No Pants posted:

I just did some driving, and I'm glad they're enforcing this obscure law.

No Pants posted:

Maybe they should make the fucks everyone had to pass on the right re-take the test!

marxismftw posted:

They do public enforcement campaigns on all sorts of stuff, from HOV violations, late merging, drunk driving, speeding, and now this. They get complaints, State Patrol doesn't have the resources/manpower/willpower to ticket it on a regular basis, so they do public awareness campaigns to remind everyone, that yes, it is still against the law.

They have all the resources they need right now to apply the law as it is, unfairly to minorities, without notice or a public campaign. Why do you assume this is targeted oppression rather than the opposite? After 15 years of driving on PWN highways, left lane campers that I notice are almost exclusively elderly and white. You could argue that there is something fundamentally unfair about warning white people ahead of time that they might get busted, but that assumes that everyone is equally ignorant of the law and that minorities aren't on notice about other crimes that they are disproportionately targeted for. Such a point of view would ignore that the purpose of the increased enforcement and public relations campaign is not to give out more tickets, but to remind people that it's illegal in the first place.

There's tons of issues with racism and policing in Washington, but it seems weird to try and make this specific circumstance part of it.

Officer Sandvich posted:

Road safety and traffic law enforcement publicity campaigns (the most effective being seatbelt and drunk driving enforcement) save lives. The only nefarious purpose they serve is keeping morons from killing themselves and others.

twodot posted:

Like almost the first sentence in the first link?

Places were cops pull people over for not using a seat belt have higher seat belt use rates.

Officer Sandvich posted:

Here's the data from the seatbelt link (located under the large-font "*Sources" at the bottom of list of measures) and here's the data from the drunk driving page. They're the 7th and 8th editions of the same government report titled "Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide For State Highway Safety Offices".

therobit posted:

Yeah I guess we just shouldn't enforce any laws ever. Now that we all agree can we talk about that poor mentally ill pregnant lady that got shot by police, the Oregon legislative session, or literally anything else?

therobit posted:

No, you are projecting really hard because you seem to be unable to talk about anything other than cops=bad.

therobit posted:

Don't drive like a dipshit and you won't have to worry any more than you would otherwise.

therobit posted:

It is pretty well established that the entire legal system discriminates against minorities. It has very little to do with public awareness and enforcement campaigns to get left lane grannies like Anthonypants to move the gently caress over.

therobit posted:

I am saying you are projecting your suspcions of what people think onto them. Nobody is "defending cops" here. We do, however belive that some level of enforcement of traffic laws increases compliance with tjem and yes, we hate people who hog the left lane because they are assholes.

therobit posted:

I am sorry that police have mistreated you. I don't think that the solution is to end all policing. From a social change perspective, if you engage police with an "us vs them" mentality it is not likely to bode well for getting them to listen to you or change. That isn't fair and it sucks, but it is a reality.

quote:

First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season.

Eggnogium posted:

Oh thank god, it had been eight whole pages since someone pulled out that MLK quote.

herbaceous backson posted:

Ok, sure:

quote:

2000 - 2015, United States
Legal Intervention Injury Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: Y35,Y89.0


Number of Deaths: 6,985
Population***: 4,837,059,821
Crude Rate: 0.14
Age-Adjusted Rate**: 0.15

Download Results in a Spreadsheet (CSV) File Help with Download

Reports for All Ages include those of unknown age.

* Rates based on 20 or fewer deaths may be unstable. Use with caution.

** Standard Population is 2000, all races, both sexes.

*** Population estimates are aggregated for multi-year reports to produce rates.


Produced by: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC
Data Source: NCHS Vital Statistics System for numbers of deaths. Bureau of Census for population estimates.

herbaceous backson posted:

Or the WA Posts fatal police shootings database, here.

The data seem to show pretty clearly that there's implicit bias at work, and police perceive unarmed black citizens as greater threats, but characterizing them as pigs who all get their rocks off murdering people of color doesn't seem like a productive line of argument.

The rate is higher for minorities, sure, but acting like people of color are being murdered in the streets while white criminals are given a free pass is a bit ridiculous.

herbaceous backson posted:

Anyway, the transcripts from the Charleena Lyles shooting have been released:

Maybe someone with more direct knowledge of policing can answer this, but I still don't understand why they strolled up to her apartment like there was nothing to worry about.

