|
Jaxyon posted:Long Beach is real mad about higher density, god forbid people be able to afford to live an hour away from LA. Yeah I defaced a sign that basically said "HIGH DENSITY = HIGH CRIME + NO PARKING" a few weeks ago.
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Yeah I defaced a sign that basically said "HIGH DENSITY = HIGH CRIME + NO PARKING" a few weeks ago. Just look at how white that crowd is. Hint: Long Beach is less than 50% white.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Just look at how white that crowd is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Duckbox posted:Why are you repeating what I said but being a snarky rear end in a top hat about it? lol You said Fresno is bigger, and it's not. Which means i didn't repeat what you said, you dummy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Yeah was just about to say drat thats a lot of white people. I have very limited experience, but I've flown in and out of Long Beach a few times, and last time I had some time to kill before our flight out so we walked around "downtown" (lol) LB and it was just a depressing mess. It felt totally like a dead city and the walmart was even closing up with one of the last few days of sales which made it extra eerie and weird. It's actually become way trendier and gentrified, and real-estate has shot way up. Downtown has a ton of new businesses. Those people are sitting on houses worth 600k+ that aren't even remotely near the beach and don't want more brown people to come in. They studiously avoid downtown and anywhere else that isn't lily white.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Yeah, Long Beach is nice. If DTLB is too poor for you, go hang out on 2nd Street in Belmont Shore, that's where most of the NIMBY folks live. 4th Street in East Village is also kinda nice and the Promenade is quite pretty now that they've done some work on it. The Pike is dead as gently caress, granted. The problem with Long Beach is that its pleasantness is on a clear northwest-southeast gradient.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
All I know about Long Beach is a bunch of Khmer people live there so it must at least have some nice parts with donuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
Yeah there's a nice Cambodiatown too. It's on Anaheim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:All I know about Long Beach is a bunch of Khmer people live there so it must at least have some nice parts with donuts. Why have donuts when you can have Cambodian steamed pork buns?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Rah! posted:lol Why are you laughing? I gave metro area sizes right in the post. You're the idiot starting a meaningless semantic argument because you think municipal boundaries don't count. Why am I not allowed to refer to the cities of Sacramento and Fresno as "Sacremento" and "Fresno," exactly?
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
karthun posted:Why have donuts when you can have Cambodian steamed pork buns? If you're saying there's actually Cambodian restaurants there too, then *puts on t-shirt reading "if you don't like prahok, then off you can fok"* heh, yeah, you could say I'm down for that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Thanks for the heads up! Streaming now: Public comment has started. Lots of nurses there, as usual. Edit: All done. Overwhelming support for SB562. One guy didn't like some of the language in the bill and wanted Medi-Cal for All instead. CPColin fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 00:34
|
|
Duckbox posted:Why are you laughing? I gave metro area sizes right in the post. You're the idiot starting a meaningless semantic argument because you think municipal boundaries don't count. Why am I not allowed to refer to the cities of Sacramento and Fresno as "Sacremento" and "Fresno," exactly? Because that's not how you spell Sacramento. I mean, I know it's not the height of comedy to correct someone's spelling, but holy poo poo did you leave it hanging there. How'd you get it right the first time and not the second?
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:Because that's not how you spell Sacramento. No clue. Probably a phone posting thing. I noticed it later but left it up there because I thought someone would find it funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 07:19
|
|
|
Gavin Newsom wrote a thing: https://medium.com/@GavinNewsom/the-california-dream-starts-at-home-9dbb38c51caequote:Let’s consider the facts: the median home value in California is $469,300, and a lot higher in coastal areas. Homeownership rates have dropped dramatically. Nearly half of renters spend a huge proportion of their income — more than 35% — on housing costs and still often live in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. Yet since 2005 California has only produced 308 housing units for every 1000 new residents. Add in the fact that California will be home to 50 million people by 2050, and it’s obvious we’re not on pace to meet that demand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
We'll see if his Marin county donors let that happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Always these liberals with the targeted tax breaks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
"Yet since 2005 California has only produced 308 housing units for every 1000 new residents." That's crazy
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:"Yet since 2005 California has only produced 308 housing units for every 1000 new residents." That period included the crash so grain of salt there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:That period included the crash so grain of salt there. We were underproducing housing before, during, and after the crash. I don't think that's much of an objection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:That period included the crash so grain of salt there. Enigma89 posted:"Yet since 2005 California has only produced 308 housing units for every 1000 new residents." * although controlling for household size is itself potentially problematic since high housing prices will force more people to room together who might otherwise not if getting their own place was affordable, and of course really that whole metric is kind of bad because obviously if there just isn't enough space and prices are high then a lot of people who might've moved to California will just not (and people who might've stayed will leave) Cicero fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Oct 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Meanwhile, the SLO City Council approves a project that actually looks pretty good and, welp, some assholes sue to...stop it? I can't tell what they actually want, besides to gum up the works, but with a name like "Preserve the SLO Life," you know it's just pure FYGM.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I mean it's housing units per job and the crash would mean fewer jobs so why does including the crash matter? Looks like housing units per new resident which may or may not track with jobs.  We can't underestimate the kick in the balls the housing construction market took. The crash wasn't just a financial downturn but a fundamental correction in housing that spread and almost took down the entire economy. I think we forget how serious poo poo was in 2008.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
