https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.php
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.
On 4/6/23 12:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.php
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.I don't see the link to Trump.
bailout. The low-hanging fruit IMO are the onerous permitting process
and exclusionary zoning, although changing those would be more effective
in encouraging less expensive housing. If this were LA, I'd add parking requirements.
The business to housing conversion is interesting and we've discussed it before, recognizing that it isn't financially feasible in the current market. Perhaps the dire predictions would make government incentives
more acceptable at the cost of lining real estate developers' pockets.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 12:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.phpI don't see the link to Trump.
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive
deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.
Which only proves you're a moron and you're not listening.
I'll explain once more, Ca. tax revenues swing from surplus to deficits with capital gains
that are largely dependent upon the stock market.
Trump clearly had the stock market on a roll.
Joe? Not so much.
Indeed, the editorial is against a state
bailout. The low-hanging fruit IMO are the onerous permitting process
and exclusionary zoning, although changing those would be more effective
in encouraging less expensive housing. If this were LA, I'd add parking
requirements.
The most onerous aspect of Ca. zoning revisions is to eliminate the need for off street parking to high density developments within a mile of a train or bus.
GMAFB.
The business to housing conversion is interesting and we've discussed it
before, recognizing that it isn't financially feasible in the current
market. Perhaps the dire predictions would make government incentives
more acceptable at the cost of lining real estate developers' pockets.
Gov't can't give 'em what it doesn't have....and SF and the state are both facing huge deficits.
On 4/6/23 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 12:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.phpI don't see the link to Trump.
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive
deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.
Which only proves you're a moron and you're not listening.I guess you've given up on supporting yourself with facts.
I'll explain once more, Ca. tax revenues swing from surplus to deficits with capital gainsWhere in the article is that link made?
that are largely dependent upon the stock market.
Trump clearly had the stock market on a roll.
Joe? Not so much.
Is Trump or the stock market
mentioned at all?
Indeed, the editorial is against a state
bailout. The low-hanging fruit IMO are the onerous permitting process
and exclusionary zoning, although changing those would be more effective >> in encouraging less expensive housing. If this were LA, I'd add parking >> requirements.
The most onerous aspect of Ca. zoning revisions is to eliminate the need forNot onerous for those who live there and use public transport.
off street parking to high density developments within a mile of a train or bus.
GMAFB.
The business to housing conversion is interesting and we've discussed it >> before, recognizing that it isn't financially feasible in the current
market. Perhaps the dire predictions would make government incentives
more acceptable at the cost of lining real estate developers' pockets.
Gov't can't give 'em what it doesn't have....and SF and the state are both facing huge deficits.That does leave the Feds.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 12:35:09 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 12:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.phpI don't see the link to Trump.
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive >>> deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.
I've given up on you accepting and/or comprehending facts.Which only proves you're a moron and you're not listening.I guess you've given up on supporting yourself with facts.
Was it really necessary? The article is all about the gov't needing to pony up $$I'll explain once more, Ca. tax revenues swing from surplus to deficits with capital gainsWhere in the article is that link made?
that are largely dependent upon the stock market.
Trump clearly had the stock market on a roll.
Joe? Not so much.
to make anything work...
and I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cash right now and for the foreseeable future.
Is Trump or the stock marketIs that article a bible to you? It has to spell out everything?
mentioned at all?
GMAFB.
Indeed, the editorial is against a state
bailout. The low-hanging fruit IMO are the onerous permitting process >> and exclusionary zoning, although changing those would be more effective
in encouraging less expensive housing. If this were LA, I'd add parking >> requirements.
Yes it is. I've seen it. There's an apartment near that has 100 low income (rent subsidized units).The most onerous aspect of Ca. zoning revisions is to eliminate the need forNot onerous for those who live there and use public transport.
off street parking to high density developments within a mile of a train or bus.
GMAFB.
They also charge for an extra parking spot. So the street is lined with cars.
And they're about a half mile from a rail line and the bus goes right down the street.
So even the rent subsidized with easy access to mass transit want to have a car when they need it.
The result is clogged streets with parking in all sorts of unexpected places. Cops quit ticketing illegal
parking years ago.
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 7:46:34 PM UTC-4, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 12:35:09 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 12:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.phpI don't see the link to Trump.
