The city is imploding all by itself just fine without AirBnB's help.
What's your suggestion for fixing things anyway? The problem with the city is the city government, which is elected by the residents. There's no way to fix things without changing the government, but that's not going to happen because the government is approved of by the residents.
I'm not going to shed a tear for the place when it implodes. They did it to themselves with their NIMBY policies.
Check out Summit, New Jersey. It takes about an hour (if that) to get to Manhattan by NJ Transit train, and is a rather upscale town. It's not going to be super-cheap though (nothing near NYC is if it's any good), but you really should be able to find houses much cheaper than $1M. The property taxes are high though. Also check out Morristown. It's a little farther out though. Millburn is really nice too, and slightly closer than Summit.
You can't get into the venue in the first place without putting a $500 authorization (or "hold") on your credit card.
Citation needed. I've been to a bunch of concerts and never seen anything like this. Of course, I don't go to stupid teenage pop concerts, so maybe they do things differently.
You have a good point, but the part you totally missed out, either intentionally or not, is that we saw this same stuff under the Republican Bush administration.
Therefore, you're going to get more of the same if you vote either for Republicans or Democrats.
The simple solution is A: don't buy Apple products. They've proven over and over that they do not act in the customer's interest, so the only rational solution is to not be their customer.
The same goes with Windows, exemplified by their actions with Windows 10.
At least with an Android device, you can load up an alternative firmware like CyanogenMod which doesn't have this crap.
You're entirely correct about geological factors. But the OP was claiming that being earthquake prone, by itself, prevented high rises from being built. Tokyo disproves that. He never said anything about other factors. That could be the case for SF.
However, as for it being a "bad idea", I don't see how the current situation is sustainable. Either the city needs to build more housing (and the only answer is to build up, and eliminate some of the single-family housing they currently have; this does not necessarily mean high-rises), or it's going to implode at some point because service workers won't be able to live close enough to commute, and you can't have a city that has no service workers.
The reason I think you're a fucking moron is because Tokyo has huge buildings and Japan is extremely earthquake-prone, and it hasn't stopped them. If Japan can do it, than SanFran (the most expensive city in the US) can too.
This seems non sequitur to me. I agree about all the crap with university sports, but I don't see how eliminating pro sports would drive drugs and cheating into amateur sports. If there's no monetary rewards to be had in amateur sports at all (if they make money at it, it's "pro" by definition), then what's the incentive to do all that? Bragging points with your neighbors? Keeping the money out of it I think would eliminate all that, because with amateur sports it's just something people do for fun, after work or on the weekend, and they still have to go to a regular job during the week.
The racing bikes aren't practical. In a race not too long ago, the low amount of tire clearance caused a pebble to lock up a wheel. Just think about that for a moment. The bikes they ride are about as realistic for the average person as a drag racer would be realistic for the daily commute.
So, what's the point? If they want to use impractical bikes, that's fine: they run a higher risk of not being able to complete because of mechanical problems, in exchange for higher performance. Racers who use more practical bikes get a performance penalty, but lower risk of mechanical problems and higher probability of finishing. Let them decide how much risk vs. performance they're willing to accept.
No, you're really stupid for first calling me stupid and then reinforcing my point, which was that not all dealerships have cheap oil changes. I merely used BMW and Mercedes (there is no "Benz" here in the US, where the OP also lives) as examples to prove my point. They're not the only ones either; there's lots of luxury marquees here, all with high-priced service and cars which do nasty tricks like not letting you reset the oil-change indicator without a special dealer-only service tool.
In the US, no, "Benz" is not mass market. Mercedes is a luxury moniker here.
And WTF are you talking about with self esteem? Are you too stupid to follow a rational line of thinking? I don't have a luxury car, I have a Mazda economy car. I merely pointed out that the OP's experience with oil change prices was not universal. You're not going to get cheap prices at many dealerships, including probably all the upmarket brands.
I don't see that as a problem. Maybe eventually all the restaurants and other stores will close, and the city will finally be forced to build high-rises.
I have to disagree about NYC. There absolutely *is* a large network of cheaper suburbs within an hour's commute of Manhattan, on both sides: Brooklyn, Queens, Jersey City by PATH, a large part of northern NJ by bus and train, etc.
If the building was already an apartment, I don't see what the problem is. If it doesn't meet code as an apartment even though it's being rented short-term, it's not going to meet code as an apartment if they rent it as a regular apartment either. How does registering it solve this? And why aren't they making sure regular apartments meet code anyway?
He's not saying that you should. He's pointing out how, in his opinion, the effects are different. Not that many people really care about the cab companies, except all the highly vocal cab company shills. But most people at least think they're supposed to care about their neighbors, or common people in general, and his claim is that AirBnB is hurting them, rather than the cab companies who many claim are really just a corrupt cartel who've paid off local governments for regulations favorable to their companies. You can't really make that claim about people living in a residential community.
I don't see the problem, or why the city needs to survive. In the case of SanFran at least, this is all the city government's doing anyway, because they refuse to allow any new construction. If there's such a shortage of housing, they need to be building high-rises. But they don't want to do that, so fuck 'em. Let the city die.
