Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 427 posts

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#301

Post by Nasrudith »

elgenie wrote: post #197
antonvs wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some relevance in that investors like that are likely to have no ties to the community and no interest in anything other than profit. Of course many local investors are the same way.

Investors from outside of the community may not have interest in anything other than returns. “Investors” from an autocracy where future property rights can’t entirely be taken for granted may not be interested even in that; they could just want to hedge their government risk by parking some money in non-seizable assets located outside of the country, and then minimize any resulting management headache.

Do investors inside the community neccessarily care any more than ones outside it? It brings to mind the stupid xenophobia of thinking being oppressed by "their people" is better than having open elections where an immigrant can run.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#302

Post by darksaints »

nitwit005 wrote: post #50
nimish wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racism. The roots of zoning are indelibly intertwined with reinforcing white supremacy.

Even with no zoning laws quite a few areas in the US would be like this. Companies have built giant housing developments with no shops.

There is only one city in the US that doesn't have zoning, but they still have other forms of regulation that effectively serve the same purpose. It is essentially impossible to get mixed use zoning in the vast majority of the US.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#303

Post by CincinnatiMan »

badgerigar wrote: post #280
brobdingnagians wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can anyone explain how the term "Karen" isn't both racist and sexist at the same time? I hadn't heard of it until a few months ago, and now it seems everyone is using it to refer to a certain kind of "middle class white woman". A term like that to describe a certain kind of middle class asian or black man would be very offensive. Are the days where we try to exercise civility and empathy gone? It feels like society h…

It may be racist and sexist, but it is also true. Pretty much all rapists are men, but we don't let fear of sexism stop us from pointing this out. Likewise, Karen behaviour is found pretty much exclusively in (a small subset of) white (and Asian?) women. Nearly everybody who has worked retail can recognise the type and pretending it doesn't exist is not virtuous.

You say Karens are always white or Asian. Would it be ok if we came up with a name for Black jerks, or Hispanic jerks?

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#304

Post by AnthonyMouse »

buran77 wrote: post #293
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a Karen has nothing to do with your actual first name. What you're really doing there is showing why it isn't sexist even though it's implicitly female. The detail is only there for color, not as a core component of the archetype.

It is insulting via the sexist, racist, and stereotype routes simply because you meant it to be insulting. You explicitly use the "image" of a white woman in a stereotypically unflattering situation as an insult. In this case it's your implication that [quoting you] "a specific type of asshole" must be associated with the image of a white woman as represented by the name "Karen". Only a serious level of bigotry would…

It's insulting via the "Karens are bad people" route because I meant it to be insulting. Karens are terrible, even when they're teenage Vietnamese males.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#305

Post by bluGill »

bobthepanda wrote: post #115
enchiridion wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, which is why commercial lending is a farce in my opinion. It's more or less built on wishful thinking of future gains, leading to a lot of vacancy.

At least in residential lending the problem is that the FHA has specific rules on what it will and will not guarantee, distorting the market in favor of mostly single-use residential. Really we should pull that and the mortgage deduction, because at this point both distort the market in favor of people who can afford to own property.

I suspect mortgage deduction will be gone in a few years. With Trump's tax reforms very few people take it, and so they won't be for it. If they eliminated it entirely now too many people remember it as good, but give it a few years to sink in that only the rich (or those living in California, which is itself a point against it elsewhere) take it, not you can get rid of it.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#306

Post by AnthonyMouse »

b112 wrote: post #291
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just call someone what they are. "Asshole" has worked fine for millennia. Except that Karens and assholes are different. Karens can be assholes, sure, but a Karen is a specific type of asshole. Football hooligans may be assholes but they're generally not Karens. It means something different, and there isn't another word that means the same thing.

Unless a 'Karen' can be an elderly aging Asian man, it's sexist, ageish and racist. Here's a few other such terms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs A lot of these terms link specific behaviour, to specific ethnic/sex/cultural groups. I guess they're OK too? I find it utterly disgusting, that some people think some things are 'one way'. That racism is OK, but only "one way". Sexism is OK, but only ag…

> Unless a 'Karen' can be an elderly aging Asian man, it's sexist, ageish and racist.

Well then it's a good thing that it can.

> Let's see how long you last, if you see a lazy black person (they exist, like lazy people exist everywhere)... and you spout out "Bluegum!" Is that OK?

That is a racial slur. Its meaning is defined by race.

A Karen is defined by behavior.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#307

Post by bluGill »

bobthepanda wrote: post #141
throw737 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replace portion of income tax with simple property tax. No complicated stuff like "unoccupied property taxes and non-resident investor taxes".

Even better than property tax, land value tax. Charging tax on property (building + land) mostly just disincentivizes more intensive buildings.

The land value should be taxed, but it isn't a simple answer. Large buildings imply more people which mean more use of city services. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I am sure simple answers that would fit into a comment box here are wrong.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#308

Post by nonford150 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #101
Spooky23 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In theory sure. In reality, the financial system is oriented towards big capital. My aunt ran a coffee shop that was established by grandparents in 1939. It was in the lobby of a office building in he central business district of our little city. The building was bought by a Chinese investor. Like other similar stores, her rent went up 5x and she shuttered. I live in a mixed use urban neighborhood. 50% of he storefro…

The problem is people want to call it "mixed zoning" but still have Karens on the central planning committee making stupid rules, e.g. they'll have "businesses" next to "residences" but a given plot will be explicitly designated as one or the other. What you really want is the small businesses which start off being operated out of the proprietor's residence. A hair salon in a converted living room, a restaurant servi…

Blame the writers of "Will & Grace".

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#309

Post by throwaway0a5e »

aahhahahaaa wrote: post #13

How did we slip away so far from this being fairly obvious? Cities have worked well this way for hundreds of years. Maybe the industrial revolution made cities too unpleasant? Were we too spoiled by the automobile industry and government roads? White flight from cities into the suburbs?

>How did we slip away so far from this being fairly obvious?

People got rich enough that the noise from the bar on the other side of the block or the mechanic shop across the street made their list of "big problems" and they complained to local government until government restricted everyone's property rights.

Re: Put tiny businesses back into residential neighborhoods

#310

Post by bluGill »

Nasrudith wrote: post #301
elgenie wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors from outside of the community may not have interest in anything other than returns. “Investors” from an autocracy where future property rights can’t entirely be taken for granted may not be interested even in that; they could just want to hedge their government risk by parking some money in non-seizable assets located outside of the country, and then minimize any resulting management headache.

Do investors inside the community neccessarily care any more than ones outside it? It brings to mind the stupid xenophobia of thinking being oppressed by "their people" is better than having open elections where an immigrant can run.

Investors inside generally have different incentives. They are close enough to drive by and see how things are doing. Wreck the building and they will notice. Investors from outside can be fooled.

Also if the investor is just looking for a place to save money outside of their unstable country they may be better off losing money on the deal!

Post reply on HN