|
Thanatosian posted:Speaking of the Bullet Train... Elon Musk of Paypal and Tesla Motors fame thinks he has a better idea. Being trapped in a tube without a bathroom or the ability to stand up sounds pretty terrible to be honest.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 03:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:No, don't build it. This is one of the few times where the Republicans are probably right. The bullet train, as currently planned, is really damned dumb and will be an expensive and miserable failure if completed. quote:California's bullet train agency won a key legal ruling Thursday, obtaining an exemption from regulatory oversight by the federal Surface Transportation Board for construction of the first segment of the rail system that would run 220 mph trains from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
Oh, no, the Republicans picked up a seat in the CA State Senate!  (not like it's actually going to seriously endanger the supermajority or anything)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:His claim that it's not economically feasible is to compare it to supersonic flight, which he considers feasible. Which it is, concorde was a thing, but nobody's doing it and for good reasons. The question is not just how much it costs, but whether or not the returns justify the cost. As ridiculous as the hyperloop sounds, it could pay out. But no one will be tackling it for the next few decades.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
Blackbird Fly posted:His concept is much better than the vacuum tube idea, which has the problem of inevitably breaking and causing a comically massive pile-up of trains moving at supersonic speeds. He will, at least in developing a prototype and funding a real version even if he says he can't commit to actually running the full project, kind of similar to how he owns the largest share of solar city but does not actively run the company. He said he could get a demonstration prototype done within about a year if he was solely focused on it but it will be more likely in the 3-5 year time range because of spacex and tesla.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Niedar posted:He will, at least in developing a prototype and funding a real version even if he says he can't commit to actually running the full project, kind of similar to how he owns the largest share of solar city but does not actively run the company. He said he could get a demonstration prototype done within about a year if he was solely focused on it but it will be more likely in the 3-5 year time range because of spacex and tesla. He does seem to be pumping himself up to get more involved in this project. Even if the thing costs 5 times as much and is half as fast as predicted it'll be faster and cheaper than the garbage train they're currently looking at for that route. We desperately need regional transit in this country and 70 billion dollar trains that go 100 mph aren't the answer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Niedar posted:He will, at least in developing a prototype and funding a real version even if he says he can't commit to actually running the full project, kind of similar to how he owns the largest share of solar city but does not actively run the company. He said he could get a demonstration prototype done within about a year if he was solely focused on it but it will be more likely in the 3-5 year time range because of spacex and tesla.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
Hyperloop from the marina to mountain view and fly over the plebes on 101.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 05:10
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Hyperloop from the marina to mountain view and fly over the plebes on 101. Shouldn't they be focusing on the Megablock tech tree first?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
How about super human cannons that fire you over the central valley from LA to SF? However there is a nonzero chance one of the loving rednecks around here shoots you down, blaming you for creating this drought.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 05:58
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I ask out of curiousity, not a diss. Why is Humboldt your dream school? My dream school is anywhere not like home. San Diego is rapidly becoming much like LA. I don't like it, the air quality sucks, and people are rude. Going to Arcata and visiting was eye-opening. Especially people being friendly. That pretty much sold it. I had visited Sonoma beforehand, and I didn't like the vibe - but Arcata is different. Oh, and it's twelve hours away from home and it is cheap for a college.That's a bonus. Lady Dank posted:Welcome to Humboldt My father described Eureka to me as El Cajon but it rains. And I agree. Eureka is...well, economically depressed? Well, at least there's a walmart. Samoa was downright sad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 06:12
|
|
. I'm in Eureka. Cool enough town if not a little scummy, but you may just fall in love with Arcata.
