordability requirements are still turning a profit, it's either just not as much profit as they make in other endeavors they're occupied with or they're foregoing bids in protest. If the city was willing to run it's own public development firm inside the Housing Bureau rather than merely issue grants and incentives to independent developers, the public could actually flip our own new construction at a profit to landlords if we're really that allergic to publicly owned housing.

It's pretty lame that the only solutions ever explored in most housing discussions, this article included, are more brakes and handouts for developers. And that while national-level trends get quick mention, the vast majority of this article functions as an indictment of an extremely modest attempt at slightly-below-market-rate inclusion requirements as being too burdensome.

We know that no level of stimulus for developers will ever cause housing costs to fall over the long term. Even developers don't make such claims. We know that any trickle-down effect that new luxury stock has on the cost of older housing does not offset overall market movement. We therefore know that no amount of industry stimulus can ever ease the pain of the housing crisis, that it can at best only slow it's exacerbation by willingly feeding the political beast of real estate capital.

Given these hard facts and the dire socio-economic danger they pose to city residents, why is Anthony Effinger of Willamette Week devoting most of this article's word count to claims sourced exclusively from the development industry? One real estate analytics firm in Virginia and two real estate investment firm principals are not dependable sources for a journalist seeking to prioritize the well-being of Portlanders.