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive >>> deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.
I've given up on you accepting and/or comprehending facts.Which only proves you're a moron and you're not listening.I guess you've given up on supporting yourself with facts.
Was it really necessary? The article is all about the gov't needing to pony up $$I'll explain once more, Ca. tax revenues swing from surplus to deficits with capital gainsWhere in the article is that link made?
that are largely dependent upon the stock market.
Trump clearly had the stock market on a roll.
Joe? Not so much.
to make anything work...
and I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cash right now and for the foreseeable future.
Is Trump or the stock marketIs that article a bible to you? It has to spell out everything?
mentioned at all?
GMAFB.
Indeed, the editorial is against a state
bailout. The low-hanging fruit IMO are the onerous permitting process >> and exclusionary zoning, although changing those would be more effective
in encouraging less expensive housing. If this were LA, I'd add parking
requirements.
The appeal of mass transit is limited, Ok for commuting or for going to the ballpark or other major attractions.Yes it is. I've seen it. There's an apartment near that has 100 low income (rent subsidized units).The most onerous aspect of Ca. zoning revisions is to eliminate the need forNot onerous for those who live there and use public transport.
off street parking to high density developments within a mile of a train or bus.
GMAFB.
They also charge for an extra parking spot. So the street is lined with cars.
And they're about a half mile from a rail line and the bus goes right down the street.
So even the rent subsidized with easy access to mass transit want to have a car when they need it.
The result is clogged streets with parking in all sorts of unexpected places. Cops quit ticketing illegal
parking years ago.
Useless for shopping, for visiting friends and family not close to stations, useless for running errands, or'for going anywhere else not adjacent to mass transit, or for carrying things. Useless for those with mobility restrictions
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 12:35:09 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I guess you've given up on supporting yourself with facts.
On 4/6/23 12:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.phpI don't see the link to Trump.
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive >>>>> deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.
Which only proves you're a moron and you're not listening.
I've given up on you accepting and/or comprehending facts.
I'll explain once more, Ca. tax revenues swing from surplus to deficits with capital gainsWhere in the article is that link made?
that are largely dependent upon the stock market.
Trump clearly had the stock market on a roll.
Joe? Not so much.
Was it really necessary? The article is all about the gov't needing to pony up $$
to make anything work...
and I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cash right now and for the foreseeable future.
Is Trump or the stock market mentioned at all?
Is that article a bible to you? It has to spell out everything?
GMAFB.
Indeed, the editorial is against a stateNot onerous for those who live there and use public transport.
bailout. The low-hanging fruit IMO are the onerous permitting process
and exclusionary zoning, although changing those would be more effective >>>> in encouraging less expensive housing. If this were LA, I'd add parking >>>> requirements.
The most onerous aspect of Ca. zoning revisions is to eliminate the need for
off street parking to high density developments within a mile of a train or bus.
GMAFB.
Yes it is. I've seen it. There's an apartment near that has 100 low income (rent subsidized units).
They also charge for an extra parking spot. So the street is lined with cars.
And they're about a half mile from a rail line and the bus goes right down the street.
So even the rent subsidized with easy access to mass transit want to have a car when they need it.
The result is clogged streets with parking in all sorts of unexpected places. Cops quit ticketing illegal
parking years ago.
That does leave the Feds.The business to housing conversion is interesting and we've discussed it >>>> before, recognizing that it isn't financially feasible in the current
market. Perhaps the dire predictions would make government incentives
more acceptable at the cost of lining real estate developers' pockets.
Gov't can't give 'em what it doesn't have....and SF and the state are both >>> facing huge deficits.
I'm all for raising your taxes to cover for Ca. sky high income tax....which you dodge.
The appeal of mass transit is limited, Ok for commuting or for going
to the ballpark or other major attractions. Useless for shopping, for visiting friends and family not close to stations, useless for
running errands, or'for going anywhere else not adjacent to mass
transit, or for carrying things. Useless for those with mobility
restrictions
On 4/6/23 6:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 12:35:09 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I guess you've given up on supporting yourself with facts.
On 4/6/23 12:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.phpI don't see the link to Trump.
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive >>>>> deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.
Which only proves you're a moron and you're not listening.
I've given up on you accepting and/or comprehending facts.That's too bad. I'm quite accepting of facts.
