|
Dead Last posted:They're misusing environmental protection laws (private mass transit is bad for the environment!) to push an unrelated agenda (make it harder for tech employees to live in San Francisco!). The issue is made more complex because the very communities where the tech companies locate are also the communities that prevented BART service from reaching those tech jobs. Combine with the legitimately illegal way the buses were operated, and it becomes very easy to see how people can get frustrated at people using resources and not really giving back for them (especially since SF has a payroll tax that companies avoid by remaining down south). Also realize that the environmental impact report that the protesters are suing to have done doesn't just cover natural impacts but also community impact; like disruption to MUNI service caused by these private buses using public bus stops. So not as much an abuse as it is SOP. Unfortunately, I think the people who want to dress like clowns are drowning out a legitimate discussion about a complicated issue and instead turning it into "tech versus not-tech", when really its about the fact that many Bay Area communities refuse to adapt to a denser reality. I'm not talking about SF or Oakland, both these cities are building new and denser developments. Its the cities where the job growth is, and the peninsula in particular, that refuses to adjust to their own changing economics.
|
#
¿
May 6, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:A decrease from 2497 to 333. Newsom's admission doesn't seem to correspond with the data presented. That's just how many people used a single city assistance program and has nothing to do with the actual homeless population. If you think the homeless population has ever been as low as 2497, I have a tunnel to Marin to sell you.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Jungle primaries are awesome because it means general elections are more likely to be some sort of contest instead of the primary deciding half the districts.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
AYC posted:One of the benefits of the system is that I can vote for a third party candidate in the primaries without feeling like I'm wasting my vote in the general. If by some miracle the third party candidate beats either the GOP or Dem one, it's a realistic two-way race in November. Yeah this system actually helps third parties because previously "safe" red/blue districts can be challenged by 3rd parties from their left/right rather than the general being uncontested. No longer is the Democratic primary the final election in SF.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
AYC posted:I'd love it if an actual third party got onto the general this way. Has that happened yet? Since 2012 was the first year these primaries applied to Federal elections, we don't have much of a sample but 5 independent candidates did make it to the general for congressional seats in 2013.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Oh, dear, now conservative Texan shitlords are smugging it up about Sriracha and the CEO calling California "communist and anti-business"... Yeah, I liked how the city lawyer was quoted as saying "Its hard to tell people that because you don't want to appear anti-business that they or their children with asthma just have to stay in their homes and not go outside." Bizarro Watt posted:You should have seen them when Toyota recently decided to move their sales headquarters from Torrance to Plano. My favorite part of this was how the tax breaks Texas gave Toyota had no impact on the move too.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Actually, a lot of it goes to things like fracking. If by a lot you mean 1 well is less than 1 single family home.... The article you posted posted:an average of 127,127 gallons of water was used to frack a single oil well in California last year, below the 146,000 gallons consumed by a family of four throughout the year Edit2: wikipedia posted:2013 California's Department of Conservation director Mark Nechodom estimated the state "might see around 650 hydraulic fracturing jobs a year" So fracing as a whole in California uses less water than ~4,000 people. Fracing has water resource issues, but its not quantity in California. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 00:22 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Texas has a very high property tax rate (~1.88% in a lot of cities) that helps make up for the lack of an income tax.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'll take San Francisco's brand of smug and insufferable yuppies over Texas's brand of poo poo-kicking, wannabe-cowboy, hyper-Nationalist, bible-thumping racist conservatism every day of the week. I won't deny San Francisco has a lot of terrible people, but at least our terrible people aren't joyfully electing governors that execute more prisoners annually than the rest of the country combined - including the mentally disabled - and are proud of that fact. To be fair, you can find those exact same "Texas" sentiments in a lot of rural California. There are more Tea Partiers in California than Texas after all (hint: California is a bigger state).
