|
An engineer friend of mine is chomping at the bit to move to Texas someday. He's never been there, but he feels he'll save a shitload of money and be able to own a fuckton of land (which he'll proceed to do nothing with since all he does is play video games all day) if he moves there. I have it on somewhat good authority that the money-saving aspect of it is a bit misleading since Texas has a rather high sales tax, hence why so many techies demand huge raises before they agree to move (on top of places like Houston being suckfests in general). Is that basically accurate?
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
If there's one thing San Franciscans enjoy more than calling LA a complete shithole full of terrible people, it's calling Texas a complete shithole full of terrible people.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
redscare posted:It's one of the few things we can all agree on. As much as I prefer SF, this is true. Say what you want about South Park, they basically nailed how smug and insufferable the natives around here can be. Meanwhile, I've never heard an LA native talk poo poo about SF beyond "your street layout is retarded" and "it's too cold in July".
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Rah! posted:Not only does that frustratingly common mindset show a lack of understanding of the east bay, which is very economically diverse, it also shows the same misunderstanding for SF, which is also pretty economically diverse. So many people heave this idea that SF is solely populated by the wealthy, yet this is how the city's income groups break down (as of 2011): A ton of those lower and middle class people are only still able to stick around due to rent control. Good luck if you're middle or working class and trying to move in at the moment. I recall a news article stating that it's now literally impossible to afford a house on a public school teacher's salary right now anywhere in the city limits. And someone else made a good point about anti-East Bay snobbery. My mother insists that all of Oakland is a dangerous hellhole to this day and freaks out when I talk about moving there. ProperGanderPusher fucked around with this message at 18:25 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 18:15
|
|
|
tequilaunicorn posted:It's weird, I've heard "bridge and tunnel" being used in SF for the last 20 years, at least in the service industry. With a complete awareness that it was a tongue in cheek reference to NYC's origins. I guess my SF experience is different all around, though, because most people I know do not hate LA. Whenever I hear someone mouthing off about LA, if I investigate I find they usually have a.) been in SF/the bay area for less than two years and b.) never been to LA. My stepdad was born and raised in San Mateo, and I've never met anyone who hated LA so much in my life. He takes sports way too seriously though, so that might explain it. My dad badmouths LA all the time too, but upon further inspection he really hates stereotypical Orange County suburbanite Republicans more than LA itself. Same goes with a bunch of other people I know. And to be fair, LA is not without its flaws. It's way too spread out for one (I'm a big baby and hate driving, so this a big sticking point), and the traffic is always, *always* lovely. On the other hand, I was shocked how good the Metro was when I last visited, plus the area has some completely loving awesome museums that put those in SF to shame (Getty Museum and Villa, Huntington, Museum of Death, etc.). The only museum that I really like here is the Legion.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Seriously. I wonder when rationing will start. This summer is going to suck...
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
ntan1 posted:so... about them teachers unions. I'm just really curious how the anti-union folks think that schools serving mostly low income students will be able to magically fix themselves when their teachers can be much more easily fired. After all, everyone knows every teacher and their teaching brother is just chomping at the bit to work at schools that are both more dangerous and pay less than those in richer districts. Finding ways to retain them certainly isn't necessary. Zeitgueist posted:One should keep in mind this is yet another example of Silicon Valley libertarian dipshits ruining the state/country. Mark my words: when the culture war bullshit is over and gay marriage and weed are no longer issues people give a poo poo about, a shitload of formerly Obama-loving Silicon Valley types will start voting for and supporting the GOP.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
B B posted:
Well, at lest they're getting them ready for their soul-crushing tech jobs in advance. Plus, there won't be time for social interaction in the future anyway since everyone will be expected to work at least 100 hours a week lest they be accused of not having passion for their job.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Maps like these make me ashamed to be a Peninsulaire. We're probably the NIMBYest people in the entire Bay Area except for maybe the folks in Marin and Napa.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
