I agree and support you, and your point about leading young men into 21st century jobs, and positive contributions to their families, and society. I’m not clear on what you mean on how Democrats need to change in your example of Covid and opening schools. What are the “process” arguments that held that back? I remember bodies stacked up, and medical workers exhausted. How does that problem inform opposition to ICE raids? Or construction of new housing? Or Republican corruption? I want Democrats to move forward, and you are a leader who can do that, but help me understand your position. Thanks.
I desperately want to hear from young adults- men and women such as yourself these new ideas, new message with action, new way forward. I feel many others want to hear from you and like-minded younger generation adults coming up with positive, workable, action oriented problem solving methods for our democracy as well! Keep on with the good work. Let's keep motivating others from your generation to be involved in our democracy as some current Democrats & Republicans have been in this for a long time. But we need the sane voices, not the extremists to represent the majority of us!
Sorry, Congressman, but you are wrong when you suggest housing with one stairway. As a lawyer who spent 30 years representing personal-injury plaintiffs, particularly in premises' liability cases, I can tell you with authority that that is a way to insure unnecessary deaths and injuries. Although the stairways appear--at least so far--not to have been an issue in the recent tragic fire in Attleborough, they easily could have been, given the building's age, nature and design. It is absolutely necessary to have a second way out in case of fire.
I'm curious. Whatever happened to fire escapes? Surely a sliding external ladder-like device is cheaper than giving up all that space to a second staircase?
Thank you for seeing the bigger picture Jake, it is going to be a long road because the new Republican Party has created so much hate in our country. It breaks my heart.
You lost me at empowering men to protect & provide for their families. So misogynistic! Women today don’t need a man to provide for them or protect them. It’s not the 1950’s. Women need partners not male dominated head of households. Come on man 😑
I'm with you, but as a woman I don't see it as zero-sum. I protect & provide for my family and I absolutely want a partner who will protect & provide for his family too (and fortunately I do). I agree with Congressman Auchincloss that it's an inspiring mission that could resonate with young men - at the very least, I'd love to see it tried and see what the response is.
(While we're on this topic, people tend to assume that mothers are the ones who engage on children's and childcare issues, and that's not by accident - they do, disproportionately! But increasingly fathers do too. It's not the 1950s, come on man ;)
Jake -- your approach to young men is spot on, but think it is also applicable to every American's pursuit of a job, sometimes a career shift, and most often a worsening personal cost of living balance sheet (which you address in treat cost disease). That continues to make people focus on next month and their family over the kitchen table (as it should). That's why the economy has been issue number one for decades (poorly handled in our age of increasing economic privilege ) -- it's also why your "cost disease" with long term house building plan is essential. But no one trusts the broken political system to deliver anything, which has created the embers of frustration and sad acceptance of a rigged system in most of us -- which has been successfully fanned into resentment, hate and blame emotions that are more easily created than the longer term plan you are trying to develop WHICH IS BADLY NEEDED. It is the only way to fix and rebuild together, with a level, fair, and more moral playing field being the goal. Specifics of a "summary" plan are needed, and the longer term goals need daily repetition -- you are making a GREAT START - Simple Not Easy to say the least, with the overriding goal of resuscitating the belief in restoring the "freedom to" not just the "freedom from"/Trumpism and the damage that will have to be cleaned up. We will need a 2025-8 version of JFK to rebuild the trust needed -- memories of 1960 -- keep up the fight Jake!
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been following your substack since the beginning and I continue to be mightily impressed with you and your ideas. If it were up to me, I'd make you House Speaker and Elisa Slotkin Majority Leader. New voices. New thoughts. New blood. Hope for a future for the Democratic Party. How can I help get you heard, in the mainstream, a candidate for leadership? I'm in. Just say how I can help.
Jake, I am heartened that you continue to offer insight and sound proposals, but I do not have the sense that Democrats in Congress are moving in a new direction in response. It still seems to be the same old "gotcha" game. Just because Democrats can gleefully tag the President with Epstein and can likely shut down the Government in September accomplishes nothing for our people. It is the same old game.