My wife and I were down to one car for a bit in northern NJ a couple years ago, and had to call for a cab a few times. It was nearly an hour for them to show up. And one of them didn't even use the taximeter, he just made up a charge on the spot.
Then I found out about Uber and Lyft, installed them on my phone, and had a ride in 10 minutes or less for a fraction of the cost, and in far nicer cars too, with much less shady-looking drivers.
I really wonder how many airBnB renters in SanFran aren't visitors, but instead are actually high-income workers who use this to find a place instead of actually renting a normal apartment. Someone getting paid $150k+ can probably afford that.
Also, limited-term contracts are very common in the software world. I'm constantly getting emails from recruiters asking me to apply for 6-month or 12-month (and sometimes just 3-month) long contracts in various places around the country. If I took such a job near SanFran, it might make a lot of sense to do airBnB for that duration, rather than locking myself into a 12-month lease.
That's all the city's fault. There is a desperate shortage of housing in SF, and I personally hope it gets far, far, far worse.
The shortage is caused by the government itself, and all the NIMBY regulations. If there's not enough rental units, then WHY are there no giant high-rise apartment buildings being built, like you see in other big cities? Because incumbent property owners don't want "the view" to be messed up. Well, if you refuse to build anything higher than 2 stories, then there's only so many apartments you can pack into a given space.
I say let the housing market in SF implode. At some point, catastrophic change will be forced. If service workers can't live in SF, too bad: they don't have to! They can live somewhere else. And if that means they can't reasonably commute into SF to work, no problem! That means local SF business will have to go without workers, or they'll have to pay them six-figure salaries to come work there. If that means all the local businesses in SF (like grocery stores and restaurants) have to shut down, no problem. At some point, this will cause a complete implosion of the property values in the area (because whoTF wants to live in a city full of ultra-expensive housing and absolutely nothing to do and nowhere to shop or even get any food?), and change will be forced. The sooner, the better too.
I don't see why the downsides (OD, early death, etc.) are a problem. If someone wants to risk those things, let them.
However, insurance companies should be allowed to deny coverage for anyone who's a pro athlete. If they want to screw up their bodies to compete in these dumb sports, then the consequences should fall entirely on them.
we might as well do away with professional sports.
Sounds good to me. I'm all in favor.
I think amateur sports are a great thing to get involved in, but pro sports are just a waste of time and money and just a competition to see who's the best at cheating.
I interviewed at a company that made X-ray systems for welding inspection, way back in the late 1990s. I seem to remember them telling me they had systems that could inspect welds on steel plates used in shipbuilding, which would be several inches thick at the very least. The amount of X-ray radiation produced by one of these machines was huge.
X-raying a bike is nothing, especially when they're all made of carbon fibre now with bits of aluminum and titanium.
I have a simple solution for all of this: you get one bike to finish the stage, and whatever tools and parts you can carry with you. That's it.
If your bike breaks and you can't fix it yourself on the side of the road with the tools you're carrying, you don't finish, or you can walk.
This whole idea of having support cars and spare bikes just defeats the whole point of cycling. If you're in a car race and your engine blows up, you don't get to swap out to another car. So why should you get to swap out to another bike? When I'm taking a long-distance trip on my bike, if it breaks, I better have the tools with me to fix it or else I'm walking, unless I'm lucky enough to be near a bike shop (not likely). The only support car they should have in this race is a truck that picks up failed riders and their broken bikes who decide to throw in the towel.
Slashdot Mirror
The city is imploding all by itself just fine without AirBnB's help.
What's your suggestion for fixing things anyway? The problem with the city is the city government, which is elected by the residents. There's no way to fix things without changing the government, but that's not going to happen because the government is approved of by the residents.
I'm not going to shed a tear for the place when it implodes. They did it to themselves with their NIMBY policies.
Check out Summit, New Jersey. It takes about an hour (if that) to get to Manhattan by NJ Transit train, and is a rather upscale town. It's not going to be super-cheap though (nothing near NYC is if it's any good), but you really should be able to find houses much cheaper than $1M. The property taxes are high though. Also check out Morristown. It's a little farther out though. Millburn is really nice too, and slightly closer than Summit.
Virtually all kids toys are "wasteful products". Why not just ban children?
Well, in the long term, that would solve all problems with over-consumption of resources.
You can't get into the venue in the first place without putting a $500 authorization (or "hold") on your credit card.
Citation needed. I've been to a bunch of concerts and never seen anything like this. Of course, I don't go to stupid teenage pop concerts, so maybe they do things differently.
You have a good point, but the part you totally missed out, either intentionally or not, is that we saw this same stuff under the Republican Bush administration.
Therefore, you're going to get more of the same if you vote either for Republicans or Democrats.
B is problematic as others have pointed out here.
The simple solution is A: don't buy Apple products. They've proven over and over that they do not act in the customer's interest, so the only rational solution is to not be their customer.
The same goes with Windows, exemplified by their actions with Windows 10.
At least with an Android device, you can load up an alternative firmware like CyanogenMod which doesn't have this crap.