obliviums posted:Who do you see currently working to stop transportation plans? historically, once yes marin was too NIMBY for a train but have the communities been asked recently? In my personal experience discussing it with marinites recently expanding pub. trans. is generally in favor Come down to Atherton sometime. When high speed rail threatened to build a line adjacent to Caltrain, everyone was all "NOOO, MUH PROPERTY VALUES  ". That said, most people here admit some extra public transportation is needed, the only exception being those who don't work anymore. Not surprisingly, the NIMBYest folks tend to be old people (one old timer I know still thinks BART was a waste of money and still talks about how inconvenienced he was during its construction in the early 70s).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Oh don't worry, the forces of capitalism are still advancing, as evidenced by this 98 year old woman being evicted from her home of 50 years. Maybe if she majored in something useful, she could afford to live somewhere else in the city. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Oh drat, yeah it's only up at 55% All the non-hipsters I've talked to here seemed to be against it because "I don't want to pay more for muh soda."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:Here's the current budget justification: http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov13/f6attach.pdf Are there any signs that private schools with very high tuition as a whole are not doing well? Nearly nobody I know (including myself) thought much about the price of college when applying. Our only thoughts was "Meh, whatever, I'll pay it off eventually plus you can't not go to college anyway, right? In any case, I'm not going to a CSU like some pleb." I'm sure things have changed a bit over the last few years, but it's going to take a lot to make teenagers not want to go to college due to financial reasons. In any case, the private schools that offer generous financial aid (basically just the Ivies and Stanford) can only take in so many people. There will be plenty of brilliant and/or rich kids that wind up going to a UC due to not getting lucky.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
SLO is still sort of cheap, close to the coast, and not *that* boring. I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been staked out yet as the next place to be rendered unlivable.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
redreader posted:Someone told me a while back though that San Francisco treats homeless better than a lot of other cities which is why it has such a large homeless population. Is that true at all? It's complicated. Our good weather has just as much to do with our homeless problems as our above-average services. There's still plenty of NIMBYists who want to ban homeless from setting foot on the waterfront or in Golden Gate Park and just want them to go away. I've said this before, but besides not giving a gently caress if you're gay and understanding that city services cost money to run, this city is hardly leftist.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I used to accept a 15-30 minute longer commute in order to avoid driving in LA. Let's just start over. No more roads. Just cable car lines everywhere, or at least until Elon Musk gets enough funding to build his deathtube.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
withak posted:What would the football team from Jefferson be called? The Galts Gulch Bootstrappers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
One thing I keep running into, usually with people who are over sixty, is a certain romanticization of rural life and the idea that it is unfair it is to deprive farmers of their water. In their minds, the almond and rice farmers are still "honest country folks" in overalls and straw hats who "put food on our tables" and they need every drop they ask for. I can't tell them anything to the contrary because they immediate dismiss it as urban elitist liberal claptrap. I can't help but wonder if this is a widespread impression among certain people whose only exposure to farming was visiting their grandpappy's farm in the 40s or talking with the hobbyists selling produce from their summer home gardens at farmer's markets.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:This is sort of like the NorCal/SoCal divide: I rarely hear Californians complain about Texans, yet whenever someone complains about California they inevitably turn out to be from Austin. Eh, when I lived in the Seattle area, a lot of my friends there loved to bitch about how the goddamn Californians and their stupid tech jobs were ruining everything. The hate was especially genuine in northern Idaho, where apparently Californian summer home havers were trying to halt development to keep the area more rustic. ProperGanderPusher fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I don't get what the big deal is... Memes in advertising is a sure sign of the decline of western civilization.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:LA is just behind NYC in "LOL poor people" in terms of urban planning. Still not as bad as SF, which is honestly more "LOL non-rich people". Even the Tenderloin has $1900+ studios now. All that we have left is Bayview, which is as far away from the more interesting parts of town as you can get, and even then homes are going for over a million.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:A ton of regulars manage to handle using SAMtrans for a commute as shocking as that may seem. It even accepts Clipper. It's less that and more the fact that you either need to dump a ton of money into owning, maintaining, and fueling a car, on top of your sky-high rent (which in my mind is partially justified by not needing to own a car in the first place), or rely on SAMtrans, which is as good as most other suburban bus services (i.e. not very).