|
Leperflesh posted:e. Here's the actual paper, in PDF: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf Ah haha, he even quotes Light Sail for energy storage along with the 'put solar panels on top of it'. The people who make energy storage devices that can store only ~50% of their input. (Lead-acid, properly managed can do about 85-90%, roughly). Really, I appreciate the idea that he is trying to 'solve' future transit problems that come from increasingly expensive petrol costs, but no. Also, the housing price chat is depressing me. It looks like I may be moving to the Bay Area in the future, and man, that sucks. The Dipshit fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Claverjoe posted:Also, the housing price chat is depressing me. It looks like I may be moving to the Bay Area in the future, and man, that sucks. You're hosed HAW HAW HAWH (no I am  )
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
So I have a great problem to have, which is that my parents own a big house in Presidio Heights in San Francisco. To me, it's just my grandmother's house with great memories, but it's worth buttloads. I'd rather that I and my brothers were able to keep the house. Any chance that housing prices in SF are going to plateau or drop off significantly, especially at the high end? I'd rather it went down in value so that I had any hope of paying the estate taxes on it and then the property taxes on it (I know that maybe there may be some legal shenanigans we can pull on this, but my parents are probably not going to do that). What would it take for Bay Area prices to go down significantly? Just popping the social media tech bubble?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Any chance that housing prices in SF are going to plateau or drop off significantly, especially at the high end? Plateau maybe, but not drop off. Even during the 2008 crash, housing prices in the better parts of the SF Bay Area stayed flat. Obdicut posted:What would it take for Bay Area prices to go down significantly? Just popping the social media tech bubble? Massive amounts of new housing development within the city and just outside of it - enough to fill all vacancies needed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Northjayhawk posted:No, don't build it. This is one of the few times where the Republicans are probably right. The bullet train, as currently planned, is really damned dumb and will be an expensive and miserable failure if completed. I think the entire thing was designed to fail by insider trolls ruining it every step of the way from the inside with help from outside interests.  I don't know all the details but I smelled a rat beginning with the very fact that the most logical route (as proposed by the original Swedish or Norwegian or whatever company did the first proposal) was to run the fucker right from San Jose through Pacheco Pass to Hwy 5 and down through the Grapevine to LA right along Hwy 5. Nice and clean and have other areas like Sacramento do their own connection from some new non-freight lines (which they currently share and which make the ride from Sac to SJ like something from Africa circa 1876). Let SF build their own connection into it, let the East Bay do their own, etc. Then all the turds started fighting over the passes, the repair yards, the route, which giant corporate farms where gonna get paid off first, which small farmers were going to get ripped off, etc etc etc and ruined the entire thing...probably intentionally. Obdicut posted:What would it take for Bay Area prices to go down significantly? Just popping the social media tech bubble? Massive nuclear/zombie apocalypse and residual multi-century contamination. Global trillionaires buy gently caress off $18m vacation apts in SF now...that poo poo ain't ending so unless you have a trust fund, win the stock option lottery, or enjoy living in 375 sq ft/$3,800 per month habitrail with no parking you are hosed. Keyser_Soze fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
CrazyLittle posted:Plateau maybe, but not drop off. Even during the 2008 crash, housing prices in the better parts of the SF Bay Area stayed flat. What is SF's problem with density? There are some large condos near the ballpark, but in the rest of the city? The only one I can think of is that ugly 20 story one near civic center. Is it nimby? The whole bay area ecosystem would be much happier if we could stuff more people into where there is public infrastructure and biking-distance commutes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
The problem isn't with density per se, the problem is more NIMBYism and general opposition to change. The planning process to put up anything new is insane and can basically be held up indefinitely by one cranky rear end in a top hat neighbor. The people who have been living in rent-controlled apartments for decades don't want the neighborhood to change due to new construction and the techie hipsters paying out the rear end for those same crappy old apartments also don't want the neighborhood to change after they move in. Any change in the neighborhood that happens after you move there is gentrification and is to be opposed. withak fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:What is SF's problem with density? There are some large condos near the ballpark, but in the rest of the city? The only one I can think of is that ugly 20 story one near civic center. Is it nimby? The whole bay area ecosystem would be much happier if we could stuff more people into where there is public infrastructure and biking-distance commutes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