Both of the officers mention her mental health issues and an "officer safety caution" in the transcript. Is it asking too much for them to plan ahead and bring along something like a Taser for an interaction like this? Or better yet, a mental health professional?

therobit posted:

Honestly I think tasers and stun guns are bad things to give to police. Either someone presents enough of a threat that you should shoot them, or else you should try to subdue them with a club or your hands. I remember reading at one time that tasers tend not to be used as a less lethal alternative to firearms, but rather they get used in situations that previously would not have involved firearms and are used as a compliance tool when someone could otherwise be held, talked down, beat up, or possibly even not engaged physically.

edit: there was a ruling about this by the 4th circuit court of appeals. Just google "tasers as compliance tool" or similar and you will see a bunch of articles about this.

SeaborneClink posted:

And yet here we are now advocating beating people Rodney King style for compliance what a time to be alive!

B-b-but why didn't they just shoot the knife out of her hand?!

This loving thread.

therobit posted:

Nah I'm talking about country cousins from tri cities, walla walla, etc.

Beowulfs_Ghost posted:

McDonald's is notorious for being strict with the way it handles franchises. They are incredibly tight fisted about their image, and I bet a franchisee would get their rear end chew out for editorializing like that in a drive thru window.

nessin posted:

Again, as I pointed out, the study says they worked off single site business data from the state. Franchises that are owned locally, and not directly by the franchise corporate HQ, will almost always report as a single site business. McDonalds and Burger King definitely fit into that category. Now there may be some individual locations that were left out because a single owner may own multiple stores and I don't know enough about the legalities of business ownership in WA to say how those would be reported, so some may have been left out for that reason. Regardless of the reasoning for why they excluded multi-site locations it is a straight up falsehood, assuming the creators of the report aren't lying, to say that the report excludes fast food/franchise companies like McDonalds.

nessin posted:

If the raw data that shows that is available somewhere I haven't found it. The draft report doesn't got to that level on the UW site.

nessin posted:

That when you submit your employee records to the state you can choose to do so for each site owned by the company individually or as a collective whole (probably some level in between as well I'd imagine).

nessin posted:

Ah yes, technically incorrect but close enough to debunk a study. Unfortunately I can't really refute this point because a lot of people in the scientific community are happy to accept it as well. Led to some good times in the past, like the recent period where Europe and the US spent over a decade collectively deciding we didn't need to drug test women.

nessin posted:

I'm just responding to the common issues brought up against it.

anthonypants posted:

"I'm just asking questions!!!"

nessin posted:

You're assuming there are no franchise restaurants reporting as a single site, which isn't necessarily true because there could be an owner who only owns one facility or reports individually instead of collectively. In either of those cases that data would be in the study and thus the study is including them. Which means you're okay just assuming that it's good enough to say the study excludes franchises because the expectation is that there aren't enough representatives from the franchise industry to make the case, even if franchises are not specifically excluded.

nessin posted:

You may not have seen it because I edited it in, but to your point about my response I was quoted the text from the study, not the law, and thus I interpreted that text. You seem to be saying here that the study text is wrong. Which is fine, I'll accept that, but that doesn't seem to be a common thread in response to the study. Furthermore they say their data comes straight from Washington's Employment Security Department which includes the capability of splitting up records as stated in the text, so whether it's legal or not apparently WA lets them do it that way.

nessin posted:

Second, I'm not going to quote the big block of text to avoid bloating the forum but if you look the first five paragraphs of section 4, starting on page 12 of the link below, there is no statement of leaving out franchise data and your explanation of the net effect is one single sentence in a paragraph talking about how multi-site firms may adjust to the effect and how the employment results "may therefore be biased towards zero." That's it.

nessin posted:

http://papers.nber.org/tmp/1717-w23532.pdf

Furthermore I will quote this one section (page 14, middle paragraph, last line):


According to them their dataset includes more than half of the total workforce. If the other 38% excluded from the study is doing so much better off as to offset the overall results of the study does that actually invalidate the study? Unless the case can be made that Seattle has a significant difference in distribution of businesses than the average of the state.

quote:

Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that
the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per
month in 2016. Evidence attributes more modest effects to the first wage increase. We estimate
an effect of zero when analyzing employment in the restaurant industry at all wage levels,
comparable to many prior studies

anthonypants posted:

It sounds like a way for landlords to claim that they're being unfairly persecuted, and that's why they need to raise rents. What we need is rent control.

call to action posted:

Anyone who thinks a tax levied on non-citizens is automatically "racist" is a moron

BlueBlazer posted:

As someone living in Seattle that has had their rent go up 50% in the last 18 months I can say that landlords will use any excuse to jack the rent.

building maintenance/Property taxes/Wind shifts to the left 3 degrees on a Sunday

anthonypants posted:

Yeah, if you're coming at this from an imaginary scenario where only corporations and landlords are allowed to own property because someone needs to profit from it, then it makes sense why you keep coming to these bizarre, twisted conclusions, and also why you'll dismiss any alternative out of hand.

Teabag Dome Scandal posted:

I think the fact that there is somehow a way to provide housing without falling under the umbrella of afford to buy or gently caress you is actually very relevant to this discussion. Or is this another situation where we can't have it tomorrow so why bother envisioning it?

Javid posted:

Vacancy tax so steep that it's literally cheaper to let someone move in rent free than maintain an empty unit. This includes people who own multiple houses. Proceeds go towards low income rent subsidies.

Javid posted:

Seizure of bank-owned housing that's unoccupied for longer than [to be determined number of months]. Housing is meant to be lived in, period, not held empty. Seized houses are either auctioned with strict limits on who can bid (families of the appropriate size to occupy said house who either do not own a house, or are trying to leave a shittier house) or bulldozed to put up denser housing.

Javid posted:

Caps on deposit requirements to move in. The average person for whom this is a problem probably doesn't have 5 grand in the bank just to be monopolized in security deposits, nor should they have to. Fixing poo poo a tenant breaks is just a cost of doing business.

twodot posted:

You cut off my post because you are either an idiot or a jerk. Universal basic income should be used to care for children if guardians think that's the best use of their income. Failing that universal time off should be used by guardians to care for their children if they think that's the best use of their time off. If guardians think they need extra time and money from the state just because they decided to care for children? gently caress them. (edit: To be double clear, this in no way precludes having subsidized childcare for those who need it) (edit2: Nor does it preclude being employed by the state to be a caregiver, though claiming you need to time off from your job to do your job seems tenuous).
edit3:

Funding public schooling ensures every resident has an education. Requiring that finance quants that just got a baby get time off does nothing for the public good.

therobit posted:

Have you considered that a large portion of people for whom it would be feasible to purchase a home have already done so?

Many people who are currently renting would not be able to afford to own, and that isn't just about base price. Maintenence on a huoldingnis significant. If we are talking about them purchasing, some of them will be completely unable to secure financing due to credit history or debt to income ratios. If you are suggesting we just transfer property to them then you can come out and say that, but you are doing a really poor job of staking out a position.

DrNutt posted:

The wider society benefits currently, but as I have repeatedly said, even our current population will be unsustainable in fifty years, and we will see millions and even billions die from starvation and conflict over basic resources. Unless you are ultra rich or powerful you are literally dooming your child to this fate. And even then, being rich and powerful will only buy you a head start once society starts collapsing.

Reene posted:

I mean he's not wrong if rent payments vs mortgage payments are literally the only thing you are looking at!

GodFish posted:

yeah maybe people who can afford to spend 5-10k a year on home improvement aren't the only kind of person you bougie dumbass

Schmeichy posted:

Wow it's almost as if already having lots of money makes life really easy. If only people would "just" save up thousands of dollars first, they could own a home easy peasy.

anthonypants posted:

I was under the impression that they're saying the cost of a mortgage is roughly equivalent to the cost of rent, so there's no reason why you couldn't supplant one for the other.

Peachfart posted:

Thankfully I was in a situation where I could buy a home(private sale with lots of savings), but for most people getting 10-20% down is impossible. And the housing market is already a nightmare, we can't just go 'no down payment, buy away!'. There aren't homes for everyone to buy.

IM DAY DAY IRL posted:

and if my aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle

or still my aunt

gender is not binary

Venuz Patrol posted:

if i could buy an apartment that would be amazing. i have no reason to own something as large as a house and not nearly enough self loathing to own a microhouse

IM DAY DAY IRL posted:

I really don't know why I'm still surprised at goons being hilariously myopic in their worldview.

Reene posted:

That situation exists it's called a condo and it comes with its own host of lovely to deal with.