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:There are decent downtown pockets in most of the South Bay places, unlike most of the East Bay (except Oakland/Berkeley). Let me add a few to this: Menlo Park: Okay, borderline "good enough" (Feldman's is one of my favorite bookstores in the Bay Area, and the Menlo library isn't bad either). Palo Alto: Good enough, due to the proximity to Stanford and some decent cafes, despite being yuppie as gently caress. I also love the Stanford Theater to pieces. I would also put Redwood City in solid "good" territory nowadays due to their surprisingly interesting county history museum, Haus Stadt, the presence of a smoking cafe* (Broadway Tobacconists), and kickass Mexican restaurants up and down Middlefield. All that's missing is a good bookstore, although their downtown public library isn't bad. Edit: *Seriously, SFers are the biggest bunch of hand-wringing busybodies out there when it comes to tobacco. God forbid if I want to enjoy a cigar on a bar patio surrounded by weed smokers. ProperGanderPusher fucked around with this message at 00:26 on Apr 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
Rah! posted:I've never been hassled for smoking tobacco in SF, whether it be a bar patio, the sidewalk, a park, etc. Maybe I've just been lucky, or have only smoked around passive aggressive weenies who wait until I'm gone to complain. I rarely smoke tobacco these days though, maybe the smoke haters got more militant. The minute I try, the typical bartender gets on my case about having to be fifteen feet away from any doors or windows. The only place where I can get away with it safely is North Beach, where all the old timers still smoke outside the cafes and the beat cops don't even bother enforcing the smoking laws. Walking while smoking is still fine in general for me but I prefer to lounge around and have a drink while smoking. In any case, SF still doesn't have a smoking cafe right on the sidewalk. RC-1, SF-0.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Yes the problem was we didn't build any reservoirs to hold the water that isn't there. Got it. It falls into that infuriating but all too common narrative in America that there are actually infinite amounts of all resources and those crafty liberals are just pulling the wool over everybody's eyes in the form of climate science and environmental awareness in order to tax everyone to death or ruin their businesses out of spite. See also: The mostly unsubstantiated idea that there are oceans of oil a little deeper down from where we are currently drilling so we shouldn't have to worry about alternative sources of energy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
The New Yorker wrote a pretty dumb article the other day on how all sides are to blame and have equal responsibility in the drought: http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/whos-to-blame-for-californias-drought quote:The state also revealed figures showing that water use in cities was only three per cent lower in February than in February of 2013—a figure that Felicia Marcus, the chairwoman of the state water-resources control board, called “totally disheartening” on a call with reporters. (Last year, cities were asked to reduce their water use voluntarily.) The state asked some communities in Southern California, which actually saw an increase in water use, to explain themselves. They responded, according to the board, that the hotter weather had inspired more landscape watering (“not a great reason,” Marcus said), and that economic growth and tourism had prompted more general water use. She admits that the farms use the most water by far, but she just can't help being the reasonable centrist adult in the room and lay the blame on those selfish city folk who want things like drinking water and daily showers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
etalian posted:Shallow Alto is a horrible place The average Palo Altan is a model "liberal". They're all for gay marriage, abortion, and environmental protection (in the form of anti-development NIMBYing mostly*), but will bitch and whine about those goddamn overpaid city employees and their pensions at the drop of a hat while also whining when the free noon concerts in the park get taken away when they get their wishes and the city budget is slashed. *My dad's girlfriend's mother is the prime example of this. Grew up poor on a farm in eastern Colorado, went to Berkeley for close to free back in the 50s by giving half a poo poo about wanting to learn, bought several houses back when it was cheap around here, and now spends most of her time trying to prevent astroturf fields, apartment complexes, and cell phone relay towers from being built, which she feels will "ruin the town's charm" and "hurt the environment".
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
etalian posted:Charm in Palo Alto means preserving historic brady bunch style ranch houses that somehow sell for $2 million. Makes sense, since only old people read local newspapers for reasons other than chuckling at the police blotter.  Not pictured in the section below: "A call came in about a suspicious person in the neighborhood. Police discover it was only an African-American male on a walk."