Once again, Jake doing his best to adhere to the top 1%’s agenda.
His idea of housing is for developers and management funds to own all land. And for me and you to rent for the rest of our lives. Paying to fund the wasteful and planet killing lifestyles of the top 1%. Jake has been a 1%er from birth.
He believes that only people like him deserve to have the American dream. White and Ivy League.
You don’t care to socialize housing in any meaningful way. You only care to bastardize the home buying process even further. Your ideas only drive the upfront cost to owning a home even further. You want to give greedy 1%ers all land for them to “develop” into housing without any sort of regulatory conditions to avoid the inevitable greed that will come while simultaneously removing the prospect of an individuals autonomy through home and land ownership. Why Jake?
You’re everything that is wrong with this late stage capitalism, and with America. You don’t listen to opposing voices. And you’ve never done a challenging interview in your life.
You mid as well have an elephant pinned to your chest. Because neither you or your aids read these complaints. You and those of you who work for him only care about one thing. Personal growth
Well why did you choose public service to pursue personal growth. Fucking disgusting
Make it illegal for wealth management, companies above a certain size to own property for residential use.
Set a cap on how many units any one person can own.
Remove subsidies for land developers
Use government assets (engineering corps) to build and pass ownership to town/city governments for large multi-unit residential buildings. Removing the for-profit incentive for housing. They would operate at cost.
Are there examples of this working to increase housing availability and affordability? I know social housing is prevalent in other countries so your last idea (ownership by local government that operates at cost) is a proven thing. What about the others?
And my two cents: it might be more productive to bring policy ideas to Jake than attacking his character. He seems to be open to new approaches to solving problems like housing. Probably more likely to get real-world results than trying to primary him out.
I am extremely sympathetic to these ideas. But making it illegal for certain kinds of entities to own property strikes me as unconstitutional. Setting a cap would be easily circumvented--once somebody hit their cap, they could just set up a family member, a trust, a corporate entity, etc. We clearly need more public housing--I have no idea why cities gave up on building their own--they did once upon a time.
But all these changes would take decades--of political advocacy to get these ideas accepted and then there would be all the litigation. The stuff Auchincloss is talking about could happen next year.
How would making corporations above a certain size owning residential housing be violating the constitution?
Your point about the cap relies on the first point being unconstitutional. If every member of a family is limited to 10 units. That’s better than every members of a family owning 1000.
And that last part is the same, exhausted line that is used with any kind of significant socialized policy. “It’ll take too long” “it’ll never work”
The same kind of ideological thinking that got us here in the first place.
Cambridge had rent control in the 90’s and it worked. They got rid of it because of the developers in the area advocating against it. Google the top 10 land owners in Cambridge. And then google the top contributors to the anti-rent control narrative.
In Auchincloss last essay he said we need to “build new cities”, using the same methodologies that create the wealth inequality in our current cities. his ideas aren’t for the now. It’s for further cementing the old ideas from 30-40 years ago.
You can’t institute change through a mentality centered in nihilism. It needs to be from the beilef in change. And Jake doesn’t represent change. He represents the status quo.
Our state legislature is voting for a type of universal healthcare and yet Jake doesn’t believe in it on the federal level.
And personally, if it does take a decade to make the change. I don’t care from my point view. As long as it leave a world with more prosperity and autonomy than the one I entered I’m cool with it
We need to transfer the wealth back into our communities. And stop the 1% from continuing to hoard it all. And that type of stance is not just one for America and its values but for the entirety of human kind on earth.
Astute commentary and ideas I hope will be implemented...you have created a blueprint for moving in a positive direction!
I agree and support you, and your point about leading young men into 21st century jobs, and positive contributions to their families, and society. I’m not clear on what you mean on how Democrats need to change in your example of Covid and opening schools. What are the “process” arguments that held that back? I remember bodies stacked up, and medical workers exhausted. How does that problem inform opposition to ICE raids? Or construction of new housing? Or Republican corruption? I want Democrats to move forward, and you are a leader who can do that, but help me understand your position. Thanks.
