California affordable housing is more expensive than luxury housing

Post by HighlandSpring » Thu, May 21, 2020, 6:33 PM UTC

stevehawk wrote: post #88

pavlov wrote: post #78

After moving to America a while ago, one thing that struck me is how a lot of things are designed as effectively regressive taxes: the poor pay more than the rich. I opened a basic bank account with a giant American bank. The account has an exorbitant monthly fee, something like $15, but it’s waived if you keep a sufficient balance or have a steady salary. So the only people who pay the crazy fee are the broke people…

Yea, don't do business with that bank. Not all banks do that.

Post by balfirevic » Thu, May 21, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

dbspin wrote: post #87

pascalxus wrote: post #74

I know this will be downvoted because people aren't really interested in solving the real problem. We could fix the whole SF homeless population problem in the space of one parking lot. Just build micro apartments of 10'x10' feet. Make it 150' wide at the base: 15x15 = 225 x 40 stories = 9000 inhabitants. 100' feet might not be much, but it's a hella of a lot more space to live in than hong kong, where people barely…

You've just described a 560 foot tall prison cube. No cooking, toilets, corridors or walls apparently. Perhaps the inhabitants whose true crime was poverty, will be happy to inhabit your force walled thought experiment. Some would be reticent. But I foresee great things coming from this most lateral solution.

Post by Lammy » Thu, May 21, 2020, 6:37 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #77

Lammy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of local governments were overtaken by the anti-growth environmental crowd at the time. Marin County in particular had their 1968 growth plan revoked and a famously anti-growth plan replaced it in 1971: http://www.sausalitohistoricalsociety.com/new-blog/2018/3/7/... 'The decisive blow against growth was initiated in 1971 with the issuance of a Marin Planning Department report that proposed preserving Marin's la…

yes, marin is a bastion of nimbyism (it's also quite pretty) but that's not the "entire environmental movement". the objection is to the exaggeration.

Post by derrick_jensen » Thu, May 21, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

Lammy wrote: post #67

chucksmash wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linking to a ngrams graph that shows "environmentalism" graphed against "civil rights" as evidence that environmentalism is just a fig leaf for segregation is beyond flimsy. Surely this must be the arch example of correlation ≠ causation.

Of course there's so much more to it, but there isn't really a single source I can link you that makes this argument. One example I can easily show is the history of planned freeways in the Bay Area that were canceled due to environmental concerns. Take a look at what areas the canceled freeways would have connected, then take a look at the demographics of those areas. Notice in particular how no freeway (or rail!) c…

Post by sokoloff » Thu, May 21, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

dionidium wrote: post #58

twblalock wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two liberties in tension: the right to do what you want on your own land, and the right to live in peace on your own land (which requires you to restrict what your neighbors can do on their land).

It's odd to me that anyone finds this compelling. You have a right to wear whatever t-shirts you like. You don't have a right to prevent other people from wearing t-shirts with colors you find objectionable. Yet, somehow in housing we've decided that, no, you actually do have the right to object to all kind of innocuous nonsense (window styles, setbacks, paint colors, and on and on). There's nothing so trivial that i…