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

Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 388 posts

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#361

Post by qeternity »

woodruffw wrote: post #128
tempsy wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still exaggerating. Streeteasy says median for Bushwick is $3200. Zumper has it at $2850 for a 1 bedroom https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/new-york-ny/bushwick Yes, it's possible to rent for cheaper in the outer boroughs hence why I specifically said central and convenient. If something is $1800 it's because it's a dump or a tiny studio. It's not a normal amount rent someone is paying at all for their own p…

I don't know what to tell you: I pay about $1600 for my part of a three bedroom, which is two bedrooms to myself (one is my office), a private back yard, a front patio, and a furnished basement. I don't think I got a particularly good deal on it either, from talking to my neighbors and friends. It's not "luxury," but it definitely isn't a dump either -- from seeing other units in the neighborhood, it's probably stric…

1/3 of a 3BR !== 1BR

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#363

Post by fundad »

refurb wrote: post #348
toss1 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights. A…

Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". Wait, you’re saying the Supreme Court read it wrong, but you read it correctly? That’s your argument?

SCOTUS is a political body. Those decisions were promised during the 2016 presidential political campaign and he delivered.

It’s not like they’re scientists.

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#364

Post by toss1 »

refurb wrote: post #348
toss1 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights. A…

Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...". Wait, you’re saying the Supreme Court read it wrong, but you read it correctly? That’s your argument?

Two years ago, I would not have made that argument, as SCOTUS actually practiced their stated policy of stare decisis — The doctrine or principle that precedent should determine legal decision making in a case involving similar facts — SCOTUS overturning it's own decisions was a rare event.

However, in the last two years, the court has repeatedly overturned, either explicitly or by the shadow docket, many large precedents set by the same court.

The impetus from the court politically skewed by senate leadership (note Merrick Garland, Amy Cohen Barrett), and the nature of the cases taken by the court and these reversals is obviously political.

This opens up as fair game all prior SCOTUS decisions, as they are obviously not settled law, but open to change on a whim. The SCOTUS has degraded its status from a determiner of settled law to a set of umpires for the current inning.

So, yes, it is entirely reasonable to question prior SCOTUS decisions, especially now.

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#365

Post by toss1 »

seanw444 wrote: post #330
toss1 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ummm, that's not the definition of a militia. The definition of a militia is a body of non-professional (ordinary citizen) soldiers not part of the regular army, who stand ready to be called up in an emergency. Notice the being called up part - the militia is to be SERVING IN and to be UNDER THE COMMAND of the ordinary military hierarchy. A militia is NOT as you are implying, some kind of batch of citizens ready to r…

This country recognizes state-affiliated militias, and independent militias, both in law and court precedent. The state-affiliated militia would effectively be the national guard in modern times. That is not what I am talking about. Nor is it explicitly the kind mentioned in the 2A, which was clearly intentional. The fall of nearly all great nations of this magnitude in history have been due to internal corruption an…

Um, no.

"all 50 states have some provision in their state law, whether it's their state constitution or their state statutes, that prohibits private militia, private paramilitary activity. " [0]

"In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in a major gun rights case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, that citizens had a right to own a firearm for purposes other than being in a militia, namely for self-defense. The ruling affirmed the right of states to restrict militia-like activity." [1]

So, it is pretty much decided that independent militias, unaccountable to the state(s), can be illegal under the constitution, and are in fact illegal in all 50 states.

So, either the founders were either not actually interested in unregulated militias (hint: they did say "well regulated", not "unregulated, independent"), or SCOTUS has gotten it wrong — very possible, but it is very unlikely that a different SCOTUS would help, as this is the most right-wing SCOTUS in a century and it still upheld outlawing independent militias.

And again, there is nothing that says that independent militias would not, or could not have qualification standards. In fact, they'd be idiots not to.

Again, I do not see any right to buy arms & ammo as easily as a bunch of bananas, or that the right is enshrined for insane, incompetent, or irresponsible people. Being required to pass a background check, not have demonstrated inability to control your own violence, and demonstrate basic safety and skill with firearms is not infringement.

I live in Massachusetts, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. It is a minor inconvenience, certainly nothing resembling infringement. We need to attend a 2-3 hour safety session and iirc get the cert signed off by the Chief Of Police in the town[2].

The results are clear [3]. While the nation has hundreds of mass shootings every year, there have been only 2 in MA in this century (the only one in the last two decades being in the Boston Marathon Bombing, an international terrorist act), and only 4 in the last 33 years.

Yet, if I want to, I can go get qualified and get a firearm next week.

Seriously, where is the infringement?

[0] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/30/907720068/are-citizen-militia...

[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2020-09-2...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_in_Mas...

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#366

Post by seanw444 »

toss1 wrote: post #365
seanw444 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This country recognizes state-affiliated militias, and independent militias, both in law and court precedent. The state-affiliated militia would effectively be the national guard in modern times. That is not what I am talking about. Nor is it explicitly the kind mentioned in the 2A, which was clearly intentional. The fall of nearly all great nations of this magnitude in history have been due to internal corruption an…

Um, no. "all 50 states have some provision in their state law, whether it's their state constitution or their state statutes, that prohibits private militia, private paramilitary activity. " [0] "In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in a major gun rights case, District of Columbia vs. Heller, that citizens had a right to own a firearm for purposes other than being in a militia, namely for self-defense. The ruling affirme…

You can have a private militia, so long as you don't take your operations to the public realm. And if it gets to the point where your militia is useful, then I don't think that law matters anyways.

Also, I still find SCOTUS too milquetoast to represent me. They still ruled in favor of permitting, which is blatantly unconstitutional, and to argue otherwise is totally disingenuous.

I don't think you're worth my time, nor am I yours.

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#368

Post by exochrono »

z3ugma wrote: post #279
exochrono wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see these offices turned into housing as much as anyone, but I also recommend reading this amazing NYT article on why it's not quite so simple as just rezoning or a simple interior remodel - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/03/11/upshot/office...

This is very interesting, but it assumes the predicate that separated apartments with individual kitchens and bathrooms are the right way for people to live. And 1 BR and studios at that. These are buildings designed for communal occupancy as offices, why not lean into that as residences? Think like a 1-2 floor cooperative housing for a community of 50-100 people in 25-50 family units. Everyone gets private bedrooms,…

Agreed - a friend in Tokyo mentioned that his neighborhood had small apartments that didn't have their own bathrooms but instead came with unlimited access to the public bathhouse down the street. If you were down with that tradeoff you could get an apt in a super desirable neighborhood for ~$300/mo.

Sounds like an amazing option to me, but totally prevented by zoning / regulations in the US.

Re: Downtown SF has 18.4M square feet of empty office space. We mapped every vacancy

#370

Post by theironhammer »

alephnerd wrote: post #164
theironhammer wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you should have a look at this book. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/william-kleinknec... Some Red States are an absolute mess. Some of their stats resemble third world countries. Their education systems are shoddy. Their drinking water systems are dangerous to health. Taxes are shameful: low taxes for the wealthy but high sales taxes which hurt the poor the most. Just for starters.

Not a fan of the GOP and I have actively worked with the DNC, but using HDI (which is the goto metric for comparing development across regions), most US states Red and Blue are roughly comparable to other western European peers. The states that do lag significantly (MS+WV) are comparable to Portugal/Poland/Greece on developmental metrics, but they only represent ~1% of the entire American population and are anomalies…

Fair enough. From the link, I see that the states with the lowest HDIs are Red States while the highest HDIs are mostly all Blue States.
Post reply on HN