I'll explain once more, Ca. tax revenues swing from surplus to deficits with capital gainsWhere in the article is that link made?
that are largely dependent upon the stock market.
Trump clearly had the stock market on a roll.
Joe? Not so much.
Was it really necessary? The article is all about the gov't needing to pony up $$Since SF's problem is lack of downtown workers and the SF city
to make anything work...
government isn't funded by capital gains taxes, I don't follow your point.
and I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cash right now and for the foreseeable future.Which leaves non-cash incentives and federal support on the table.
Is Trump or the stock market mentioned at all?
Is that article a bible to you? It has to spell out everything?You posted it, then claimed, all together now, facts not in evidence.
GMAFB.
So, yes, if you're trying to make a coherent point, you should respect
the limits of your supporting materials.
If they're using a car, they're not using public transport.
On 4/6/23 9:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
The appeal of mass transit is limited, Ok for commuting or for goingParis, London, Barcelona and New York would like a word.
to the ballpark or other major attractions. Useless for shopping, for visiting friends and family not close to stations, useless for
running errands, or'for going anywhere else not adjacent to mass
transit, or for carrying things. Useless for those with mobility restrictions
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:39:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 6:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 12:35:09 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:That's too bad. I'm quite accepting of facts.
On 4/6/23 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I guess you've given up on supporting yourself with facts.
On 4/6/23 12:33 PM, ScottW wrote:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.phpI don't see the link to Trump.
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive >>>>>>> deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.
Which only proves you're a moron and you're not listening.
I've given up on you accepting and/or comprehending facts.
Since SF's problem is lack of downtown workers and the SF cityI'll explain once more, Ca. tax revenues swing from surplus to deficits with capital gainsWhere in the article is that link made?
that are largely dependent upon the stock market.
Trump clearly had the stock market on a roll.
Joe? Not so much.
Was it really necessary? The article is all about the gov't needing to pony up $$
to make anything work...
government isn't funded by capital gains taxes, I don't follow your point.
A state bailout of SF is limited by their own capital gains deficit.
and I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cash right now and for the foreseeable future.Which leaves non-cash incentives and federal support on the table.
WTF is a "non-cash" incentive? You suggesting tax cuts in the face of a tax drought?
You posted it, then claimed, all together now, facts not in evidence.Is Trump or the stock market mentioned at all?
Is that article a bible to you? It has to spell out everything?
GMAFB.
So do a little research or search your own memory of topics discussed in the past.
Really not hard to see that Ca. at the municipal and state level is facing a very large
deficit.
So, yes, if you're trying to make a coherent point, you should respect
the limits of your supporting materials.
So you only know what I tell you. I can't assume a basic knowledge of anything with you.
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 10:59:49 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 9:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
The appeal of mass transit is limited, Ok for commuting or for goingParis, London, Barcelona and New York would like a word.
to the ballpark or other major attractions. Useless for shopping, for
visiting friends and family not close to stations, useless for
running errands, or'for going anywhere else not adjacent to mass
transit, or for carrying things. Useless for those with mobility
restrictions
NYC would like a lot more police officers and a prosecutor who prosecutes.
And all three have the said limitations of usefullness
And NYC is a complete disaster regarding access for the disabled,
even assuming a disabled person can even get to the station without some sort of car ride.
I have no experience with Paris, but I have extensive experience with London, having
once lived in nearby Oxford.
not eveyplace you want to go is near an Underground station
On 4/7/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:39:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/6/23 6:46 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 12:35:09 PM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:That's too bad. I'm quite accepting of facts.
On 4/6/23 1:13 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, April 6, 2023 at 10:59:46 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 4/6/23 12:33 PM, ScottW wrote:I guess you've given up on supporting yourself with facts.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/downtown-san-francisco-17852552.phpI don't see the link to Trump.
All they need is a massive state bailout from a gov't facing massive >>>>>>> deficits until Trump turns the economy around....again.
Which only proves you're a moron and you're not listening.
I've given up on you accepting and/or comprehending facts.
Since SF's problem is lack of downtown workers and the SF cityI'll explain once more, Ca. tax revenues swing from surplus to deficits with capital gainsWhere in the article is that link made?
that are largely dependent upon the stock market.
Trump clearly had the stock market on a roll.