The NIMBY thing is happening because people are now so economically insecure and crushed that their house is their only source of wealth. So they are hyper-sensitive to things that effect its value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The NIMBY thing is happening because people are now so economically insecure and crushed that their house is their only source of wealth. So they are hyper-sensitive to things that effect its value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The NIMBY thing is happening because people are now so economically insecure and crushed that their house is their only source of wealth. So they are hyper-sensitive to things that effect its value. Do you think NIMBYist opposition to density is new?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Do you think NIMBYist opposition to density is new? No, but I believe it's intensified as houses become a huge repository for wealth, racial tensions are exacerbated by inequality, and the middle class is destroyed. Just my theory, feel free to poo poo on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
What California needs is fewer SFRs and more SROs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Dear Jerry Brown please make it against the law for it to be this hot
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
tfw you realize Modesto’s forecast is cooler than Berkeley's
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The NIMBY thing is happening because people are now so economically insecure and crushed that their house is their only source of wealth. So they are hyper-sensitive to things that effect its value. What's stupid is that everything is ridiculously overinflated throughout the entire Bay Area to the point that even if you sell your overpriced three bedroom ranch home and want to upgrade, you effectively need to move out of the area (due to Prop 13 considerations, the same goes for downsizing).
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:tfw you realize Modesto’s forecast is cooler than Berkeley's Maybe this'll relieve pressure on the coastal cities' housing markets as everybody looks at the weather and goes, "gently caress, I might as well live in the Central Valley!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Thoughts on the new 12 cents/gallon gas tax going into effect tomorrow? On the one hand $5+ billion in additional revenue for transport infrastructure is much needed and it's nice that some of that money is earmarked for local towns to use for their own infrastructure. On the other hand though it feels regressive as gently caress; the only group that's going to feel the squeeze are poor earners who have to commute for work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Thoughts on the new 12 cents/gallon gas tax going into effect tomorrow? On the one hand $5+ billion in additional revenue for transport infrastructure is much needed and it's nice that some of that money is earmarked for local towns to use for their own infrastructure. On the other hand though it feels regressive as gently caress; the only group that's going to feel the squeeze are poor earners who have to commute for work. The changeover to winter gas blends happens tomorrow so it’s gonna mask the cost of that tax increase.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:10
|
|
|
damnit i should have bought gas today
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Thoughts on the new 12 cents/gallon gas tax going into effect tomorrow? On the one hand $5+ billion in additional revenue for transport infrastructure is much needed and it's nice that some of that money is earmarked for local towns to use for their own infrastructure. On the other hand though it feels regressive as gently caress; the only group that's going to feel the squeeze are poor earners who have to commute for work. Yeah it's super regressive, especially in California where the poor commute 1.5 hours each way and the rich walk to work (or work from home). The extra money is definitely a good thing, but it's an awful way to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Yeah it's super regressive, especially in California where the poor commute 1.5 hours each way and the rich walk to work (or work from home). The extra money is definitely a good thing, but it's an awful way to pay for it. Gas tax in 1947 (CA) was 4 cents per gallon, if you adjust that to inflation it would be 52 cents today. Compared to the latest raise of 41.7 cents. Would it have been super regressive to add a yearly CPI adjustment to the gas tax starting in 1947? And really the poor of the poor still take transit, even if it takes long with crappy bus system. Fortunately most metro areas have alright enough transit (SF, Sac, LA) to get around. It's the more lower to upper middle class that drive from the further out burbs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Everybody driving their own gas-powered car is not sustainable for the planet and anything that changes our current course away from that is a net good for all people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:39
|
|
|
Xaris posted:Infact should all bridges be free Yes And we should have free public transport too
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Yes Should there even be smog requirements because it costs money to smog and may not pass which hurts the poor? Even if it means worse air quality and environmental damage from having people driving poor emission vehicles, is it still acceptable to endure environmental health risks because poors may not be able to replace their failed-smog car? That is at the crux why I think gas tax and all of the above is fine, I think anything that gets more people away from driving is a net good, regardless of some uncomfortable socioeconomic issues that go along with it in the short term. It will also help get people to consider alternate modes and hopefully spur more demand for transit+closer housing. Tax the poo poo out of car ownership in all forms to discourage it, build more dense housing, and improve transit options. The Wiggly Wizard posted:Everybody driving their own gas-powered car is not sustainable for the planet and anything that changes our current course away from that is a net good for all people. Xaris fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Nov 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 05:35
|
|