81–90 of 172 posts
Can we just set some explosive along the fault line and end this state already? How is it possible that this largely Democrat-leaning state can be so pro-wealth/anti-middle class and poor?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere It's only better if they move elsewhere and refuse to vote for the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.
Yes. I've started to wonder whether there is anyplace in the US that has both (a) California-style restrictions on non-compete clauses in employment contracts and (b) a Land Value Tax [0] as its primary local tax (not necessarily excluding a state income tax). Since the LVT is not widely used, it looks like the answer is probably No. I think anyplace that wants to attract tech companies should enact both of these thi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and it's also frequently very wastefully used in agriculture. More water-efficient agricultural practices need to be mandated.
I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level, and have the price for water go up until the wasteful, non-worthwhile uses stop happening.
You don't see any problems with this statement?
The more prohibitively expensive California (and the Bay Area in particular) becomes, the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere, and I expect this trend to continue, perhaps even accelerate, in the future. There are advantages to having a single, super-dense concentration of business, marketing, and engineering talent but there are also (in my opin…
> the better it is for the rest of the country - entrepreneurial talent has already started to relocate elsewhere It's only better if they move elsewhere and refuse to vote for the same policies that caused the problems in the first place.
“Cities will tell you that from a property tax perspective, housing is a loser,” says David Cogdill, president of the [California Building Industry Association]. I was trying to make this point a few weeks ago here on HN, in a discussion on Prop. 13, and got pushback. I take this quote as evidence that it's common knowledge among people in the housing industry. Prop. 13 disincentivizes cities from adding housing. Pro…
A recent conversation with a co-worker really drove this home: what's crazy to me is how comically short-sighted folks are. We've priced our children out of the towns we raised them in but it doesn't seem to bother anyone. And we've slapped a huge amount of college debt on their backs, just to be sure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level, and have the price for water go up until the wasteful, non-worthwhile uses stop happening.
> I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level You don't see any problems with this statement?
Started out with an every-man appealing headline and quickly showed its stripes of being a developer funded prop 13 hit article - totally separate from the horror show environmental impact has turned into. The examples given are completely out of whack and strawmen. prop 13 allows for effective tax increase through reassessment of value, but that reassessment is capped so when the market goes crazy people aren't driv…
> that reassessment is capped so when the market goes crazy people aren't driven out of their homes By definition, the people who would be "driven out" have seen their home values wildly appreciate and they have by that token become substantially wealthy. This is like saying that if someone is on food stamps but then becomes a millionaire, it's unfair to take away their foodstamps or raise their tax rate.
Or, to put it another way, why should they no longer be able to live in their home just because the market went crazy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level, and have the price for water go up until the wasteful, non-worthwhile uses stop happening.
> I'd prefer a market solution - fix the supply of water at the correct level You don't see any problems with this statement?
“Cities will tell you that from a property tax perspective, housing is a loser,” says David Cogdill, president of the [California Building Industry Association]. I was trying to make this point a few weeks ago here on HN, in a discussion on Prop. 13, and got pushback. I take this quote as evidence that it's common knowledge among people in the housing industry. Prop. 13 disincentivizes cities from adding housing. Pro…
> Prop. 13 disincentivizes cities from adding housing. disincentivizes cities from adding low-density housing Once you start piling them up into high-rises, the revenue stream doesn't look that bad. But for multi-family high rises different cities have a number of additional requirements. Minimum parking spaces, minimum number of feet from the sidewalk, minimum footage of "green zones" consisting of lawns or trees -…
Combine with earthquake regulations essentially limiting buildings to a small number of stories and ScottBurson's comment is pretty spot-on.