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
Papercut posted:It's funny how the same ridiculous attitude that the Bay Area has about LA is now being adopted by East and South Bayers about SF. So much hate on one side while the other side is just like, "yeah, that area is cool". The problem is that to all of these spurned-lover emigrants, all SF is is street festivals and letting your freak flag fly, but to lots of people SF is also about incredible natural geography, historic architecture, fantastic museums, and world-class parks. Sorry that those of us who remain aren't keeping it weird enough for you and Vice. To be fair, I hear SF people use "Bridge and Tunnel" a lot these days and there's generally an attitude that only the poors live in the East Bay and there's a general ignorance of the fact the East Bay has incredible natural geography, historic architecture and some silly museums too.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
There's also something special about SF stealing a NYC term in an attempt to be superior to Oakland/Berkeley/et al.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:And SoCal isn't segregated? Thanks for the laugh. But see we have asians so it makes it not segregated!
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
Someone rename this "Californians can't stop talking about Texas" thread. Because clearly its what everyone wants to do.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Texas is the state California gets compared to the most, and there are very good reasons for it. They both are filled with people who think their state is the best? I'm fine with discussing actual policy or political differences between the two states, however talking about "which town is coolest" is going to end with nothing but people arguing about who has the best subjective opinion. Obviously if one moved away from somewhere voluntarily, one may not like the place one left. Shocking. Shbobdb posted:As a recent transplant to Oakland, who are the most D&D candidates to vote for in the primary? I know it is a way out but I want to start vandalizing campaign offices sooner rather than later. It's more of a SoCal thing, but I'm thinking arson is in this season. Well, the only person that voted against the war in Afghanistan represents a large chunk of Oakland so she's pretty d&d.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Mofabio posted:For mayor, that'd be Shake Anderson of the Oakland Greens. Wow, now that's a bad website. Regardless...so this system would create a whole new system of districts, a whole new city council aka "Congress of Directors" just for budgeting. Oh yeah, and the kicker only people who have the time/money to attend meetings gets to vote for the elected representatives that would theoretically control the budget. Yup, if you don't have time to attend at least 1 of the only 10 community meeting a year, you don't even deserve to be notified of budget votes let alone vote in it. And people say this somehow would increase participation instead of just further concentrating power in those already able to wield it. Also there are exactly 0 restrictions on the day or time that these meetings will be held. In what conceivable way is that convoluted system better just having the budget go up for a city-wide vote (that all voters can vote in)? Edit: Holy poo poo, I just read through this proposal again and realize that in fact those committees and meetings are all meaningless because at the end of the day the budget vote (still limited to people who can attend meetings) will decide the % allocated to each department. So why create several new full-time staff positions and literally hundreds of new meetings and committees? Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 04:12 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
My favorites are the ones that have been up forever, including the classic "CONGRESS CREATED DUSTBOWL". FOOD GROWS WHERE WATER FLOWS
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Hog Obituary posted:Perhaps this is a little hyperlocal, but there was this blog post about some lady's experience at a neighborhood planning meeting (and why SF residents are the reason we can't get more housing) Wait doesn't that post makes it sound like the developer wasn't stopped by the meeting, but just had to listen to some idiots? That seems like a fair deal in exchange for a sweet payday. I mean, if you look at the number of new units added in SF versus say the 50 square miles to the north or the 50 square miles to the south, SF has added a lot more units, and is at a considerably higher density. I don't think SF (or Oakland for that matter) is the real issue when it comes to a lack of housing in the Bay Area. edit: 50 != 5 Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 01:52 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Dusseldorf posted:It's absolutely the issue because people are being pushed out in to Vallejo and Walnut Creek for 50 mile commutes they (and no one else) wants because the city cores are stagnant with regard to housing. If the suburbs in Marin or wherever aren't building housing that's great for everyone because it means fewer people are jamming everything up every day. SF is increasing the number of units available. Its already one of the densest cities in the US, meanwhile Daly City and the peninsula have a commuter rail connection and 0 desire to grow their housing, even as their employment base grows. There are 6,000 new units of housing under construction in SF right now and up to another 44,000 in the pipeline. That's about as much as ABAG estimates San Mateo county will build by 2040. That's the problem, that our transit connected suburbs refuse to densify.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