I desperately want to hear from young adults- men and women such as yourself these new ideas, new message with action, new way forward. I feel many others want to hear from you and like-minded younger generation adults coming up with positive, workable, action oriented problem solving methods for our democracy as well! Keep on with the good work. Let's keep motivating others from your generation to be involved in our democracy as some current Democrats & Republicans have been in this for a long time. But we need the sane voices, not the extremists to represent the majority of us!
The points raised in this article/talking points are very good. Next step will be to create a blueprint for action.
Sorry, Congressman, but you are wrong when you suggest housing with one stairway. As a lawyer who spent 30 years representing personal-injury plaintiffs, particularly in premises' liability cases, I can tell you with authority that that is a way to insure unnecessary deaths and injuries. Although the stairways appear--at least so far--not to have been an issue in the recent tragic fire in Attleborough, they easily could have been, given the building's age, nature and design. It is absolutely necessary to have a second way out in case of fire.
I'm curious. Whatever happened to fire escapes? Surely a sliding external ladder-like device is cheaper than giving up all that space to a second staircase?
Really important ideas about moving us forward -- positive and uplifting!!! Thank you for your efforts!
Thank you for seeing the bigger picture Jake, it is going to be a long road because the new Republican Party has created so much hate in our country. It breaks my heart.
You lost me at empowering men to protect & provide for their families. So misogynistic! Women today don’t need a man to provide for them or protect them. It’s not the 1950’s. Women need partners not male dominated head of households. Come on man 😑
I'm with you, but as a woman I don't see it as zero-sum. I protect & provide for my family and I absolutely want a partner who will protect & provide for his family too (and fortunately I do). I agree with Congressman Auchincloss that it's an inspiring mission that could resonate with young men - at the very least, I'd love to see it tried and see what the response is.
(While we're on this topic, people tend to assume that mothers are the ones who engage on children's and childcare issues, and that's not by accident - they do, disproportionately! But increasingly fathers do too. It's not the 1950s, come on man ;)
Comments about condescension and the patronizing attitude are exactly on point. It's as if the party wanted to shed voters. Mission accomplished!
As an 80-year old constituent, brilliant! We need more "Abundance" thinking -- and action!
Jake -- your approach to young men is spot on, but think it is also applicable to every American's pursuit of a job, sometimes a career shift, and most often a worsening personal cost of living balance sheet (which you address in treat cost disease). That continues to make people focus on next month and their family over the kitchen table (as it should). That's why the economy has been issue number one for decades (poorly handled in our age of increasing economic privilege ) -- it's also why your "cost disease" with long term house building plan is essential. But no one trusts the broken political system to deliver anything, which has created the embers of frustration and sad acceptance of a rigged system in most of us -- which has been successfully fanned into resentment, hate and blame emotions that are more easily created than the longer term plan you are trying to develop WHICH IS BADLY NEEDED. It is the only way to fix and rebuild together, with a level, fair, and more moral playing field being the goal. Specifics of a "summary" plan are needed, and the longer term goals need daily repetition -- you are making a GREAT START - Simple Not Easy to say the least, with the overriding goal of resuscitating the belief in restoring the "freedom to" not just the "freedom from"/Trumpism and the damage that will have to be cleaned up. We will need a 2025-8 version of JFK to rebuild the trust needed -- memories of 1960 -- keep up the fight Jake!
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been following your substack since the beginning and I continue to be mightily impressed with you and your ideas. If it were up to me, I'd make you House Speaker and Elisa Slotkin Majority Leader. New voices. New thoughts. New blood. Hope for a future for the Democratic Party. How can I help get you heard, in the mainstream, a candidate for leadership? I'm in. Just say how I can help.