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Eh. San Fran sounds OK. It's "Frisco" that makes people sound like retards. This isn't the 1850s. I've heard nobody use this term except for SoCal transplant bros. I'm pretty sure they're the only ones who say "The Mish", too.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Keyser S0ze posted:Have stayed right at 400 cu feet/mo of water (or 3,000 gallons) over the last few months, not sure what else I can cut back to get any lower on a 1750 sq foot house/8k sq ft lot with dead lawns. You could give up pooping! Don't even think about asking Big Ag to conserve more. The Chinese need their alfalfa and almonds at all costs.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
At least in the case of Burlingame's eucalyptuses, I'll take an improved, electrified Caltrain over some dumb invasive species of tree in a boring yuppie suburb that I never visit anyway. But that's just my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Jackson's not so bad. Hotter than poo poo in summer, to be sure, but there's also tons of cute historic Gold Rush towns all about and some half-decent wineries. The only downside is that Stockton has gotten large enough that it somewhat ruins the nighttime views from our family's friends' summer cottage that we visit sometimes. 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
jeeves posted:Also Prop 13 has hosed California for close to 40 years. My broke-rear end uncle is about to inherit my grandmother's house, which he could not possibly do if Prop 13 weren't in place. How do we convince people like him that Prop 13 is a bad thing?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
The house holds tremendous sentimental value in my family. My great-grandfather built the house with his own bare hands, it has a giant grove of avocado trees that were planted by my grandfather when he first moved there, etc etc. I'm sure a lot of other families are in similar situations, in which just selling their house for a handsome profit won't make up for losing a house with so many fond memories and associations attached to it. The "grandma clause" that someone mentioned might possibly work if Prop 13 was to be revised.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I can understand the sentimental part. That's a big reason why there's a $5.43M exemption in estate taxes (so you can inherit the family farm and not owe a big chunk of it in estate tax). But one of the most important purposes of taxes, including both estate and property taxes, is to prevent the creation of a landed gentry class that locks up wealth for generations. Thankfully the property is about 300k total (it's in a nice part of Arroyo Grande, but is in need of expensive repairs of various kinds), which is beans as far as CA goes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its actually not that bad re creationists, but your larger point still stands. Yeah, I'm willing to bet a lot of respondents are just going for a dumb "truth is somewhere in the middle" stance. Because YECs can't be completely wrong, right?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me how up their asses San Franciscans get about how progressive they are, then turn around and act FYGM as gently caress when it comes to affordable housing or homeless issues.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
For what it's worth, most techies I've talked to want more housing stock just as much as us non-techie filth do, if only to make apartment searching less of an absolute nightmare and to keep their favorite quirky authentic dive bars from closing down due to the owners no longer being able to afford SF. The real blight upon the Bay and the strongest opponents to development are myopic, selfish, property-owning boomers, just like the rest of the country. Because God forbid the million dollar home that you bought for 100k depreciates one red cent in value just so a young poor can afford a studio.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Being one of those techies who lives/works in the bay area (granted south bay, which makes me lower than dirt to SF techies Oh, don't get me wrong. Said techie friends are still libertarians with overall shitlordian economic views. They just don't want the culture totally drained from *their* chic neighborhoods, plus the apartment search has gotten to the point where it's a pain in the rear end to find somewhere even if you have a decent amount of money.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2015 22:38
|
|
) I can tell you first hand that I have to deal with a lot of libertarian shitheels as co-workers. A trio of mid 20's people I work with rent an apartment in SF for something like $6k/month, but think rent controls are bullshit and that if poor people can't afford to live in a gentrified neighborhood anymore, they should suck it up because that's the free market. 
I also have to regularly hear millennials my own age bitch about taxes/welfare/"loving homeless people"/etc. Meanwhile, they turn around and are vocally pro LGBT.
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
computer parts posted:It is, but it's very...far away from everything else. I might retire there if I can't do so in the Caribbean. I wish it was at least in northern Idaho instead. Coeur d'alene/Spokane is pretty and there are some things to do (plenty for a boring techie shut-in) and Moscow is a decent university town.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 03:55
|
|