HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submit | wallst07's commentslogin

>BART likely created huge profits for people who owned land in the areas it services

Unless you try to build housing.

https://reason.com/2018/02/21/san-francisco-man-has-spent-4-...


Interesting story but it actually is an example of a landowner's massive windfall from the presence of public transport.

Tillman cites $1M of costs, of which $200k were 'city fees' (not itemized) and the rest were presumably normal costs for developers/engineers/architects/etc (of course, these would potentially be smaller if there was less regulation). The development start to approval time of 3.5 years is not crazy for a first time 'accidental developer' working on such a large project.

After approval, there seems to have been a~12 month period of bad faith activists slowing down the project. Tillman filed a lawsuit, did a media campaign, and the project was re-approved later in 2018.

He then sold the pre-approved project to a Cresleigh Homes for $13.5 million in early 2019.

So we've had 6 years of financial delays as Cresleigh tries to fund the build vs maybe 1 year of 'bad faith' development approval delays 2017-2018.

And of course - funding the build would have been much easier if the landowner didn't want $13.5 million for an empty lot! (or $12 million if you subtract the development costs). So arguably Tillman did more to delay housing than anyone else.


Looks like the address is 2918 mission, still no apartment complex there according to web maps, though the laundromat building is demolished it seems. So perhaps by 2034, a good 20 years since the start of the project.

It's circular:

* Few take it because it doesn't meet their need [low denominator]

* Let's spend money to make it meet people's need [numerator goes up]

...

?


Or hasn't been smacked in the face yet , or had someone unhinged on the nyc subway state they are going to kill everyone on the train in a manic episode.

These are not un-rare events at all, it's just in a city with millions of people, most may never have it happen but we've all seen it. Nobody wants it to be them that day.


Walking through the tenderloin on a bad night seems like Carte Blanche to me, and it seems cruel and unusual (except maybe Philadelphia).

I don't know what the "tenderloin" refers to, but I guess it is a part of a US city.

That's generally the point I am trying to make. By letting these people suffer from addiction and homelessness, not offering good medical and social care, you are not caring or loving them, which is a kind of cruelty.


FWIW if you search "tenderloin city" the answer appears immediately.

It's a big internet, sometimes people will mention neighborhoods or customs you're unfamiliar with. In my experience, the polite thing is usually to take 3s to make the Google.


In my experience the polite thing is to just say “San Francisco” instead of talking down to people.

This is the problem with context and language and assumptions and algorithms. Even with that I get two restaurants and one Wikipedia article on meat before I get anything resembling a city district in my search results.

So what, put them in prison?

Is that your only idea or are you trying to be facetious?

SF and CA have a very liberal tax policy, maybe dedicate some of the funds to get them treatment.


Bob Ross was a content creator, and I would like to think if he were alive he'd still be painting, just using a different platform to share. I don't think he would care one bit if people made AI art as long as they were happy and kind.

Bob Ross was not in any modern sense a content creator.

Congrats, now nobody will buy your strawberries in this analogy.

"If the powers that be don't want the boat to rock, it simply will not rock. "

Hear me out, it's not so much the powers, it's the people. If you poll people, they might say they want all this information and government reform.

But if you try to give them even 1 bit of hardship to accomplish this, then will not and it is easily forgotten.

This to me makes a lot more sense than 'the powers' in complete control.


I was going to add a little more to my comment on how the powers that be have gotten us just comfortable enough to not care to be the radicals that our grandparents might have been. The squeeze was too hard in the early 20th century and triggered revolutions and the toppling of governments in favor of socialist causes. The squeeze was too soft by the mid 20th century and the powers that be figured they were leaving too much money on the table in the form of worker vs say executive pay. Seems today the boot on our neck is just right: just enough to ensure high inequality and an anything goes business environment without very many of us threatening to cut their heads off.

Wrong phrasing, a new political party could absolutely come into power. It would just replace one of the two-parties ideologies but be called the same thing and you still have 2 parties.

IMO the underlying reason for this is one or more of:

1) Americans are [statistically speaking] doing very well, high GDP, lots of consumer products to buy, lots of entertainment, lots of cheap food... and wikileaks is not doing anything to help but maybe destroy this.

2) Americans are also doing very poorly, the bottom 25% have bigger problems to deal with than wikileaks. Why would they care if the CIA is watching them if they can't afford next month's rent?

3) Information overload: Similiar to 1, we get overloaded with things we ought to care about, climate, wiki leaks, wars.... it's too much and people really just want. #1.

Or maybe I'm off...


Re 2): because you can't have a handful of extremely wealthy people in a completely equal world; so one wonders if enough accidental topplings of foreign democracies would not an "inequality" enforcement agency make?

Reading a bit, it's become somewhat apparent to me that that little independent government agency is the instability enforcer in order to sustain the world as a set of abstractions to keep people artificially poor: from cartels (involvement in Contra cocaine trafficking), to toppling of budding democracies (IIRC, Iran 1953) ... further revealing they and their masters consider that progress is a zero-sum game for them.


I'm not sold on anyway we will ever reach inequality, and I don't think it is a actual goal we should have as a target. I think it is a political wedge issue. I'm happy have my mind changed though.

The rest of your reply is getting too much into conspiracy theory for me to reply.


https://montessoriacademy.com.au/montessori-work-cycle-guide...

There are whole studies and philosophies on work/play. The one here answering your question is the 'Work Cycle' and the step 'Return Work'.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: