|
Drifter posted:Sorry. edit: This was an interesting proposal I saw today for LA growth. TL;DR: Add a million people to the Wilshire corridor. Basically Ron Jeremy's SF plan. bawfuls fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Nov 4, 2016 |
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
The only way to improve traffic in the long run is to increase density within walking distance of employment centers, and transit nodes that are not at capacity yet. Building roads provably increases sprawl. Extending transit outward to suburbs also increases sprawl, although it's often less costly and always less intensive emissions-wise. Density also means city workers have to abandon the "american dream" of a detatched single-family house with a yard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:39
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:edit: This was an interesting proposal I saw today for LA growth. Thom Mayne's architecture is kind of a mixed bag but he is a futurist and he's pretty much right about how LA (and at least a few other areas of socal, San Diego included) need to densify. But if Manhattanizing Koreatown wasn't enough, LOL at trying to build highrise residential near the ocean in Santa Monica. Great post btw!
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
Noggin Monkey posted:But if Manhattanizing Koreatown wasn't enough... Off the top of my head, there's the K2 which opened last year, the 3033 on Virgil which is in the finishing phase, a dev that broke ground across from that, and a proposed high-rise on 8th and Catalina that's facing push back from the neighborhood. There's also the wonderful double towers on WilMont, but again, expensive. I had a friend that lived in one of the midcentury apartments off of Mariposa and 7th and, while those places got uplifted a bit when the school came in and cleaned up that area, the parking situation there is a total pain. At least the new places have sublots built in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Possibly nimby but if a city assumes that mega agrocon is going to develop some massive pot farms then driving up local costs basically means getting grow operations out of town. I'm sure pot growers are lining up to take advantage of all that cheap real estate in Mountain View and Palo Alto to set up their grows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
The reality is likely closer to helicopter parents terrified their child will look out the window of their $1.8 million 1200 square foot house in the 10 minutes of free time they have between lacrosse practice and cello lessons and be tempted by a plant in a neighbors yard and end up smoking weed instead of focusing every ounce of their being into getting into UC Berkeley and wind up a pathetic loving loser going to a community college for a liberal arts degree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
So everyone knows the Green and Libertarian party candidates are jokes, but what about the Peace and Freedom slate? Are they properly woke?
FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Nov 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:So everyone knows the Green and Libertarian party candidates are jokes, but what about the Peace and Freedom slate? Are they properly woke? Are they the "Hugo Chavez did no wrong" people?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
That's them, yep. Or at least, La Riva is; not sure if the party as a whole has those issues but the candidate they put forth this year is still a Johnson and Stein-tier candidate. Might be somewhat better than them, but even taking all the options into account Hillary's the least of five evils.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
I like how they're the only California political party supporting Prop 60 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
In 2012 they ran Roseanne Barr, who's a TERF. This year they're running Gloria La Riva on their ticket in some states, and as mentioned, she's of the "Hugo Chavez did nothing wrong" variety.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
It might not actually matter who the candidate is, if you're voting third party anyway? You're voting for the party platform first, and the candidate second, because the candidate isn't going to win, so it's reasonable to consider their qualifications to be president as being irrelevant. On the other hand, a party that is so incompetent as to put a blatantly incompetent whackjob up as their candidate maybe doesn't deserve your support. (Note: yes, this applies to the republican party too, haha.) I've mentioned before that I generally agree with most of what's on the Peace and Freedom party's platform... but they're clearly nutjobs, so, welp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
I think socialism is great, but I wouldn't want my country run by the kinds of people that join its socialist parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Reminds me of the 91 corridor in SoCal. Its getting widened, which is going to just induce demand. The thing starts clogging up at 4am. I have a feeling people will try and adjust their schedules after the widening thinking they can leave at 6 or 7 in the morning. Same goes for the end of day. People will think its ok to use to go shopping or some poo poo, more houses are being built out east with no real new inventory in orange county. We could have had a second highway, but nobody wanted to run it through national lands, we could have had decent public transportation but *muh taxes*. And it just gets worse as rich out of state folks come in and price everyone out 30 miles away from work. The more I talk to people, the more I realize I'm one of the few natives left. Its loving awesome. I mean, the only reason they're widening the 91 is to build more toll lanes. Also I-15 construction is starting up a year after 91 is done to ... add more toll lanes. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Recently heard over the radio that San Jose is trying to pre emptively ban recreational marijuana in advance of it getting legalized statewide. Is there any weight to this? I'm rather surprised, considering how many medical marijuana collectives I've seen in San Jose.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if the number of collectives is why San Jose is doing that. It's true that it's got a lot of dispensaries and the city government has been a bit more proactive about the issue than a lot of other cities. But it was hugely controversial and resulted in a lot of protracted political battles before we got to the current uneasy status quo. The dispensaries that exist now have to comply with some of the strictest regulation in the state and pay substantial taxes to the city. If recreational marijuana passes, it's going to upset a system that both sides fought hard to create. I'd bet some of the larger collectives would secretly even welcome some kind of ban to protect their monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Recently heard over the radio that San Jose is trying to pre emptively ban recreational marijuana in advance of it getting legalized statewide. Is there any weight to this? I'm rather surprised, considering how many medical marijuana collectives I've seen in San Jose. They're not trying, they already did it It's being passed off as an emergency stopgap so the city can study the effects of it being legal elsewhere, but it sounds more like it's Liccardo being a shithead again. In other news, grass green, water wet, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Funny thing is under prop 64, while cities can ban store-front dispensaries (and I expect many of them to do so) there's nothing they can do to ban deliveries, which is already a well established 215 industry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Possibly nimby but if a city assumes that mega agrocon is going to develop some massive pot farms then driving up local costs basically means getting grow operations out of town.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