on the left posted:Yeah, i'm sure Google hires a bunch of stunted manchildren when it recruits at top colleges. They are no match for the cultured Something Awful poster checking out the lastest anime Let's Play. Obviously you haven't spent much time in the Mountain View bar scene....just kidding, they all live in the Mission and never go out. Edit: My gripe with that article is that is is kinda light on potential solutions for all its exposition. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 23:28 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:
Did your friend write that piece or something? Because you are super defensive about it. I'm pretty sure real journalists actually cover proposed solutions not just the problem, I guess blogs can't be held to that same standard in your world? That piece did a good job of informing about a million and a half potential problems and had proposed solutions at the very end of it actually (if you read that far). The proposed solutions however, were pretty worthless and wouldn't have any impact on the problems and mostly came in the "lets all get along guys!" vein.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
There's a good Nate Silver piece that argues that Republicans win nationally when they are able to win SV. I think its this one: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/28/in-silicon-valley-technology-talent-gap-threatens-g-o-p-campaigns/
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:This is untrue, and a 'thing' that started getting repeated not that long ago (in years) as a reason to hide from noticing big picture problems. Fine, you can criticize the concept of journalist presenting "solutions", but this article does present them and the solutions argued for are quite weak. If it hadn't dedicated space to presenting solutions, I wouldn't have an issue with the fact there are none being discussed that are viable. But when an article attempts to cover that space it opens itself up to criticism on its solutions that it proposes. I can forgive you if you didn't read that far.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I was specifically criticizing your stance, based on your assumption of that lovely attitude, as per a repeated assertion: You're completely taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm not arguing that journalists should design solutions, I'm arguing that journalists should cover the solutions that are being preposed by policymakers, activists and stakeholders. Good journalists have been doing this since, I don't know at least, Edward R Murrow. This article attempts to do so, but does so poorly in my opinion. Edit: What I'm trying to say is, that in a 13,000 word essay the author would have been better off spending no time on solutions or a lot more than the ~500 words she did spend. That's just not enough space to do a fair treatment of the complexity of the topic. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:37 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 24, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:As far as Marin etc, work is underway on a rail line that is too underfunded to go past San Rafael. They have the right idea, though, to link, eventually with the ferry landing. I think boats are a bigger part of a proper transportation grid than they're given credit for. The city only seems to be recently coming around to the idea that the Ferry Building should be more than a mall at the end of Market. Talk of BART going into Marin etc is bullshit. There's no way to do that which is safe for transport ships and BART passengers alike except another Transbay Tube, and it's amazing feat of engineering that the current one has worked for decades, through earthquakes and without a huge ship dragging anchor into it or any other events. I'm sorry but the transbay tube is nothing special engineeringwise, its actually pretty boring. Heck, the Posey Tunnel is more impressive, just because of its age. The SF Bay is a heavily controlled waterway, big ships only anchor at pre-defined anchorages, and all the major underwater dangers (like the pipes with 1/2 of the SF water supply) are clearly marked as no-anchorage zones. Plus, concrete is pretty thick and all. There isn't an engineering problem with a BART link to Marin, there's a political problem. Marin doesn't want it and they didn't want it when they had the chance to join BART at the very beginning. They don't want to make it too easy for people from the cities to come and use/steal their stuff (See Marin's freakout over Lucas's plan to build affordable housing).