Joe? Not so much.
Was it really necessary? The article is all about the gov't needing to pony up $$
to make anything work...
government isn't funded by capital gains taxes, I don't follow your point.
A state bailout of SF is limited by their own capital gains deficit.A cash bailout, yes. Since SF's problems aren't caused by a lack of
capital gains tax, that's beside the point.
and I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cash right now and for the foreseeable future.Which leaves non-cash incentives and federal support on the table.
WTF is a "non-cash" incentive? You suggesting tax cuts in the face of a tax drought?Things that aren't cash. No, I only point out the existence of
alternatives.
Of course, a tax incentive would affect future revenue in
a situation where your article says a death spiral could lead to no
revenue at all.
Glad to see you're past the "all tax cuts are good" Republicanism of the 80s.
You posted it, then claimed, all together now, facts not in evidence.Is Trump or the stock market mentioned at all?
Is that article a bible to you? It has to spell out everything?
GMAFB.
So do a little research or search your own memory of topics discussed in the past.Or you could do a little research instead of spit-balling "capital
Really not hard to see that Ca. at the municipal and state level is facing a very large
deficit.
gains" after hearing about it on CNBC or whatever business-heavy biased source.
IIRC, the surplus was the unexpected situation
and this shows
why windfalls generally aren't used to fund continuing programs.
So, yes, if you're trying to make a coherent point, you should respect
the limits of your supporting materials.
So you only know what I tell you. I can't assume a basic knowledge of anything with you.That would tighten up your comprehensibility, but you exaggerate my suggestion. How big a problem is it for you to stick to a subject you
bring up yourself? At least in the first few posts?
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:57:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/7/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:39:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Since SF's problems aren't caused by a lack of capital gains tax,
that's beside the point.
Things that aren't cash. No, I only point out the existence ofand I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cashWhich leaves non-cash incentives and federal support on the
right now and for the foreseeable future.
table.
WTF is a "non-cash" incentive? You suggesting tax cuts in the
face of a tax drought?
alternatives.
Could you possibly be more vague?
Of course, a tax incentive would affect future revenue in a
situation where your article says a death spiral could lead to no
revenue at all.
Glad to see you're past the "all tax cuts are good" Republicanism
of the 80s.
Gov't run and funded housing projects have a history of performing
badly. I grew up in Illinois in the era of the Chicago Housing
Authority. Cabrini-Green still echoes through history.
Or you could do a little research instead of spit-balling "capitalYou posted it, then claimed, all together now, facts not inIs Trump or the stock market mentioned at all?
Is that article a bible to you? It has to spell out
everything? GMAFB.
evidence.
So do a little research or search your own memory of topics
discussed in the past. Really not hard to see that Ca. at the
municipal and state level is facing a very large deficit.
gains" after hearing about it on CNBC or whatever business-heavy
biased source.
I've lived in Ca. for 40 years dumbass.
IIRC, the surplus was the unexpected situation
A federal covid stimulus windfall and corp. profits and stock market
that out performed expectation.
You should also understand the history of Ca. Stocks run up...but
the cap gains tax don't immediately appear unless the rich have a
reason to sell. Well the stock market wasn't going to keep going up
and there was plenty of warnings it might take a crap. That's what
happened. Corp. taxes and cap gains tax receipts unexpectedly
swamped the loss of small business and middle class income tax. But
that never lasts. It's always the case.....boom and bust.
and this shows why windfalls generally aren't used to fund
continuing programs.
You shouldn't...cuz they are but they shouldn't be.
That would tighten up your comprehensibility, but you exaggerate mySo, yes, if you're trying to make a coherent point, you should
respect the limits of your supporting materials.
So you only know what I tell you. I can't assume a basic
knowledge of anything with you.
suggestion. How big a problem is it for you to stick to a subject
you bring up yourself? At least in the first few posts?
Says the queen of obfuscation.
On 4/8/23 6:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:57:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/7/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:39:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Since SF's problems aren't caused by a lack of capital gains tax,
that's beside the point.
Things that aren't cash. No, I only point out the existence ofand I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cashWhich leaves non-cash incentives and federal support on the
right now and for the foreseeable future.
table.
WTF is a "non-cash" incentive? You suggesting tax cuts in the
face of a tax drought?
alternatives.