A GIANT PARSNIP posted:He does seem to be pumping himself up to get more involved in this project. Even if the thing costs 5 times as much and is half as fast as predicted it'll be faster and cheaper than the garbage train they're currently looking at for that route. Right, but my point is this: he's comparing the hypertube thingy to Concorde, basically, and saying "it's viable if it's faster or cheaper or both compared to supersonic commercial air travel." But the reality is if it costs $1200 per ticket to go from SF to LA in 2 hours, it will fail. The number of customers who were willing to shell out upwards of two grand to fly Concorde from NY to Paris or whatever was tiny, far too little to support a huge rail system; they only operated about six Concorde planes, and not simultaneously, and it was more of a novelty than anything else. For the Hypertube to actually be viable, it has to compete with the pricing of ordinary commercial air travel; that is, $100 to $200. It has to be something normal non-wealthy people can afford. If I'm a regular jackoff and I want to go to LA, and I'm looking at $150 for a 4-hour trip (including time spent at both airports, parking and security and etc.) vs. $1000 for a 1-hour trip, there's no choice at all. So the whitepaper is using a much more lax standard of comparison than it ought to. I don't know if this necessarily means it's not economically viable, but I think it's a major stumbling-block. CrazyLittle posted:
There's also simply the fact that the people who already own in SF have no motivation to make it easier for more people to move in. People love SF as it is and do not want it to become more dense. There's a lot of green space in the city, a lot of pleasant neighborhoods with 2-story row houses and reasonable traffic. There's no special motivation to relax laws and encourage urbanization and increase density by bulldozing victorians to put in apartment blocks. San Francisco does not want to become Manhattan. The fact that the serfs who serve the lattes and run the infrastructure have to endure 1+ hour commutes from the east bay to keep the whole edifice running has not been enough to change this attitude. Can't they live in the Bayview/Hunter's Point slums? Or rent tiny rooms in tiny apartments in the Mission? San Francisco is my home town and I love the city dearly, but NIMBYism is an incredibly powerful brake on development there and people with even fairly good middle-class incomes (like myself) are priced out. I could afford to rent a small 1-bedroom apartment in the city, or I can own a house in Concord. There are no prospects that this is going to change any time in the next few decades. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 17:26 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
woops dubble post
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There's no special motivation to relax laws and encourage urbanization and increase density by bulldozing victorians to put in apartment blocks. San Francisco does not want to become Manhattan. http://www.sfdbi.org/index.aspx?page=455 Those vacant buildings should be put to use, or if not able to be fixed, torn down and rebuilt into usable space.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
I think some kind of annual "blight tax" on commercial space that stays empty too long (not just abandoned and falling down) gets brought up every once in a while. I guess commercial landlords are willing to let space sit unused in hopes that some kind of chain wants to get into the neighborhood and is willing to pay a lot more for a long-term lease than a smaller local business is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:So I have a great problem to have, which is that my parents own a big house in Presidio Heights in San Francisco. To me, it's just my grandmother's house with great memories, but it's worth buttloads. I'd rather that I and my brothers were able to keep the house. Of course, you haven't really mentioned the sort of money you and your brothers make, and I don't really know anything about Bay Area real estate, so it's possible you could make money off of renting it. That would be one hell of a rental price, though; $10,000 a month just to cover the property taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Soooo... IANAL, but from what I understand, Estate Tax exemption for a married couple is $10 million. Estate tax is on the estate, not on people. Maybe if they both died at the same time or something, but that's unlikely. They are probably going to be Massachusetts residents when this takes place, where one million is the cutoff, they're currently Connecticut residents where it's 2.5 or so. That's the major problem, not the federal stuff, at the moment, though the federal will probably apply too down the line. I and my wife might, in ten years or so, make enough money to pay property taxes on it, but not if the market keeps increasing at this rate. It's an incredibly privileged problem to have, and we've been given a huge benefit by prop 13 already (for my parents), I just love that house. But I'm resigned that we'll probably have to sell it, unless the market flattens out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
