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

Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 272 posts

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#251

Post by tnel77 »

epistasis wrote: post #116
88913527 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per-student spending in most California counties is comparable to that of Alabama and Mississippi: https://flowingdata.com/2016/04/21/school-district-spending-... Money can't fix everything but spending 33% below the median probably is a sign of underinvestment.

Particularly in a state where the cost of living is far above other states. I recently visited Wisconsin and felt about 2x as wealthy.

Whenever I go back to the Midwest to visit family, I always feel very wealthy given just how much cheaper everything is. Leave the coffee shop literally spending half as much and it’s like “holy cow this is great!”

Obviously, a person living in the area is usually making less so it’s all relative.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#252

Post by Aloha »

tnel77 wrote: post #251
epistasis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particularly in a state where the cost of living is far above other states. I recently visited Wisconsin and felt about 2x as wealthy.

Whenever I go back to the Midwest to visit family, I always feel very wealthy given just how much cheaper everything is. Leave the coffee shop literally spending half as much and it’s like “holy cow this is great!” Obviously, a person living in the area is usually making less so it’s all relative.

Less, yes - not that much less. You'll make 40% less in areas with a 50% lower COL

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#253

Post by Aloha »

claytongulick wrote: post #242
epistasis wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California was the home of Reagan and Nixon, and their legacy on state politics lives on to this day. As mentioned, Prop 13 was a libertarian tax revolt that continues to cause massive structural problems in the state's economy, which only gets papered over by the absolute dominance of the economic productivity of massive innovation. Even California's farmers have innovated far better than many other parts of the cou…

Yes, I get the point. The part that seems so strange to me is the idea that "it's the republican's fault for not stopping democrat policies". Like, no part of that was, hey, maybe these policies are bad and we should blame the people who are making the bad policy. No. It's the Republican's fault for not stopping it. That indicates a very skewed world view, and yes, I think requires some introspection. Sure, blame Rep…

Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspectives and ways of discussing issues. I'm not suggesting that the current or former Republican Party had the right answers, but you need more than one perspective to make meaningful change - and if the permitted band of expression is too narrow, you'll never get the better answers.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#254

Post by dragonwriter »

Aloha wrote: post #253
claytongulick wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I get the point. The part that seems so strange to me is the idea that "it's the republican's fault for not stopping democrat policies". Like, no part of that was, hey, maybe these policies are bad and we should blame the people who are making the bad policy. No. It's the Republican's fault for not stopping it. That indicates a very skewed world view, and yes, I think requires some introspection. Sure, blame Rep…

Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspectives and ways of discussing issues. I'm not suggesting that the current or former Republican Party had the right answers, but you need more than one perspective to make meaningful change - and if the permitted band of expression is too narrow, you'll never get the better answers.

> Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspective

No, it mostly doesn't, except in fairly strong party systems (which the US doesn't have), and even then it usually only applies to being a member of the party-in-government, not the party-in-the-electorate.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#255

Post by Aloha »

dragonwriter wrote: post #254
Aloha wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspectives and ways of discussing issues. I'm not suggesting that the current or former Republican Party had the right answers, but you need more than one perspective to make meaningful change - and if the permitted band of expression is too narrow, you'll never get the better answers.

> Bring a member of a any political party requires you to hew to certain ideological perspective No, it mostly doesn't, except in fairly strong party systems (which the US doesn't have), and even then it usually only applies to being a member of the party-in-government, not the party-in-the-electorate.

You cannot be a Dem or a Repub pol and survive a primary reliably without hewing to certain ideological precepts - there are notable exceptions, Cuellar of Texas and Collins (to a lesser extent) for example - Even with them, hewing too far outside of the ideological precepts your voters have will find you losing a primary.

The real root of most issues with our system is the primary, This could be remedied by either getting rid of primaries entirely - or introducing fusion voting, either solution would solve the drive to ideological purity during the primary cycle.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#256

Post by ajmurmann »

nkrisc wrote: post #62
ajmurmann wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely insane that the government has any say in what a building gets used for. I can see some arguments why the government has a say in constructing a building in the first place, but controlling what it's used for is just planned economy, communist hubris!

Ok I’m starting a pig farm next door to you.

Won't happen, since the area is too desirable and building a high of farm there isn't economically viable unless you are just gonna do it make your point which would be an extremely rare event we shouldn't optimize for.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#257

Post by ajmurmann »

at_a_remove wrote: post #96
ajmurmann wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absolutely insane that the government has any say in what a building gets used for. I can see some arguments why the government has a say in constructing a building in the first place, but controlling what it's used for is just planned economy, communist hubris!

Let's have some fun with this. So maybe I am near a hospital, or an elementary school, whatever. I have a nice plot of land. You think people will be okay with me storing nuclear waste for a fee on that land? Maybe I am next to your house. I want to have a hog farm or a 24/7 very loud factory.

We have environmental protection laws and safety regulations that will prevent you from supporting nuclear waste without massive precautions. Now, I'll concede that there is value in separating polluting industries from business and residential areas. In general, I think a system like Japan has that's much coarser and centrally administered to prevent kicking away the latter by wealthy home owners would be friendly desirable. The US zoning system is so fundamentally broken and full of overreach that no zoning would be a massive improvement.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#258

Post by eropple »

refurb wrote: post #204
eropple wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's value to generational continuity, though--again, particularly for marginalized communities. One of the ways gentrification makes its way in is during these kinds of estate liquidations. I think it's reasonable to assert that there's value in not fracturing those communities any more than is necessary.

Marginalized communities that have seen home values skyrocket? Honestly I have trouble summoning up much pity for people whose face a property tax burden because their homes have doubled or tripled in value.

> Marginalized communities that have seen home values skyrocket?

Illiquid property value isn't the same thing as having money, so...yes?

I mean, if you want every neighborhood in every urban area to be tech and finance bros, maybe this is a good idea, but most people would disagree with the premise you're pushing.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#259

Post by refurb »

eropple wrote: post #258
refurb wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marginalized communities that have seen home values skyrocket? Honestly I have trouble summoning up much pity for people whose face a property tax burden because their homes have doubled or tripled in value.

> Marginalized communities that have seen home values skyrocket? Illiquid property value isn't the same thing as having money , so...yes? I mean, if you want every neighborhood in every urban area to be tech and finance bros, maybe this is a good idea, but most people would disagree with the premise you're pushing.

Property value isn’t illiquid.

Re: Downtown S.F. on the brink: It’s worse than it looks

#260

Post by zeruch »

Aloha wrote: post #238
dragonwriter wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Compare the quality of legislation passed before term limits to after After is generally better, at least than in an equal time period before, though I don't attribute it to term limits, which were a bad idea. > the last real structural reforms to state government were before term limits The last major structural reform to state government was when it was finally made modestly governable by the repeal of the superm…

What did Schwarzenegger reform?

He himself did not reform too much, but not for lack of tying. In the end one could easily argue that he helped mainline numerous ideas that had been previously flat out obstructed by the GOP: redistricting guidelines/gerrymandering (wanting to tae the districting process out of party hands altogether), environmental efforts (Global Warming Solutions Act), proposed marijuana legalization, opposed Bush IIs border fence initiatives..in a way he's very California: very immigrant, very Hollywood, very macho but a little hippy, weirdly contrarian and unapologetic about it.

He was not the most effective governor, but he also was not a destructive or fundamentally divisive one (yes he had soe hot points but I can't think of a single governor of this state who hasn't) and he certainly performed better than I thought he would.

Post reply on HN