Could you possibly be more vague?You responded to my example of tax incentives, so no, I'm not being vague.
Of course, a tax incentive would affect future revenue in a
situation where your article says a death spiral could lead to no
revenue at all.
Glad to see you're past the "all tax cuts are good" Republicanism
of the 80s.
Gov't run and funded housing projects have a history of performinghttps://allthatsinteresting.com/cabrini-green-homes#The%20Tragic%20End%20of%20The%20Dream
badly. I grew up in Illinois in the era of the Chicago Housing
Authority. Cabrini-Green still echoes through history.
Hed: How Racism Turned Chicago’s Cabrini-Green Homes From A Beacon Of Progress To A Run-Down Slum
Hed: How Racism Turned Chicago’s Cabrini-Green Homes From A Beacon Of Progress To A Run-Down SlumOh look, Stephen found a couple jr high kids civics paper. This is a joke.
Those projects failed for one simple and glaring obvious reason that many warned
about...and were accused of racism for it even though they turned out to be right.
You put a large population of down and out losers into one location and the area
surrounding it goes into decay.
Has nothing to do with race even if the majority of the Chi-town projects housed blacks.
Over years many housed hispanics as well.
Same shit happens today when cities allow homeless encampments to establish and grow.
Happens when they put in those idiotic safe drug use sites as well.
It's happening now in lilywhite Portland. It's happening in SanFran too. Drug use and crime will drive taxpaying and working families and businesses away....everytime.
ScottW
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 10:18:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/8/23 6:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:57:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:You responded to my example of tax incentives, so no, I'm not being vague.
On 4/7/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:39:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Since SF's problems aren't caused by a lack of capital gains tax,
that's beside the point.
Things that aren't cash. No, I only point out the existence ofand I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cashWhich leaves non-cash incentives and federal support on the
right now and for the foreseeable future.
table.
WTF is a "non-cash" incentive? You suggesting tax cuts in the
face of a tax drought?
alternatives.
Could you possibly be more vague?
Since you haven't provided a viable plan, I'll just have to list it under Stephen's wet dreams category.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/cabrini-green-homes#The%20Tragic%20End%20of%20The%20DreamOf course, a tax incentive would affect future revenue in a
situation where your article says a death spiral could lead to no
revenue at all.
Glad to see you're past the "all tax cuts are good" Republicanism
of the 80s.
Gov't run and funded housing projects have a history of performing
badly. I grew up in Illinois in the era of the Chicago Housing
Authority. Cabrini-Green still echoes through history.
Hed: How Racism Turned Chicago’s Cabrini-Green Homes From A Beacon Of
Progress To A Run-Down Slum
Oh look, Stephen found a couple jr high kids civics paper. This is a joke.
Those projects failed for one simple and glaring obvious reason that many warned
about...and were accused of racism for it even though they turned out to be right.
You put a large population of down and out losers into one location and the area
surrounding it goes into decay.
Has nothing to do with race even if the majority of the Chi-town projects housed blacks.
Over years many housed hispanics as well.
Same shit happens today when cities allow homeless encampments to establish and grow.
Happens when they put in those idiotic safe drug use sites as well.
It's happening now in lilywhite Portland. It's happening in SanFran too. Drug use and crime will drive taxpaying and working families and businesses away....everytime.
On 4/9/23 5:34 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 10:18:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/8/23 6:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:57:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:You responded to my example of tax incentives, so no, I'm not being vague.
On 4/7/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:39:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
Since SF's problems aren't caused by a lack of capital gains tax,
that's beside the point.
Things that aren't cash. No, I only point out the existence ofand I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully short on cashWhich leaves non-cash incentives and federal support on the
right now and for the foreseeable future.
table.
WTF is a "non-cash" incentive? You suggesting tax cuts in the
face of a tax drought?
alternatives.
Could you possibly be more vague?
Since you haven't provided a viable plan, I'll just have to list it under Stephen's wet dreams category.The article mentions zoning conversions which might be more likely with
some kind of public support. However, the problem is empty offices due
in part to remote work. If SF allows more affordable new multifamily housing, long commutes would be less of a disincentive for on location work.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/cabrini-green-homes#The%20Tragic%20End%20of%20The%20DreamOf course, a tax incentive would affect future revenue in a
situation where your article says a death spiral could lead to no
revenue at all.
