|
Chichevache posted:I agree that we need to de-stignatize mental illness and homelessness, but a lot of those people don't have anyone to love or mourn for them because they're assholes. I've heard of punching down, but this takes it to a whole new level.
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
yes, homelessness and mental illness are unfairly stigmatized, but have you considered that maybe they deserve it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 08:43
|
|
|
I agree that we need to de-stignatize bad posting, but Chichevache doesn't have anyone to love or mourn for him because he's an rear end in a top hat. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 08:54
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I agree that we need to de-stignatize bad posting, but Chichevache doesn't have anyone to love or mourn for him because he's an rear end in a top hat. I spent too much time working with the homeless and it rubbed off on me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 10:18
|
|
|
In fairness to the original comment, I'd probably be a bitter rear end in a top hat too if I had rich fucks trying to illegalize my existence while trying their hardest to not help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 10:22
|
|
|
Expanding senior housing would go a long way to combatting homelessness. A large portion of homeless people are seniors moving on a meager social security, sleeping in shelters, and getting meals from local churches. Many are disabled as well. There's only one mobile home park left in Palo alto and if they sold it then a huge number of people living there would be homeless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2019 11:13
|
|
|
Chichevache posted:I agree that we need to de-stignatize mental illness and homelessness, but a lot of those people don't have anyone to love or mourn for them because they're assholes. Hey bud I had a bit of a relationship with a (former) homeless guy near a family friend's business and he's had good days and bad days, I buy him lunch sometimes and my friend had him help with porter-style work for cash. Anyway the day he got his Section 8 housing acceptance he was smiling and laughing and you would have thought he won the lottery. I was so happy for the dude. His mood improved visibly from that moment until he moved into the residence. I don't see him anymore and I'm thankful for it. Being homeless loving sucks, it's hard on people and you can't expect them all to be noble Dickens characters about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2019 23:51
|
|
|
Ongoing CPUC meeting - lot's of yelling and "NO PG&E BAILOUT" signs http://www.adminmonitor.com/ca/cpuc/voting_meeting/20190128/ edit: nvm, just ended. Pushed through some exceptions to allow PG&E to get financing while under Chapter 11 protection. Mitsuo fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
The fact that we accept Mumbai levels of homelessness in a city like Los Angeles when Utah found that providing free housing for people actually reduced the state's expenses makes me sick. I mean there are tent cities on overpasses nowadays. Truth is, it isn't about THE BUDGET, it's some sort of sick desire to punish people who can't earn sufficient money to afford to live here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Expanding senior housing would go a long way to combatting homelessness. A large portion of homeless people are seniors moving on a meager social security, sleeping in shelters, and getting meals from local churches. Many are disabled as well. The trick they pull in San Diego County is to kick people out of mobile home parks and then either leave the mobile homes to rot (Mission Bay) or claim that development will be coming soon, but strangely nothing happens for a decade (Carlsbad).
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 00:33
|
|
|
I never really considered that I might have deserved it, ty for this incredibly insightful, and humorous post! the funniest part was where we condemned the poor to die because giving them homes was deemed too unfair to the not-poors. E: needlessly personal. Turtlicious fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Jan 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:completely exempts any business with less than 50 employees from any property taxes. Does this apply to the 0 employee shell companies that own almost all commercial real estate in silicon valley?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
xarph posted:Does this apply to the 0 employee shell companies that own almost all commercial real estate in silicon valley? Ok just looked through the text again. I think I misinterpreted something originally because there are separate legal definitions for real property and personal property and I got them mixed up. So there's actually two exemptions. The first is for "tangible personal property used for business purposes." Which is equipment and other materials that are used for business purposes. This includes fixtures that have been attached on the property, such as buildings and equipment installed in the buildings. This exemption is for the either the first $500k in value of such property, or the full amount for any business with less than 50 employees. The second exemption is for REAL property, aka land, and only applies to "owner-operators" that conduct a majority of their business on the property and operate the business on less than $2 million in property statewide. If these criteria are met, then they pay current rates and don't have to go through a reassessment. So a shell company leasing out property might qualify for the first exemption on equipment, etc. that it leases to the primary business, but since it's not actually operating the business on its property the land would still face reassessment. Reminder, not a lawyer and am not familiar with the decades of case law surrounding this terminology, but I think this is the correct interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Fewer than 50 employees. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 07:02
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Hey bud I had a bit of a relationship with a (former) homeless guy near a family friend's business and he's had good days and bad days, I buy him lunch sometimes and my friend had him help with porter-style work for cash. Anyway the day he got his Section 8 housing acceptance he was smiling and laughing and you would have thought he won the lottery. I was so happy for the dude. His mood improved visibly from that moment until he moved into the residence. I don't see him anymore and I'm thankful for it. Cool. I hope that worked out for him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
PG&E Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection: https://www.apnews.com/b9cf5113c46347f584564b8f763f31b2
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 12:05
|
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:PG&E Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Protection: My friend had a lot of money invested in them and now she doesn't, such is the struggle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 12:18
|
|
|
I feel bad for her, but also good, that the people who ran PG&E into the ground are about to face real consequences for their poor management.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I feel bad for her, but also good, that the people who ran PG&E into the ground are about to face real consequences for their poor management. Hahaha