Jake, I am heartened that you continue to offer insight and sound proposals, but I do not have the sense that Democrats in Congress are moving in a new direction in response. It still seems to be the same old "gotcha" game. Just because Democrats can gleefully tag the President with Epstein and can likely shut down the Government in September accomplishes nothing for our people. It is the same old game.
Change and building influence takes time. I'm glad he's gaining a higher profile.
Good analysis thank you
When the schools remained closed in so many blue cities as of winter and spring 2021, I said to myself: We are going to lose the next election.
Once again, Jake doing his best to adhere to the top 1%’s agenda.
His idea of housing is for developers and management funds to own all land. And for me and you to rent for the rest of our lives. Paying to fund the wasteful and planet killing lifestyles of the top 1%. Jake has been a 1%er from birth.
He believes that only people like him deserve to have the American dream. White and Ivy League.
You don’t care to socialize housing in any meaningful way. You only care to bastardize the home buying process even further. Your ideas only drive the upfront cost to owning a home even further. You want to give greedy 1%ers all land for them to “develop” into housing without any sort of regulatory conditions to avoid the inevitable greed that will come while simultaneously removing the prospect of an individuals autonomy through home and land ownership. Why Jake?
You’re everything that is wrong with this late stage capitalism, and with America. You don’t listen to opposing voices. And you’ve never done a challenging interview in your life.
You mid as well have an elephant pinned to your chest. Because neither you or your aids read these complaints. You and those of you who work for him only care about one thing. Personal growth
Well why did you choose public service to pursue personal growth. Fucking disgusting
So, where are all your bright ideas?
Make it illegal for wealth management, companies above a certain size to own property for residential use.
Set a cap on how many units any one person can own.
Remove subsidies for land developers
Use government assets (engineering corps) to build and pass ownership to town/city governments for large multi-unit residential buildings. Removing the for-profit incentive for housing. They would operate at cost.
Those good enough for you?
Are there examples of this working to increase housing availability and affordability? I know social housing is prevalent in other countries so your last idea (ownership by local government that operates at cost) is a proven thing. What about the others?
And my two cents: it might be more productive to bring policy ideas to Jake than attacking his character. He seems to be open to new approaches to solving problems like housing. Probably more likely to get real-world results than trying to primary him out.
I am extremely sympathetic to these ideas. But making it illegal for certain kinds of entities to own property strikes me as unconstitutional. Setting a cap would be easily circumvented--once somebody hit their cap, they could just set up a family member, a trust, a corporate entity, etc. We clearly need more public housing--I have no idea why cities gave up on building their own--they did once upon a time.
But all these changes would take decades--of political advocacy to get these ideas accepted and then there would be all the litigation. The stuff Auchincloss is talking about could happen next year.
How would making corporations above a certain size owning residential housing be violating the constitution?
Your point about the cap relies on the first point being unconstitutional. If every member of a family is limited to 10 units. That’s better than every members of a family owning 1000.
And that last part is the same, exhausted line that is used with any kind of significant socialized policy. “It’ll take too long” “it’ll never work”
The same kind of ideological thinking that got us here in the first place.
Cambridge had rent control in the 90’s and it worked. They got rid of it because of the developers in the area advocating against it. Google the top 10 land owners in Cambridge. And then google the top contributors to the anti-rent control narrative.
In Auchincloss last essay he said we need to “build new cities”, using the same methodologies that create the wealth inequality in our current cities. his ideas aren’t for the now. It’s for further cementing the old ideas from 30-40 years ago.
You can’t institute change through a mentality centered in nihilism. It needs to be from the beilef in change. And Jake doesn’t represent change. He represents the status quo.
Our state legislature is voting for a type of universal healthcare and yet Jake doesn’t believe in it on the federal level.
And personally, if it does take a decade to make the change. I don’t care from my point view. As long as it leave a world with more prosperity and autonomy than the one I entered I’m cool with it
We need to transfer the wealth back into our communities. And stop the 1% from continuing to hoard it all. And that type of stance is not just one for America and its values but for the entirety of human kind on earth.