Glad to see you're past the "all tax cuts are good" Republicanism
of the 80s.
Gov't run and funded housing projects have a history of performing
badly. I grew up in Illinois in the era of the Chicago Housing
Authority. Cabrini-Green still echoes through history.
Hed: How Racism Turned Chicago’s Cabrini-Green Homes From A Beacon Of >> Progress To A Run-Down Slum
Oh look, Stephen found a couple jr high kids civics paper. This is a joke."Morgan Dunn is a freelance writer who holds a bachelor’s degree in fine art and art history from Goldsmiths, University of London. His areas of interest include the Soviet Union, China, and the far-reaching effects
of colonialism."
Those projects failed for one simple and glaring obvious reason that many warnedYou equate "down and out losers" with Black.
about...and were accused of racism for it even though they turned out to be right.
You put a large population of down and out losers into one location and the area
surrounding it goes into decay.
Has nothing to do with race even if the majority of the Chi-town projects housed blacks.Redlining. All about race.
Over years many housed hispanics as well.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:29:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/9/23 5:34 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 10:18:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:The article mentions zoning conversions which might be more likely
On 4/8/23 6:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:57:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109You responded to my example of tax incentives, so no, I'm not
wrote:
On 4/7/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:39:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
Since SF's problems aren't caused by a lack of capital
gains tax, that's beside the point.
Things that aren't cash. No, I only point out the existenceand I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully shortWhich leaves non-cash incentives and federal support on
on cash right now and for the foreseeable future.
the table.
WTF is a "non-cash" incentive? You suggesting tax cuts in
the face of a tax drought?
of alternatives.
Could you possibly be more vague?
being vague.
Since you haven't provided a viable plan, I'll just have to list
it under Stephen's wet dreams category.
with some kind of public support. However, the problem is empty
offices due in part to remote work. If SF allows more affordable
new multifamily housing, long commutes would be less of a
disincentive for on location work.
Now you're just ping-ponging.
No cash public support is?
And who really wants to live in an inner city box subject to crime
and filth? They're not coming back. And the corporations are not
going to make them. Many have pulled out completely already.
Hed: How Racism Turned Chicago’s Cabrini-Green Homes From A Beacon Ofhttps://allthatsinteresting.com/cabrini-green-homes#The%20Tragic%20End%20of%20The%20DreamOf course, a tax incentive would affect future revenue in
a situation where your article says a death spiral could
lead to no revenue at all.
Glad to see you're past the "all tax cuts are good"
Republicanism of the 80s.
Gov't run and funded housing projects have a history of
performing badly. I grew up in Illinois in the era of the
Chicago Housing Authority. Cabrini-Green still echoes through
history.
"Morgan Dunn is a freelance writer who holds a bachelor’s degree inProgress To A Run-Down Slum
Oh look, Stephen found a couple jr high kids civics paper. This
is a joke.
fine art and art history from Goldsmiths, University of London. His
areas of interest include the Soviet Union, China, and the
far-reaching effects of colonialism."
Well that explains why his piece on Chicago projects was so
ill-informed.
Those projects failed for one simple and glaring obvious reasonYou equate "down and out losers" with Black.
that many warned about...and were accused of racism for it even
though they turned out to be right. You put a large population of
down and out losers into one location and the area surrounding it
goes into decay.
BS. Look at largely white trash drug addicts in Portland getting
the same results.
Has nothing to do with race even if the majority of the Chi-townRedlining. All about race.
projects housed blacks. Over years many housed hispanics as
well.
Red-herring that had nothing to do with the failure of Chi projects.
On 4/10/23 10:44 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:29:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/9/23 5:34 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 10:18:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:The article mentions zoning conversions which might be more likely
On 4/8/23 6:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:57:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109You responded to my example of tax incentives, so no, I'm not
wrote:
On 4/7/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:39:45 AM UTC-7, mINE109
wrote:
Since SF's problems aren't caused by a lack of capital
gains tax, that's beside the point.
Things that aren't cash. No, I only point out the existenceand I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefully shortWhich leaves non-cash incentives and federal support on
on cash right now and for the foreseeable future.
the table.
