The Revolving Door Project reports on a new caucus that favors real estate and landlord lobbying groups. Caucus founders include Representative Brittany Pettersen, a Lakewood resident.
“…the Congressional Real Estate Caucus. Launched in May by two Republicans and two Democrats, the caucus’ stated aim is to “ensure that congressional debates […] include a concern for real estate and serves as a forum for members of Congress and real estate professionals to discuss federal policy and its impact on the nation’s real estate industry.” The real estate industry’s financial success is the priority of the group: the Caucus promised to work to “support policies that allow this industry to prosper.
“Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D, CO-07): Pettersen, a freshman member of Congress and former state legislator, has received a combined $56,500 in PAC contributions from industry supporters of the Real Estate Caucus in just two years. She also co-owns a single-family property in Lakewood, CO that generates rental income.”
Two weeks ago, Lakewood Informer opened a survey to find out what residents were thinking about supporting the homeless and migrants. Lakewood doesn’t ask IF or HOW you want to support these communities. Residents are generally presented with fully implementable plans. See the Navigation Center for an example. This survey was an attempt to bridge the gap in asking the residents what they thought. It had as much turnout as many city surveys (100-200 respondents).
Thank you for your feedback!
Key Findings
Most respondents did not agree with the cities current plan for a low-barrier shelter
If people were to provide homeless assistance, the most favored alternative was a shelter that would require sobriety, self-help or responsibilities (there was no survey option for doing nothing)
Most respondents don’t want “free money” assistance
Homeless and migrant assistance are intertwined, or at least support by the same people
There were more people interested in answering a survey if anonymity was possible
Perhaps the most interesting finding was the strong correlation between free-money advocates and their personal spending. In simple terms, a person who would use free money, would also pay the most themselves (over $500). And exactly the opposite was also true, a person who wouldn’t use free money also wouldn’t pay it for themselves (0-$100).
So some people would take any amount of money or pay any price for homeless or migrant assistance.
Does this indicate that there are big spenders out there who could finance this project through their own philanthropy? Or does it suggest that the people who support the use of free money think it’s WORTH that much but really don’t expect to pay for it? Does it suggest that one group understands that free money isn’t free while the other does?
There is an apparent disconnect between the need for free money and the availability of funds.
Results:
Note: This survey was closed before the emergency citizens’ meeting which includes about 100 respondents.