Let's say I do find a place that has a mortgage roughly the same as the rent I'm paying. Cool. Whoops wait now I have to pay property taxes. And homeowner's insurance, with half of Portland being in a loving flood plain so rip me. Oh yeah and I need a new roof and the insurance company does't cover it but paying a mortgage instead of rent has not magically deposited the 5-10k I'd need to get a new roof, nor has it magically deposited the extra time into my week for me to deal with all of this myself, so again rip me.

Reene posted:

Seriously I don't know how you get to us being the idiots. Especially after you listed off several thousand dollars worth of home improvements as though that's change people have lying around.

Shifty Nipples posted:

That's about four times what I can afford so thanks for the advice.

IM DAY DAY IRL posted:

sorry, that implies that you've already managed to save literally tens of thousands of dollars in liquid funds for a downpayment, something that, for the purposes of Condemn's viewpoint, is so insignificant that it doesn't warrant a second thought

running a marathon is really easy if you start at mile 25

Reene posted:

yeah and I am conveniently skipping over the fact that there is no way I'll find a mortgage for ~500/mo but hey

Peachfart posted:

When you reach a certain level of income, it becomes harder and harder to grasp how lower income people value each dollar differently.
When I was younger and far more broke, a family member got married on a Canadian island that had an extremely expensive ferry and rooms were very pricey. I got into an argument with that family member because they couldn't understand why I had difficulty paying the roughly $500 bucks for the trip, it wasn't very much money at all. For me it was the choice between rent and no rent.

ElCondemn, try to think about the majority of renters in Washington. These people don't have 2k for rent in the first place.

Reene posted:

Where exactly did you find it because I'll wager it's smack dab in the middle of "not a place I can get to work from" with a dash of "needs love as a euphemism for ~100k in renovations unless you like building code violations and cockroaches"

Peachfart posted:

I'm trying to imagine the horrors that exist in any home in Washington going under 100k.

'Ceiling not included'
'Plumbing needs work(i.e. has been torn out by addicts)'
'Equal access to all major cities(is literally right between Seattle and Portland, just south of Centralia)'

Peachfart posted:

Unless he is 55+, he will be unable to purchase that unit.

IM DAY DAY IRL posted:

Reene posted:

And I'm in decent shape income-wise. This time last year I was making two thirds what I am now. You are out of touch and your advice is bad.

IM DAY DAY IRL posted:

As soon as you provide some sort of real-world scenario in which this would ever happen? You can blue-sky a revolution of the financing industry all you'd like but without any realistic proposal it just boils back down to 'home ownership is easy if you just simply remove the difficult parts.'

seiferguy posted:

Mountlake Terrace is still at least an hour drive away to downtown Seattle in rush hour traffic. Taking a bus isn't much better since the carpool lane ends at Northgate.

therobit posted:

Also the suggestion that we just get rid of down payment requirements..... Uh we tried that already. You used to be able to get 80/20 financing. It did no go so well. Please see the US housing market 2003-2007 and the resulting global financial crisis 2007-2009.

Chadderbox posted:

Are you suggesting that down payments be banned or capped at the legislative level? If so it would help to be more clear about that. The reason everyone is arguing with you is because down payment costs ARE currently required, and therefore cannot be disregarded when discussing the current cost of purchasing a home versus renting.

"I only have 8 fingers if you completely disregard the thumbs that are still attached to my hands." is what everyone but you seems to be hearing. Not trying to be rude here, sorry in advance if it comes across that way.

Peachfart posted:

As discussed earlier in the thread: there is no reason to have a foreign investment tax when a vacancy tax is easier to enforce, more effective, and less racially charged.

Peachfart posted:

What people think a foreign investment tax will do: Hello, I'm Mr. Chou. I want to park money overseas in Seattle in real estate. Oh no! A foreign investment tax! ::Yellow menace vanishes, rents are cheap again::

What a foreign investment tax will actually do: Hello, I'm Mr. Chou. I want to park money overseas in Seattle in real estate. Oh, a foreign investment tax. I guess I will use a shell company in the USA to get out of paying for this tax entirely. Idiots.

What a vacancy tax will do: blah blah, a vacancy tax? Hm, that means I will need to keep any properties I purchase occupied, and deal with the hassles, taxes, and scrutiny of being a landlord, or pay a large tax. I will avoid this market. (also this one actually affects local rich people, who are the ones actually causing the issue)