A.O.C. and Co kill 25,000 jobs and billions of new in estment in NYC.

It's a proven fact: 25% of all people have no sense of humor.

Along with some people called "Germans."


As to California environmental law restricting (often prohibitively) the building of new homes at the expense of affordable housing, the policies have been very well known, bordering on legendary, for decades now. What can I say? Fuck, I even advertised it was a joke with the last half dozen words.

I see.

Do you commonly find yourself having to do that?

However, my beautifully crafted post still stands for your edification. Indulge yourself, it'll be a joy.

Nah, I like my fantasy a bit more obvious. LOTR or MCU, that sorta thing.

[No offense, I don't believe you're intentionally telling lies or anything like that.]

None taken, but I'm curious. You'd rather Dinners' big government spending on police, public workers and enforcement over stimulus for the building industry and private enterprise?

Socialist.

^No, it's a big topic anywhere, but extra so in CA. A long history precedes your interest. In particular, Cal's homeless is a very broad mix of governmental missteps, neglect and leftist sounds good on paper agenda gone wrong in practice. E.g. decades ago they eliminated most loony bins. Even beyond those mentally unwell are many who just want to be left alone in a simpler world without government or society interfering in their lives (well, except for gov't checks, meds, and a 7-11).

CA homelessness represents more than just the unfortunates that would actually be served well by public assistance. To the extent that public assistance ever finds its way to assist the public.

Assuming by "loony bins" I assume you mean state psychiatric hospitals? That doesn't sound a very left wing thing to do?

What do you mean "many who just want to be left alone in a simpler world"? Are you referring to the homeless? The link isn't obvious.

Dinner has pushed an idea that relocation and enforcement are solutions for homelessness. Apart from the fact that is taking us away from the question I suspect few of any political bent think investing millions in an endless cycle of enforced relocations and clean up exercises are desirable. Unfortunately such a situation is one that gentrification (such as that being discussed in LI) does tend to lead to. If you want to mitigate those effects you have to look at what characterises cases where gentrification has been a positive. That means affordable public housing, the lack of which is exactly the point NYC and AOC in particular made.

As for SF we aren't looking at a common scenario, even in inner cities. It's horrific but giving an example of the damage caused by extreme poverty, drug addiction and associated petty crime isn't a strong case for a social policy which in most cases actually increases them.

@spot261 I didn't want to edit that long post down, but the reason San Francisco in particular has had bigger issues with feces on the street is several-fold:

*Astronomical housing: it's more expensive to rent here than Manhattan to the point that renting out rooms by the bunk bed to people well out of college is not unheard of

*Unlike many areas in California that claim they can't fit any more houses, SF actually cannot. It's 49 square miles of 20 degree inclines and somewhat precarious ground stability. Much of the city was built quite literally on top of the ruins of the 1906 earthquake, which bit the city in it's collective ass eighty years later when another 6.0 quake came through.

*Prices jumped incredibly fast there. One of my grade school friends moved from there with her family in the 90s and she told me the house her family sold for a pittance in 1994 would've paid for her and her sister's full college education from undergrad to Ph. D. if it were sold today and then some.

So gentrification was the cause of the problem, yet it's being touted as a solution?

Any thoughts from our pro Amazon people?

He's talking about the "One Flew Over the Cookoo's Nest" style asylums that were everywhere in America, not just CA. And the use of them ranged from people who maybe did need to be there up to people like Rosemary Kennedy who got lobotomized for basically not being a good daughter and ignored by the family until her brother John F. became President.

Then-Governor Reagan (aka, the previous Gold Star Republican everyone loved before Trump existed) cut funding in the late 70s to CA and eventually it happened nation-wide, but the fact of the matter is we've made advances in medicine that we have much less need for such hospitals.

Hey, don't ask me to explain cuckservative (((logic)))

You're really selling this paradise you supposedly live in.

Yeah, I imagined that, but the idea @Tuttle is referring to a Republican Governer cutting public funding to healthcare as a "lefty policy" is....somewhat bewildering, especially where it is being used as a way of explaining a public health problem caused by the same sort of forced corporate gentrification he's advocating and apparently would prefer @Dinner 's big government response to the consequences of.

We're well and truly through Alices' looking glass here.

To be honest though there's been a massive paradigm shift in the nature of psychiatric hospitals here in the years since OFOTCN and I can only hope that's reflected there too, or would be. We've seen a massive shift away from the old institutions into community care and vastly increased advocacy, rights and legal support for detained patients.

However I'm not sure there's less genuine need for hospitals per se, even the best anti psychotics have titration periods before therapeutic levels are reached and there's still very much a trial and error approach to choice of medication, dosage and management of side effects which like time and tides waits for no man. On top of that there's still a need for long term care for treatment resistant patients and safeguarding measures both for the patients and the public, all of which are seemingly reflected in the problems we see where the infrastructure required for that isn't in place (read: adequate public healthcare).

Remove care for the mentally ill in a society with a minimal benefits system? Don't be shocked when they're wandering around vulnerable, defenceless and costing a fortune to manage without the proper resources.

I suspect in his own way Tuttle might have a point here, although slapping the term "lefty" on a string of conservative policies is perhaps not the most helpful way of explaining it, especially when the proposed solution is to replace the old set of public expenditures (whose removal was part of the problem) with a new set which are far less fit for purpose.[/quote]

Ok, that is a good faith response (unlike Anc) so I will respond in kind. The problem is over here, people really have been arguing homeless people should be above the law and be allowed to do what ever they want, and they have had this position for decades now. They claim to do anything less criminalizes homelessness, which is a lie, it is punishing anti-social behavior which endangers public health and well being. That is how you got hands off policies in places like San Francisco which have been such an absolute disaster. Here in San Diego we even saw the same San Francisco based "advocates" pushing the exact same nonsense and filing endless frivolous lawsuits which always endanger public health and make the problems worse.