WTF is a "non-cash" incentive? You suggesting tax cuts in
the face of a tax drought?
of alternatives.
Could you possibly be more vague?
being vague.
Since you haven't provided a viable plan, I'll just have to list
it under Stephen's wet dreams category.
with some kind of public support. However, the problem is empty
offices due in part to remote work. If SF allows more affordable
new multifamily housing, long commutes would be less of a
disincentive for on location work.
Now you're just ping-ponging.I'm citing the article, and adding a comment about zoning which is
relevant due to new California and federal laws.
No cash public support is?Affordable housing is.
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:53:58 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/10/23 10:44 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, April 10, 2023 at 8:29:21 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:I'm citing the article, and adding a comment about zoning which is
On 4/9/23 5:34 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 10:18:29 AM UTC-7, mINE109The article mentions zoning conversions which might be more
wrote:
On 4/8/23 6:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 7:57:25 AM UTC-7, mINE109You responded to my example of tax incentives, so no, I'm
wrote:
On 4/7/23 5:16 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, April 7, 2023 at 7:39:45 AM UTC-7,
mINE109 wrote:
Since SF's problems aren't caused by a lack of capital
gains tax, that's beside the point.
Things that aren't cash. No, I only point out theand I'm pointing out that Ca gov't is woefullyWhich leaves non-cash incentives and federal
short on cash right now and for the foreseeable
future.
support on the table.
WTF is a "non-cash" incentive? You suggesting tax
cuts in the face of a tax drought?
existence of alternatives.
Could you possibly be more vague?
not being vague.
Since you haven't provided a viable plan, I'll just have to
list it under Stephen's wet dreams category.
likely with some kind of public support. However, the problem
is empty offices due in part to remote work. If SF allows more
affordable new multifamily housing, long commutes would be less
of a disincentive for on location work.
Now you're just ping-ponging.
relevant due to new California and federal laws.
No cash public support is?Affordable housing is.
You can't answer.
Stephen thinks money grows on trees and if needed for a project....it
will appear.
(snip the rest of his insane delusional view of history summarized
"the projects failed because the residents couldn't get the F' out
due to redlining")
https://www.digitalchicagohistory.org/exhibits/show/restricted-chicago/other/redlining
"At a time when racial segregation was still sanctioned by law, African Americans and Mexican Americans, who already lived in segregated neighborhoods, were further marginalized by denying them access to
mortgage loans provided to European Americans who eventually moved out
of the cities to establish new suburbs. The eventual Brown v. Board
(1954) decision that struck down de jure racial segregation hastened
this process by encouraging more European Americans to migrate to the suburbs, a process that quickly impoverished urban centers as the tax
base of inner cities were depleted by "white flight." For about half a rvr juss
century, redlining contributed to a widening gap between an affluent
suburban America and impoverished inner cities."
Steve makes another great point. Mexican Americans are just as much aspe·cious
victim of white supremacy as are blacks. They deserve just as much reparations as blacks. California reparations are discrimination
based, not slavery based.
Here is the Wiki population breakdown of California
According to the 2020 U.S. census, California's population was 34.7% Non-Hispanic White, 5.7% African American, 1.5% Native American,
16.1% Asian, 0.4% Pacific Islander, 13% Two or more races, and 39.4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
So, there are seven times as many hispanics as blacks. That's a hell
of a reparations invoice. Reparations will be paid to 45.1 % of its population.
Leaving out reparations to hispanics and limiting it only to blacks
would be a case of (heheheheeee--- get this) BLACK SUPREMACY and
BLACK PRIVILEGE. Steve would agree that we can't favor blacks over
hispanics.
On 4/10/23 5:00 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Steve makes another great point. Mexican Americans are just as much a victim of white supremacy as are blacks. They deserve just as much reparations as blacks. California reparations are discrimination
based, not slavery based.
Here is the Wiki population breakdown of California
According to the 2020 U.S. census, California's population was 34.7% Non-Hispanic White, 5.7% African American, 1.5% Native American,
16.1% Asian, 0.4% Pacific Islander, 13% Two or more races, and 39.4% Hispanic or Latino of any race
So, there are seven times as many hispanics as blacks. That's a hell
of a reparations invoice. Reparations will be paid to 45.1 % of its population.
