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

Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 81 posts

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#41

Post by sparky_z »

dhosek wrote: post #22
SllX wrote: post #3

Scotia, CA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotia,_California It is a “company town”, but it is not incorporated. You can also find a company town near you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_towns_in_the_U...

I was surprised from the list to learn that Gary, Indiana was originally owned by U.S. Steel.

Named after US Steel found Elbert Gary, back when "Gary" was almost exclusively a surname. Later, a burgeoning young actor named Frank Cooper needed to change his professional name to avoid a conflict with other Frank Coopers in the industry, and his agent suggested the name of her hometown, to give him some blue collar cred. "Gary Cooper" became a household name and people have been naming their children "Gary" ever since.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#42

Post by foogazi »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #33
bee_rider wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also the fact that California is a very desirable place to live.

Sure but the residential parts of California, even in the nicer towns along the coast, don't really look very different from anywhere else in the US; lots of parking lots, plenty of underutilized space.

It might not look different but it feels different - year round weather is great

Coastal SoCal has the best weather in the world. Natural beauty in beaches & parks

LA & SF are world class cultural powerhouses. Silicon Valley is the tech capital of the world

How can it not be expensive ?

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#43

Post by nadermx »

SllX wrote: post #3

Scotia, CA. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotia,_California It is a “company town”, but it is not incorporated. You can also find a company town near you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_towns_in_the_U...

Interesting to know there is a company town named Hazardville.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#44

Post by jeffbee »

ls612 wrote: post #27
jeffbee wrote: post #7

There's a lot to be said for building little villages all over the north state to support the amount of forestry that needs doing these days, which is quite a bit. The state says it wants to do preventative cutting and burning on a million acres per year but so far has been doing something between .1% and 1% of that goal. There's no money in it, so the state would just have to pour in the funds. But that's no differe…

If they want to cut parts of the forest now and then as part of lifecycle management why not allow logging for profit?

They offer the entire state for cutting every year at auction. Nobody wants to bother, because cutting trees on a mountain can't compete economically with forests in the southeast, that are basically farms.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#45

Post by SllX »

biztos wrote: post #32
SllX wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah. Let's generously say that did happen and it works out for him at some indeterminate point in the future. Would you then consider the frozen and completely inactive head disconnected from a living body vital for sustaining the living processes of the head of Walt Disney still living in the present? If this thread is to be completely pedantic, we have to go all the way here.

I don’t think this question can be properly answered without asking someone thus revivified.

So is it like naming rights for discoveries then? The first guy to get pulled out of the freezer gets to decide if he was alive or dead during his tenure as a popsicle?

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#46

Post by wolverine876 »

tzury wrote: post #23

Trying to imagine the freedom one feels when working in a corporate that owns the town one lives in. Schools, clinics, police, and other community aspects are all controlled by the same entity. This is not communism per se , but perhaps even worse in some aspects. Feels like a ginat kibbutz (1) to me. And all was done in the name of capitalism and the free world. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

It's the opposite of communism. Under communism, the workers own the means of production and all the other assets (at least, that's the theory; reality doesn't quite work out that way!). In a company town, a company owns it all; the workers own nothing.

Imagine the power the company has over individuals.

> done in the name of ... the free world.

Where are company towns described as being done 'in the name of' the free world?

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#47

Post by DiscourseFan »

foogazi wrote: post #42
DiscourseFan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but the residential parts of California, even in the nicer towns along the coast, don't really look very different from anywhere else in the US; lots of parking lots, plenty of underutilized space.

It might not look different but it feels different - year round weather is great Coastal SoCal has the best weather in the world. Natural beauty in beaches & parks LA & SF are world class cultural powerhouses. Silicon Valley is the tech capital of the world How can it not be expensive ?

Its expensive just because its desirable? Housing doesn't work like a commodity you can ship around the world. Everyone needs a place to live, and having more housing for everyone who wants to live in an area only increases economic productivity. There is still more than enough space, even in the bay area, even near LA, to build housing, its just that the people elected to local offices also happen to be the same people who don't want the value of their houses to decrease. So instead of having to live next to lower-income residents, they get to live next to the homeless, who come in surging, ever-increasing waves. Why is it better for California that all these people who could be housed, educated, fed, are left without a private domicile--it seems better only for those select few who happen to own good property.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#48

Post by DiscourseFan »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #36
DiscourseFan wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but the residential parts of California, even in the nicer towns along the coast, don't really look very different from anywhere else in the US; lots of parking lots, plenty of underutilized space.

I mean, California is larger than some countries. There is plenty of space but we all know that that space isn't equally valued. It's not just enough to be in an area with decent weather, you gotta be close to the hotspot hubs of SF/SD/LA. And that's where "shortages" start to come. Pareto principle at work. Also coastland is a minority of land in CA. Go out to the east in So Cal and it's all burning hot desert, with…

Its true, but the land that is available, like I said, is still being underutilized. Look a Japan, which is in a very similar situation near the major metropolitan areas: very little land where people can actually settle, and yet housing is relatively affordable for most. Its not an accident, they're just better at managing urban density--and Tokyo especially has the benefit of a fantastically complex and well managed metro system, but not all the cities do, and they're still fine.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#49

Post by SllX »

tzury wrote: post #23

Trying to imagine the freedom one feels when working in a corporate that owns the town one lives in. Schools, clinics, police, and other community aspects are all controlled by the same entity. This is not communism per se , but perhaps even worse in some aspects. Feels like a ginat kibbutz (1) to me. And all was done in the name of capitalism and the free world. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

Company towns had their problems, paying workers in company scrip for example to buy necessities at the company store (a practice which has been outlawed) among other things, but conceptually they were more like planned developments intended to house enough workers and support staff to engage in whatever land-based enterprise the company was engaged in, where previously there wasn’t a town to house them all before.

They’re a bit outmoded now, since with the advent of modern transportation technology it’s usually possible to get enough people to live in or work from some nearby community that you don’t need to build a whole bloody town yourself. Also logging and mining aren’t quite the growth industries they used to be in the US.

Speaking of kibbutz’s though, if you want a rabbit hole to fall into, there’s all kinds of intentional communities out there. Probably most famously Amish communities, but there’s all kinds.

Re: Scotia, California is owned by a New York investment firm

#50

Post by skywal_l »

wolverine876 wrote: post #46
tzury wrote: post #23

Trying to imagine the freedom one feels when working in a corporate that owns the town one lives in. Schools, clinics, police, and other community aspects are all controlled by the same entity. This is not communism per se , but perhaps even worse in some aspects. Feels like a ginat kibbutz (1) to me. And all was done in the name of capitalism and the free world. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

It's the opposite of communism. Under communism, the workers own the means of production and all the other assets (at least, that's the theory; reality doesn't quite work out that way!). In a company town, a company owns it all; the workers own nothing. Imagine the power the company has over individuals. > done in the name of ... the free world. Where are company towns described as being done 'in the name of' the fre…

Capitalism is the exploitation of men by men. Communism is the exact opposite.
Post reply on HN