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

Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 514 posts

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#91

Post by epistasis »

isoskeles wrote: post #30
gtirloni wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should have bought a considerable amount of land next to your property too then. Just like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. I'm sure no one would complain about that since, you know, it'd be yours and not someone else's.

"You should've been filthy rich like Bill Gates!" Really?

If a lot of people want to be in an area, but you want an area with fewer people, why should your single vote override everybody else's desires? Simply move elsewhere, as nobody has the right to interfere with the free association of others.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#92

Post by rektide »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #6
csee wrote: post #2

If true, it's extremely depressing that it required a viral post on social media.

Or maybe it’s a success of social media? If we didn’t have social media cutting across the usual lines of communication, this problem may not have gotten fixed because no one had both the right information and the ability to act in it.

indeed. society often has trouble reaching for good.

that these democratic open communication means allowed sense to unjam & flow was awesome. an unstrucutred, unplanned, unpredicted ability to grasp at success.

reciprocally, i do want to acknowledge that access is still lolsided. if this was a random jie or nancy it would have taken pretty extreme circumstances to get their accurate & powerful suggestion raised & having an impact.

there's a lot of interesting examples in history of suggestion boxes for governance. this one isnt perfect but it still stands, to me, as an interesting positive example.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#94

Post by xyzzyz »

jayd16 wrote: post #60
poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is is depressing, that clear and obvious solutions were missing at economy-critical supply chain infra. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. But also it's 2021 where people are the most cynical we've ever been, it's almost like there's interest groups in the US that want a fanning of inflation or delayed recovery through shortages.

What's clear and obvious about temporarily suspending rules that were presumably in place for a reason? Seems more like a non-obvius value call was made.

The “reason” is that stacked containers spoil resident views, just to put it in perspective.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#95

Post by Natsu »

aerosmile wrote: post #72

Everyone's focused on Ryan's comments about stacking, and the subsequent win there. Amazing job, Ryan, and thank you Robert Garcia for being a man to take one on the chin (for this solution not coming from your team) and for then doing the right thing. I am seriously impressed by not seeing any NIH (not invented here) behavior here. But why stop there? Ryan suggested 5 courses of actions, and made it clear that we ne…

Also, isn't someone from the government supposed to be in charge of this? Shouldn't they be out there finding out what's happening?

It seems odd that no one has tried this, yet as someone who has worked in a factory, I can easily believe that the absentee managers have no idea what the hell actually goes on among the workers.

You need to spend significant actual time, to the point of working actual shifts, to get a clear picture of things sometimes. People have weird and wrong notions of what efficiencies matter sometimes, for example. Shaving a second off an action repeated thousands of times daily matters, shaving a minute off of a rare task that's not even done every day matters far less in comparison.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#96

Post by [deleted] »

coredog64 wrote: post #66
destitude wrote: post #61

Why wasn't the federal government doing this? How hard would it have been for the new "shipping czar" to have gone down there and seen what at least one simple issue was and get it fixed?

One would think that a former McKinsey consultant would understand constraint theory.

[deleted]

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#97

Post by spenczar5 »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #45
spenczar5 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? It sounds like you think this is obvious, but it isn’t to me. I live in an area with occasional grandfathered-in exceptions to zoning rules. There’s a cafe run out of a house, and a butcher shop run on a residential street corner between houses. And its absolutely lovely! I would have no problem with people making things (“a factory”) next to a school.

This is a perfect reason why most zoning sucks - but not all zoning sucks. Current zoning prevents most neighborhoods from being walkable. You can't have cafes and grocery stores near most houses. But replace cute cafe in your example with a landfill or a cement plant and see if it's still awesome. This is why some zoning is good.

I previously lived next to a cement plant, actually, in Brooklyn - the Ferrara Brothers one, now shut down. It was literally adjacent to my apartment, out the back window. And you know what? I didn’t mind one bit. I really loved that neighborhood.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#98

Post by stackedinserter »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #45
spenczar5 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? It sounds like you think this is obvious, but it isn’t to me. I live in an area with occasional grandfathered-in exceptions to zoning rules. There’s a cafe run out of a house, and a butcher shop run on a residential street corner between houses. And its absolutely lovely! I would have no problem with people making things (“a factory”) next to a school.

This is a perfect reason why most zoning sucks - but not all zoning sucks. Current zoning prevents most neighborhoods from being walkable. You can't have cafes and grocery stores near most houses. But replace cute cafe in your example with a landfill or a cement plant and see if it's still awesome. This is why some zoning is good.

You can have a little park between grocery stores and houses. I live in a neighborhood like this and have all necessary amenities in 5-10 minutes of walk.

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#99

Post by bcrl »

zzzeek wrote: post #78
spenczar5 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? It sounds like you think this is obvious, but it isn’t to me. I live in an area with occasional grandfathered-in exceptions to zoning rules. There’s a cafe run out of a house, and a butcher shop run on a residential street corner between houses. And its absolutely lovely! I would have no problem with people making things (“a factory”) next to a school.

> I would have no problem with people making things (“a factory”) next to a school. yes you would, if it were a large plastics manufacturer bringing large amounts of truck traffic and noise pollution and spewing carcinogenic PCB compounds into local atmosphere.

Maybe companies shouldn't be allowed to spew toxic carcinogens into the atmosphere so that wouldn't matter?

Re: Long Beach has temporarily suspended container stacking limitations

#100

Post by nrmitchi »

epistasis wrote: post #88
nrmitchi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not here to defend unnecessary zoning restrictions, but your argument here is that the right to not be affected by the externalities of someone else's decisions should be limited to the uber-wealthy?. It's completely reasonable to believe that a given person should be capable of quiet enjoyment of their property without having to purchase everything remotely close to it.

Why should somebody be allowed to keep others out of property that they are not paying for. I find your contention competent wrong on all counts.

That cuts both ways; why should somebody be allowed to induce a negative impact on property that they are not paying for?
Post reply on HN