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 13:12
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I feel bad for her, but also good, that the people who ran PG&E into the ground are about to face real consequences for their poor management. Let’s not be hasty We all know the “too big to fail” talk is going on right now in Sacramento. And failing that, every single one of those execs are getting golden parachutes
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:I feel bad for her, but also good, that the people who ran PG&E into the ground are about to face real consequences for their poor management. I remember being 20 years old.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Let’s not be hasty I hope they’re following that ‘too big to fail’ talk with ‘...and therefore we need to nationalize them’
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 19:04
|
|
|
Don't worry, the banks will get paid before the victims see a dime!quote:The bankruptcy filing immediately puts the lawsuits on hold and consolidates them in bankruptcy court, where legal experts say victims will probably receive less money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Jesus people are brutally dumb, this isnt enron the stock was never in danger of hitting 0. I bought in at $7 just sold for 12 a pop. thanks ca wildfire for burning my house down and bumping my portfolio up
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Don't worry, the banks will get paid before the victims see a dime! socializing risk and privatizing profit is why corporatins exist in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Chapter 11 is a reorganization, it's not like chapter 13. It's likely in chapter 11 that the stock will be zeroed out and new stock re-issued, becuase the investors of common stock are usually last in line behind other debtors. But yes it's also likely that people with pending lawsuits hoping to get punitive on top of actual damages will get less, but that was always the case, because PG&E hasn't got the assets to cover the full potential liabilities; that's why it's bankrupt. Chapter 11 is probably also better for us - it means the company will continue to operate during re-organization, rather than suddenly (and likely catastrophically) dumping all its operations onto the state, which is not prepared to take them over. We might enjoy the prospect of a total failure of PG&E in the abstract, but in the reality of people needing electricity and gas to live, yeah that would not be too great for anyone. I think the thing to be mad about is not that they're going through bankruptcy, nor that the lawsuits won't get as much money as they should as a result of being under-capitalized, it's that the utility was ever private in the first place so that profits could be extracted irrespective of the long-term health and security of the state's energy network, and, that the people running it who made those decisions will not be held personally liable. Once we're past that, though, it's likely better for the people suing that the company goes into chapter 11, than if it tries to go without it (and then whoever claims money first gets it and then it runs out and probably collapses into chapter 13 or has to be bailed out), which is really the only immediate alternative. A state takeover may be inevitable at this point, but it will take years to organize and those people's lawsuits shouldn't have to wait.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
So I just got a postcard in the mail and apparently San Jose is switching residents over to a new energy provider. It's not complete freedom from PG&E: sounds like they still own the infrastructure and I'm still billed through them, but the bulk of my power is going to be purchased by the city and from at least 45% renewables, with an option for purchasing 100% renewable. Also it's supposed to be cheaper but that sounds like veering into loving magic territory so I'll have to wait to see my first couple bills after the switch over in the next month. Seems like a good thing though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:27
|
|
|
Our mayor in San Luis Obispo has mentioned wanting to do this, too, so I hope it works out for you all!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 18:32
|
|
|
Being poor/homeless isn't some ascetic monk thing that makes you have a heart of gold. It ruins the best parts of you. It breaks you. It forces you to degrade yourself constantly. Expecting poor people to be some kind of noble savage before you'll alleviate their suffering and address the causes of that suffering in the first place is some of the worst kind of liberal bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:It’s simple repeal prop 13 for corporate property owners and use the extra cash to fund *socialist utopia* As a homeowner I wouldn't mind the repeal if it meant that I didn't have to spend 1000 dollars a month for god drat health insurance for my family.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 21:31
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:As a homeowner I wouldn't mind the repeal if it meant that I didn't have to spend 1000 dollars a month for god drat health insurance for my family. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 01:17
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The fact that we accept Mumbai levels of homelessness in a city like Los Angeles when Utah found that providing free housing for people actually reduced the state's expenses makes me sick. I mean there are tent cities on overpasses nowadays. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Being homeless loving sucks, it's hard on people and you can't expect them all to be noble Dickens characters about it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
Oh my god the thread was so peaceful without you
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:what do you do with the percentage who refuse to engage with treatment, or stop doing drugs in the building, or stop screaming racial epithets at neighbors and other residents? How the gently caress is this hard? You don't just plop a mentally ill person down in a home and walk away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Ideally you would have a housing situation that integrates health and mental wellness facilities and housing, but even if you don't, you transition those with elevated needs to the appropriate environment. You must be new to DR. This is their shtick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Utah's study was flawed, because the state changed their methodology for counting homeless people over the period of the study. Don’t worry, a socialist healthcare system will provide compassionate treatment for you and your mentally ill strawmen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Utah's study was flawed, because the state changed their methodology for counting homeless people over the period of the study. Prove it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
Like what if we offered housing the the homeless people who wanted it, and then figured out a separate idea to also help the ones who were too mentally ill to participate, this isn't that crazy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Like what if we offered housing the the homeless people who wanted it, and then figured out a separate idea to also help the ones who were too mentally ill to participate, this isn't that crazy. Sir, sir, we can't do two things at once here. Sir.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 03:21
|
|