Leaving out reparations to hispanics and limiting it only to blacksspe·cious
would be a case of (heheheheeee--- get this) BLACK SUPREMACY and
BLACK PRIVILEGE. Steve would agree that we can't favor blacks over hispanics.
[ˈspēSHəs]
ADJECTIVE
superficially plausible, but actually wrong:
"a specious argument"
misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive:
"the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty"
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:04:16 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/10/23 5:00 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Steve makes another great point. Mexican Americans are just as much aspe·cious
victim of white supremacy as are blacks. They deserve just as much
reparations as blacks. California reparations are discrimination
based, not slavery based.
Here is the Wiki population breakdown of California
According to the 2020 U.S. census, California's population was 34.7%
Non-Hispanic White, 5.7% African American, 1.5% Native American,
16.1% Asian, 0.4% Pacific Islander, 13% Two or more races, and 39.4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
So, there are seven times as many hispanics as blacks. That's a hell
of a reparations invoice. Reparations will be paid to 45.1 % of its
population.
Leaving out reparations to hispanics and limiting it only to blacks
would be a case of (heheheheeee--- get this) BLACK SUPREMACY and
BLACK PRIVILEGE. Steve would agree that we can't favor blacks over
hispanics.
[ˈspēSHəs]
ADJECTIVE
superficially plausible, but actually wrong:
"a specious argument"
misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive:
"the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty"
So. Your answer is racist exclusion against Hispanics.
On 4/11/23 3:17 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2023 at 11:04:16 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
On 4/10/23 5:00 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Steve makes another great point. Mexican Americans are just as much a >>> victim of white supremacy as are blacks. They deserve just as muchspe·cious
reparations as blacks. California reparations are discrimination
based, not slavery based.
Here is the Wiki population breakdown of California
According to the 2020 U.S. census, California's population was 34.7%
Non-Hispanic White, 5.7% African American, 1.5% Native American,
16.1% Asian, 0.4% Pacific Islander, 13% Two or more races, and 39.4%
Hispanic or Latino of any race
So, there are seven times as many hispanics as blacks. That's a hell
of a reparations invoice. Reparations will be paid to 45.1 % of its
population.
Leaving out reparations to hispanics and limiting it only to blacks
would be a case of (heheheheeee--- get this) BLACK SUPREMACY and
BLACK PRIVILEGE. Steve would agree that we can't favor blacks over
hispanics.
[ˈspēSHəs]
ADJECTIVE
superficially plausible, but actually wrong:
"a specious argument"
misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive:
"the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty"
So. Your answer is racist exclusion against Hispanics.Congrats! I can't call your reply 'specious,' as it's not even
superficially plausible.
Congrats! I can't call your reply 'specious,' as it's not evenLeaving out reparations to hispanics and limiting it only to blacksspe·cious
would be a case of (heheheheeee--- get this) BLACK SUPREMACY and
BLACK PRIVILEGE. Steve would agree that we can't favor blacks over
hispanics.
[ˈspēSHəs]
ADJECTIVE
superficially plausible, but actually wrong:
"a specious argument"
misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive:
"the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty"
So. Your answer is racist exclusion against Hispanics.
superficially plausible.
So, you assert that racism and mistreatment towards the hispanic community does not warranty reparations and that the racism and mistreatment towards the black community
does warrant reparations.
On 4/12/23 12:59 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
Congrats! I can't call your reply 'specious,' as it's not evenSo. Your answer is racist exclusion against Hispanics.Leaving out reparations to hispanics and limiting it only to blacks >>>>> would be a case of (heheheheeee--- get this) BLACK SUPREMACY andspe·cious
BLACK PRIVILEGE. Steve would agree that we can't favor blacks over >>>>> hispanics.
[ˈspēSHəs]
ADJECTIVE
superficially plausible, but actually wrong:
"a specious argument"
misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive:
"the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty" >>>
superficially plausible.
So, you assert that racism and mistreatment towards the hispanic community does not warranty reparations and that the racism and mistreatment towards the black communityNo, that's all you.
does warrant reparations.
Reparations for blacks, but Hispanics are excluded.
Sack-full-of-crap whined...
Reparations for blacks, but Hispanics are excluded.
Now do Germany and Jews, Gypsies, communists, and Gays.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 28:19:51 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,806 |