Hell, they even use the same meaningless phrases about "root causes" and claim nothing can or should be done unless there are enough free houses for everyone who wants them including anyone who might ever want to move here including criminal illegal aliens from shithole countries. It is obvious that is impossible and that these "advocates" are not interested in improving the situation at all.

I am sorry for assuming you had similar positions to these people, who usually argue much the same things you argue. Tell me a reasonable solution which is financially possible and which city level officials can carry out and I will both listen and consider it.

OMG @Dinner, fix your fucking spelling!

You have Qs where most of your As should be!

It is this cracked screen. I use my old phone for casual web browsing, for regular calls I use my Iphone but dislike Safari, my home computer usually has my girlfriend's eight year old on it so I rarely use that, while the Ipad is for VA appointment use only. I have thought about replacing the old fire tablet I used to have but I found the tablet so useless I ended up just giving it away.

Hell, I spend more time watching netflix then visiting web forums these days anyway.

Bitch, the entire left side of my Note 8 has more spidewebbing than Ann Coulter's snatch and I don't type like a moron on crack.

You make more money than I do. Buy a new phone.

Plus many of the misspellings can't be explained by cracked-screen typos. Like repeatedly typing "manditory".

I will probably just buy a new tablet. Either that or start using the Iphone but safari really does suck and doesn't display many pages correctly.

God you are a fucking moron.

The iMac was released in 1998.
The iPod in 2001.
The iPhone in 2007.
The iPad in 2010.

In all those 20 years, in which you owned multiple iOS devices, you never realized how the capitalization works?!?!?

At this point I have to wonder if the alcoholism might not be the cause, but merely a symptom of a bigger cognitive disability.

Please, let us not talk about the poor bugs living in @Tuttle 's favorite glory hole. Some of us might want to eat in the next lifetime.

You can't fix stupid.

Dinner, they have Chrome on the iPhonez now if Safari ain't your thang.

I don't claim to have a solution, but forced gentrification is a proven fail and a costly one at that. When I talk about root causes though I'm not displacing the question and avoiding trying to find an answer, I'm suggesting that an ongoing round of conflict for the streets is only going to end up ever more costly.

I found a study the other day which I linked (haven't the time to root for it now, but will do when I get home - it's in this thread) which showed providing public housing was much cheaper than dealing with the consequences of homelessness, which seems a very reasonable start if you can stomach it from an ideological standpoint. I don't deny being what many Americans would term "far left" but there's a proviso, I do also believe that market forces will always exist and should always be considered when looking at a problem. I'm not averse to the idea of a profit driven solution if it has the net benefits my socialist principles are based around.

In this case the public expenditure for fighting that battle could be put to more efficient use. Public (or "council") housing only requires that basic benefits be set at the sum of baseline market rent and allowance for subsistence levels. In the vast majority of cases that will amount to far less than the bill for bloating the public sector workforce beyond what even someone like I would consider reasonable. I believe in public services, but not if they become twisted into a bizarre situation where half of the population is employed cleaning up after the other half.

I'd much rather that public money went into the pockets of entrepreneurs who are willing and able to invest in renovation work then see a return in terms of rent taken at source from benefits. That keeps people off the streets, reduces much of the social and public consequences, stimulates employment and trims the tax bill. It just relies on people being pragmatic about seeking a functional solution which doesn't necessarily align with any one political stance.

Can't stay on atm but that's some musings at least.

Same thing here.
The house I shared with three other people, some of whom had been there for over a decade, was claimed to have been slated for structural renovation. Of course, that was a lie and the place is now up for sale and we have to sue the landlord for the bad faith termination... but at the root of the problem is the specualtion of house flippers that drove the "value" of the house from $400K to 1.4 million in that time.

Likewise, the small apartment building I moved into from there has new owners who wish to evict everyone and turn it into an air bnb hotel. In the six years of the lease I'm on, the average cost of a place like mine has tripled in this city. We're fighting it, but even with any punitive settlements, I have no idea how I'll be able to afford to move-let alone where and how to sustain a new place. Most of the people here have lived in their places for at least a decade.

Local small businesses have it even worse, as they don't have some of the securities of tenancy that residential tenants do. Many multi generational family businesses are going under because rent has out paced incomes.

Gentrification is nothing more than the class equivalent of ethnic cleansing.


The irony is that the "value" of the neighbourhood has always been in it's eclecticism which is being bid away to franchised boutiques.

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-borough...es-an-about-face-on-amazon-?cid=share_twitter

What a difference a month makes. The left wing piece of shit who ginned up the anti-Amazon mobs in hopes that it would increase support for Democrats now is begging Amazon to come back. She wants that extra $7 billion after all and says she is so sorry for lying and ginning up hate.

please dont itll let starving kids in africa eat

^^ More proof that reality has a liberal bias. AOC should be ashamed of herself. If she just goes and tells the truth all of the time, of course she's going to end up being right! Where's the sport in that?

Shocking!

(Not really.)

As a conservative I oppose the government picking winners.

Then you'll want to join the tree hugging hippies in their protests of Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Procter & Gamble, Exxon, BP..etc, etc, etc...