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
natetimm posted:People who think there's an income problem in CA probably aren't aware we already pay the 4th highest taxes in the nation, even with prop 13 the way it is. I'll give you a hint: Its not property taxes preventing people from buying homes in California.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
natetimm posted:No, it's rampant speculation driving the cost of houses up, which is why getting rid of prop 13 is a bad deal for Californians in general. The housing market is run by a bunch of crooks knowingly keeping the bubble as big as possible to profit, and using their inflated estimates to inflict what some people deem to be a "fair" system of taxation would just result in a shitload of people being forced to sell. It's nice if you want to take the windfall on your house and move out of state, but if you want to try to make a living here in the land of expensive everything prop 13 is one of the things that still makes that possible for many people. Uh do you actually have a source for that? Because property tax is such a small portion of both total cost of home ownership and total tax burden that I doubt that low property taxes are actually making new home ownership viable. Meanwhile, the housing market is no where near as stable as your prop 13 theory would propose.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Even with your dumbass cherry-picked graph that primarily shows the housing bubble bursting and no other trends over 30-40 years, the prices are already almost back up where they were pre-burst. People who bought houses for around 100k in the 80s and early 90s cant afford to pay taxes on the 350-500k their houses have artificially ballooned up to and prop 13 insulates them from that bullshit. You realize there's something called inflation right? Lets use your example. Say they bought that house in 1987, so your theoretical 100k home would be worth at least 200k now due to inflation alone. Prop 13 only ensures that cities can never benefit from housing bubbles only deal with the impacts of housing crashes. natetimm posted:Why are a bunch of leftists arguing for a situation that lets speculators and capitalists drive middle class people out of their homes? Nice strawman.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The argument is that somehow prop 13 is putting CA in the poorhouse and it just isn't true. Either you can't read or are being purposefully dense. The argument is that prop 13 disproportionally impacts local governments along with forcing California to rely on less stable income sources (sales tax). That and that prop 13 actually decreases the available home sales stock, furthering the bubbles you decry. etalian posted:I think everyone can agree direct democracy is a really bad idea especially when it affects things such financial inner workings. Someone in just this thread was arguing for more Byzantine "direct democracy" for our cities, that had mandatory meetings. Let that sink in. So alas, there isn't even agreement there.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you don't see the harm in forcing people to sell their homes with taxes they can't afford so the wealthy can swoop in and send the poors out further east I don't know what to tell you. It's amazing that everyone becomes a libertarian when they get a chance to gently caress someone over and profit out of the deal. You've never actually proven the link between an increase in property tax rates and people being forced to leave their homes. You know why I think this is BS? Because all the other states in this Union manage to keep old people in their homes while having property taxes that rise with long-term home values. Besides, as many people in this thread noted, there are several ways to implement a change in property tax values that would completely eliminate this harm (e.g. ending prop 13 for all new sales, limiting the property tax increase based on income, providing property tax exceptions for the elderly are just 3 examples). Meanwhile Prop 13 does make it harder for middle class families to afford to buy a home in the first place, while incentivizing speculation and rentals. Also, can you make a single post without adding a cutesy strawman attack at the end?
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
natetimm posted:If you can find me another state where people are sitting on 400k houses they bought for 40k in the 70s where the median income for the state is about 30-40k a year then maybe you can use that state as a comparison. It is incredibly dishonest to use medium income for the whole population to argue about the income of homeowners. Homeowners generally make more than renters. Because it would stop providing a tax incentive to landlords and speculative investors to just sit on properties. Look at the cash sales rate, those aren't middle income families. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:15 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Telesphorus posted:This discussion has enlightened me, i.e. California's budget is dysfunctional not because of stereotypical liberal "overspending" but quite the opposite. I find it ironic, especially since Fox News will point to our terrible schools and associate it with welfare, etc. the 2/3s majority required to pass a budget has a lot to do with the state's budget problems too.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
cheese posted:California's property situation is hosed, and there is no easy solution to making it better in the the bay area. I make low 50's as a newish teacher and my gf makes low 60's working as one of the barely valued non-engineers for a peninsula tech company. We have come to the conclusion that one (or both) of us is going to have to change careers if we ever want to own a home that isn't in the little Mexico area of San Jose. The insult to injury is that all of the attractive new 3-4 story apartment units being built start at 2500 a month for a fairly modest 2 bedroom... Obviously just live in
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
cheese posted:The conclusion we came to, after factoring everything in, including potential future volatility in state budgets (teacher layoffs) and the probability of a future "correction" in the tech industry (private sector marketing layoffs), was that home ownership may never be for us. If it becomes a cost/benefits analysis, its hard to justify unless you can be 100% sure you want to be in the same area in 10 or 20 years (and we can't). Except how much will you pay in rent versus the cost of home ownership? Rents are so crazy, you might break even sooner than you think. The NYTs has a good chart designed to make you think more about renting, but tends to do the opposite in the bay: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/upshot/buy-rent-calculator.html
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Minarchist posted:Has there been anything new about that Silicon Valley venture capitalist who proposed splitting California into multiple states? He's still "campaigning" as far as I'm aware.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
We disagree with him so we must hate old people, the middle class and apple pie. QED. Jeez liberals why do you suck so bad!