 to living in an unincorporated area I guessFake edit: quote:"State would allow any resident to grow marijuana in their backyard but not everyone wants to live next door to the odor of marijuana growing in the backyard," said San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo. So where's the ban on eucalyptus trees? Those things are a menace
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
cheese posted:They are kidding themselves. Like everything else, it will be grown in the central valley and shipped in. Pot has the added benefit of being far more valuable per ounce than poo poo like garlic and tomatoes, which is still grown nearby where land is cheap and trucked in. Most locally branded garlic like Christopher Ranch is also grown in the Central Valley*. There's still acreage in Gilroy and Hollister in production but it's mostly just inertia. A new ag start up growing anything would not locate here. *and unless it's specifically marked as local, the garlic you see in stores is Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Are the soda and cigarette taxes seen as regressive since those are more common lower income vices, or does the increase in price limit usage enough to make it worthwhile? I am not really sure how to vote for those amendments.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:12
|
|
You are receiving this broadcast as a dream...We are transmitting from the year one nine... nine nine ...You are receiving this broadcast in order t
|
Progressive JPEG posted:
You're going to hate these people http://www.saveeastbayhills.org/the-clear-cutting-plan.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Pain of Mind posted:Are the soda and cigarette taxes seen as regressive since those are more common lower income vices, or does the increase in price limit usage enough to make it worthwhile? I am not really sure how to vote for those amendments. It depends on whom you ask. I personally think that while sin taxes do hit the poorest the hardest, if it gets them to stop destroying their bodies with harmful substances it's a net good. The rich can choke on their lung cancer for all I care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Pain of Mind posted:Are the soda and cigarette taxes seen as regressive since those are more common lower income vices, or does the increase in price limit usage enough to make it worthwhile? I am not really sure how to vote for those amendments. They are, but it's one of the cases where a regressive tax makes sense because the goal of the tax is specifically to discourage a behavior.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
They strike me as patriarchal. You know why the poor don't eat the same way as the rich? It's because they're poor, not because they're dumb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're going to hate these people http://www.saveeastbayhills.org/the-clear-cutting-plan.html Lmao that's like a who's who of invasive tree species  I wonder what they think about english ivy and pampas grass PS: plug for EBMUD's great gardening book
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:They strike me as patriarchal. You know why the poor don't eat the same way as the rich? It's because they're poor, not because they're dumb. Let them eat cigarettes!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:They strike me as patriarchal. You know why the poor don't eat the same way as the rich? It's because they're poor, not because they're dumb. If only there was some way to make the worst things people could eat a rich people food.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
NAT-T Ice posted:They are, but it's one of the cases where a regressive tax makes sense because the goal of the tax is specifically to discourage a behavior.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
computer parts posted:If only there was some way to make the worst things people could eat a rich people food. I say we skip a step and just eat the rich. But really, people do eat better as they have more time and particularly money. A better approach would be to increase the EITC, or better yet, just eliminate the earned part and change it from a wage subsidy to a straight up cash payment. Or food stamps for all. w/e.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
it's weird seeing a billboard for Prop 61 along a certain major highway in the Central Valley "Bernie says Yes To Prop 61" ....with the Bernie 2016 campaign letter font. It's weird. Like Bernie is a brand now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Mokelumne Trekka posted:it's weird seeing a billboard for Prop 61 along a certain major highway in the Central Valley He finally got that name recognition! People love him. Losing the primary relatively close was probably the best thing that could've happened to him. None of the baggage of the presidency, all the popularity of his ideals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Could weed being on the ballot help the opponents of wingnuts like Issa?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:He finally got that name recognition! People love him. Losing the primary relatively close was probably the best thing that could've happened to him. None of the baggage of the presidency, all the popularity of his ideals. Cup Runneth Over posted:It depends on whom you ask. I personally think that while sin taxes do hit the poorest the hardest, if it gets them to stop destroying their bodies with harmful substances it's a net good. The rich can choke on their lung cancer for all I care.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
cheese posted:Is there any evidence at all that vice taxes do anything to discourage use? I have no idea if they work well, though. Drifter fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Most Californians tax smoking because they want to see it disappear (i.e. Huge numbers of people who don't smoke and are grossed out by smoking.) But there's also the argument that people won't stop if the cost of recovery is more expensive than the cost of continuing. And lung cancer is just about the most deadly form of cancer there is, so you're helping the system not have to spend huge amounts of money in the future on people who are dying with zero chance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Does the extra tax generated from cigarette and alcohol sales actually go to pay for things related to the damage they do, like medical costs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
cheese posted:Is there any evidence at all that vice taxes do anything to discourage use? We don't really know  A brief google search turns up research papers concluding both that it does and does not discourage use. All people seem to agree on is that smoking per capita is steadily trending down, and tobacco taxes are steadily trending up, but that doesn't necessarily mean one is causing the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 10:19 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're going to hate these people http://www.saveeastbayhills.org/the-clear-cutting-plan.html quote:while the idyllic setting upon which the property values of Oakland homeowners depend will be seriously degraded. They could have just made a website with this in gigantic font as aesthetics and property values are the real reasons behind their entire arguments. I mean I like hiking in the woods close by too but its a perfectly reasonable plan to want to thin out invasive species and restore more native environments. Most of the parks closest to me are just hilly oak savanna and that's pretty aesthetically pleasing in its own right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 01:16
|
|