"I might have to sell a house and make millions of dollars" is the first worldiest first world problem I've heard in quite some time. Just sell the house and retire early! Enjoy your life, not a collection of old things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"I might have to sell a house and make millions of dollars" is the first worldiest first world problem I've heard in quite some time. b-b-b-but why sell when it will be worth TWO millions next year!??!?!? *edit* this isn't aimed explicity at Obdicut, but really it's a systemic problem that affects all inheritance and property in California. Things don't move because there's no incentive to do so. Even the elementary school systems in the SF Bay Area end up stagnating and suffering because after the local kids grow up and move out, all that's left are childless old retirees that file noise complaints. CrazyLittle fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"I might have to sell a house and make millions of dollars" is the first worldiest first world problem I've heard in quite some time. This. My dad died a few years ago, and while this is cold blooded as gently caress my mom's been a breast cancer survivor for over 10 years now which means maybe she's got another 10, 20 years tops before she gets cancer again and most likely dies. The house she lives in alone is worth millions and as much as I loved living there I'll be damned if I'm going to keep a 5400 sq. ft. mansion in OC if it's going to be just my wife and maybe one kid when she does. I'm selling that fucker and showing my wife (maybe kid) the time of her (there) lives since while I grew up upper middle class... most of my memories about my childhood revolve around not doing much because my parents always had to pay for poo poo like houses, cars, and whatever else they were buying to keep up with their friends. In contrast my wife and I travel for at least one week out of the year and before I did that the only vacation I ever remembered that wasn't just going to our house at the river was Disneyworld in 4th grade. First world as gently caress I know, but traveling to places has really hammered home just how privileged I've been my whole life. A Winner is Jew fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"I might have to sell a house and make millions of dollars" is the first worldiest first world problem I've heard in quite some time. Of course it's a first-world problem. The house isn't a 'collection of old things', it's a place packed full of great memories and it's a great space that the family uses a lot for any big gathering, and my parents (when living there) almost always have people staying over so it's not a waste of space. Of course I'm enormously lucky to have this 'problem'. It's just another factor in the rising prices of real estate in SF, and it sucks but it's understandable. Hell, I want even higher estate taxes than we currently have at the federal level, so I'd actually rather I was in a worse position. quote:b-b-b-but why sell when it will be worth TWO millions next year!??!?!? We don't want to not sell it because it'll grow in value, we want to not sell it because we don't want to sell it. We want it to decrease in value.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 21:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Estate tax is on the estate, not on people. Maybe if they both died at the same time or something, but that's unlikely. Your parents should really talk to a probate lawyer for an estate that large, especially with state estate taxes coming into play. But yeah, what everyone else says: sell the poo poo out of that house, use the money to substantially upgrade your quality of life. Or pay for your kids' college or something. EDIT: It may be an awesome house as long as it's Prop-13'd, but it'd probably be way more expensive than it's worth. However, if you really want to keep the place, from what I understand (and I again reiterate that I am not a lawyer), putting it into certain kinds of trusts or bringing it under the control of a corporation could lock in that low property tax rate. You would definitely want to talk to a lawyer about that, though; specifically, a California lawyer, preferably one with probate/tax law experience. Ham Equity fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 21:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:We don't want to not sell it because it'll grow in value, we want to not sell it because we don't want to sell it. We want it to decrease in value. You have no idea how much pent-up demand there is around here, people desperate to buy a house who can't afford one. As a result, the market is propped up at insane prices because the supply is fixed (Peninsula's not growing any) and the amount of money chasing the supply is growing. As long as the investment bankers keep minting money, the luxury homes will be propped up. Would I buy a huge house in the Presidio as an investment? No, because lightning could strike. (Ask me about the collapse of the "Massachusetts Miracle".) Would I, owning a huge house in the Presidio, expect the price to collapse? Not bloody likely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:You're doomed. It will decrease in value if (A) the software industry in Silicon Valley collapses and (B) the banking industry in SF collapses. That's it. Okay, it'll decrease in