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It isn't JUST grannies who benefit, it's the notion that you get to pass the property to your family at the same tax rate instead of having the state step in and rake you over the coals because a bunch of speculators ran up the market. The reason 70% of Californians like prop 13 is because it allows them to leave the legacy of affordable housing to their descendants instead of being confiscated for "betterment of all" and the benefit of the supposedly free market. You just keep making poo poo up and ignoring everything people say that refutes you. Only 58% of Californians support Prop 13. (http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Poll-finds-support-for-Prop-13-change-4559564.php) And then you're conflating rent control & prop 13. Those are so very different and the fact you act like they are the same is just more of your dishonest argumentation. So now your argument is changing to the fact that old people deserve to make sure their houses can go to their kids and that the kids get to pay well below what their neighbor pays in property taxes. Edit: Your own example disproves your point....NY has property taxes that are more than 2x those in CA. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 19:38 on May 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
natetimm posted:The people who buy those new houses know the situation they are buying into, nobody is holding a gun to their head and saying "buy this house with taxes higher than your neighbor." The question is whether or not that person's feeling of entitlement trumps the democratic majority of people who want to continue to provide their families a place to live or a legacy through prop 13. It's absolutely a gentrification issue and Californians as a whole don't want to be forced out of their homes by speculators and people who bought into a situation with both eyes open. In 20 years the person who bought that house today is going to be receiving the same benefit through prop 13 as long as they keep their property. Everyone benefits from it eventually, and it's a stupid idea to repeal it just because someone who just bought in isn't seeing the benefit RIGHT NOW. Everyone who is a homeowner you mean. gently caress renters am I right? Those 44% of Californians can suck it.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I know lots of people whose only method to stay near the area they work in and near the services they need is through Prop 13. I work on a military base in Coronado and the vast majority of people who work here and own houses probably average 50k a year and are able to maintain a reasonable distance to work and services due to prop 13. These people's livelihoods aren't going to stop revolving around their place of employment, and forcing them out of their homes and further out of town for the sake of tax income and gentrification is only going to cause more traffic, pollution and stress where it isn't really necessary. I can understand the frustration new buyeers have with people who were grandfathered in, and like I said I'm in favor of repealing 13 for business properties. I just don't see it as a net gain to price people out of their own houses over a serious case of sour grapes. Hell, even add a tax if the property is rented, but it's tough to make ends meet in CA and letting people continue to have a place for their family and sustain already-built communities is a net good for society, even if it costs the state a little more in money and logistics. Can you try for once to post without littering your post with lovely insults and straw man attacks?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Hey man I hear they're hiring mods maybe you can apply and do it for real instead of constantly from the back seat! At least you can continue your constant streak of hypocrisy. Seriously, why would an income-neutral replacement of prop 13 (reducing, say sales or low income tax brackets) force your "bought a house on a fixed income in 1970s and now its worth 1M and I don't want to cash out grandma" to actually sell her home? Property taxes, even brought up to closer to real value just isn't a big share of the tax burden (even in other states).
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
natetimm posted:If it's so minute, whay argue for it in the first place? So you agree it wouldn't kick people out of their homes then?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 21:04
|
|