value if it's damaged when the Big One hits, but I assume you don't consider that a win. Alright. I'll come to terms with selling it. It's actually probably for the best in a weird way, because there's no chance my brothers would want to live there so my wife and I would get the benefit of it but my brothers really wouldn't. quote:However, if you really want to keep the place, from what I understand (and I again reiterate that I am not a lawyer), putting it into certain kinds of trusts or bringing it under the control of a corporation could lock in that low property tax rate. You would definitely want to talk to a lawyer about that, though; specifically, a California lawyer, preferably one with probate/tax law experience. We all have ethical reservations about tax-dodging, even through legal instruments, so probably not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:We all have ethical reservations about tax-dodging, even through legal instruments, so probably not. While I have no idea what your current financial situation is, have you looked at whether or not you'd be able to buy out your brothers if you were to move your family there? It sounds like you're fairly well-off. If you currently own a home, I don't see why you couldn't sell that, use it to pay off the taxes, then get a mortgage to purchase the home? You could subract the portions of the taxes you paid on behalf of your brothers from the price of the home, and use your stake in it as your down payment; presumably, you'd get a very favorable mortgage, assuming your income would be high enough to cover it, given how much your down payment would be (I'm assuming you don't have, like, 10 brothers or something).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 21:38
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:
I don't want this to become 'brainstorm Obdicut's house' or anything, but basically my wife is finishing up an Md/PhD, so she'll eventually be making quite good money but not amazing money, whereas I'm actually going into a profession with lower wages but higher job satisfaction. I don't think there's really a conceivable scenario where we can afford to buy my brothers out plus play the taxes on the estate and then the property taxes every year, except huge strokes of luck. I'm sure I could work out something with my brothers, but even just paying the estate taxes and then paying the property tax every year might be a hell of a thing. So that this isn't just about me, can you explain how Prop 13 inflates home values? I think I get it-- a similar house would have higher taxes on it somewhere else, so it's worth 'more' because it has lower taxes-- but since that value wouldn't transfer to a new owner I don't quite get it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Current owners are less inclined to sell because they will lose their property tax welfare handout. When owners are less inclined to sell then you have to offer them more money if you want to persuade them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
withak posted:Current owners are less inclined to sell because they will lose their property tax welfare handout. When owners are less inclined to sell then you have to offer them more money if you want to persuade them. drat, I'm dumb. Thank you, of course that makes perfect sense. So if prop 13 were repealed, and my family suddenly had to start paying the higher taxes, the higher taxes wouldn't actually be as higher because the value of it would drop significantly because of the higher taxes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
You realize, of course, that Prop 13 carries over to heirs don't you? That is one of the most stupid things about it. Chances are, you and your brothers would pay less property tax on that house than a guy who just bought a studio in the Tenderloin. And the first 5.25 million of the estate is shielded from Estate Tax.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:drat, I'm dumb. Thank you, of course that makes perfect sense. Yes, and also because the tax rate would not need to be as high if everyone actually paid property tax on the actual value of the property. You could easily double property tax revenue in California while cutting the property tax rate substantially.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
predicto posted:You realize, of course, that Prop 13 carries over to heirs don't you? That is one of the most stupid things about it. Chances are, you and your brothers would pay less property tax on that house than a guy who just bought a studio in the Tenderloin. Again, tax/probate lawyer. But keeping the place might be doable. Goddamn, Prop 13 is some stupid-rear end poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
predicto posted:You realize, of course, that Prop 13 carries over to heirs don't you? That is one of the most stupid things about it. Chances are, you and your brothers would pay less property tax on that house than a guy who just bought a studio in the Tenderloin. Ah, that's a different prop, isn't it? Goddamn it, that's so unfair. Anyway, I didn't mean this to problem-solve, I really was honestly interested if prices could conceivably go down. I think that prop 13 repeal would be the only major thing that could cause them to deflate significantly other than natural disasters that'd kind of moot it all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 23:31
|
|