You're entirely correct about geological factors. But the OP was claiming that being earthquake prone, by itself, prevented high rises from being built. Tokyo disproves that. He never said anything about other factors. That could be the case for SF.
However, as for it being a "bad idea", I don't see how the current situation is sustainable. Either the city needs to build more housing (and the only answer is to build up, and eliminate some of the single-family housing they currently have; this does not necessarily mean high-rises), or it's going to implode at some point because service workers won't be able to live close enough to commute, and you can't have a city that has no service workers.
The reason I think you're a fucking moron is because Tokyo has huge buildings and Japan is extremely earthquake-prone, and it hasn't stopped them. If Japan can do it, than SanFran (the most expensive city in the US) can too.
So fuck off.
This seems non sequitur to me. I agree about all the crap with university sports, but I don't see how eliminating pro sports would drive drugs and cheating into amateur sports. If there's no monetary rewards to be had in amateur sports at all (if they make money at it, it's "pro" by definition), then what's the incentive to do all that? Bragging points with your neighbors? Keeping the money out of it I think would eliminate all that, because with amateur sports it's just something people do for fun, after work or on the weekend, and they still have to go to a regular job during the week.
The racing bikes aren't practical. In a race not too long ago, the low amount of tire clearance caused a pebble to lock up a wheel. Just think about that for a moment. The bikes they ride are about as realistic for the average person as a drag racer would be realistic for the daily commute.
So, what's the point? If they want to use impractical bikes, that's fine: they run a higher risk of not being able to complete because of mechanical problems, in exchange for higher performance. Racers who use more practical bikes get a performance penalty, but lower risk of mechanical problems and higher probability of finishing. Let them decide how much risk vs. performance they're willing to accept.
Tokyo, motherfucker. Do you know where that is?
It's really incredible the depths this shitty site has descended to.
No, you're really stupid for first calling me stupid and then reinforcing my point, which was that not all dealerships have cheap oil changes. I merely used BMW and Mercedes (there is no "Benz" here in the US, where the OP also lives) as examples to prove my point. They're not the only ones either; there's lots of luxury marquees here, all with high-priced service and cars which do nasty tricks like not letting you reset the oil-change indicator without a special dealer-only service tool.
In the US, no, "Benz" is not mass market. Mercedes is a luxury moniker here.
And WTF are you talking about with self esteem? Are you too stupid to follow a rational line of thinking? I don't have a luxury car, I have a Mazda economy car. I merely pointed out that the OP's experience with oil change prices was not universal. You're not going to get cheap prices at many dealerships, including probably all the upmarket brands.
I don't see that as a problem. Maybe eventually all the restaurants and other stores will close, and the city will finally be forced to build high-rises.
I have to disagree about NYC. There absolutely *is* a large network of cheaper suburbs within an hour's commute of Manhattan, on both sides: Brooklyn, Queens, Jersey City by PATH, a large part of northern NJ by bus and train, etc.
If the building was already an apartment, I don't see what the problem is. If it doesn't meet code as an apartment even though it's being rented short-term, it's not going to meet code as an apartment if they rent it as a regular apartment either. How does registering it solve this? And why aren't they making sure regular apartments meet code anyway?
He's not saying that you should. He's pointing out how, in his opinion, the effects are different. Not that many people really care about the cab companies, except all the highly vocal cab company shills. But most people at least think they're supposed to care about their neighbors, or common people in general, and his claim is that AirBnB is hurting them, rather than the cab companies who many claim are really just a corrupt cartel who've paid off local governments for regulations favorable to their companies. You can't really make that claim about people living in a residential community.
I don't see the problem, or why the city needs to survive. In the case of SanFran at least, this is all the city government's doing anyway, because they refuse to allow any new construction. If there's such a shortage of housing, they need to be building high-rises. But they don't want to do that, so fuck 'em. Let the city die.
You have to wait 15-30 minutes for a cab?
My wife and I were down to one car for a bit in northern NJ a couple years ago, and had to call for a cab a few times. It was nearly an hour for them to show up. And one of them didn't even use the taximeter, he just made up a charge on the spot.
Then I found out about Uber and Lyft, installed them on my phone, and had a ride in 10 minutes or less for a fraction of the cost, and in far nicer cars too, with much less shady-looking drivers.
Yeah, I noticed that too.
I really wonder how many airBnB renters in SanFran aren't visitors, but instead are actually high-income workers who use this to find a place instead of actually renting a normal apartment. Someone getting paid $150k+ can probably afford that.
Also, limited-term contracts are very common in the software world. I'm constantly getting emails from recruiters asking me to apply for 6-month or 12-month (and sometimes just 3-month) long contracts in various places around the country. If I took such a job near SanFran, it might make a lot of sense to do airBnB for that duration, rather than locking myself into a 12-month lease.
That's all the city's fault. There is a desperate shortage of housing in SF, and I personally hope it gets far, far, far worse.
The shortage is caused by the government itself, and all the NIMBY regulations. If there's not enough rental units, then WHY are there no giant high-rise apartment buildings being built, like you see in other big cities? Because incumbent property owners don't want "the view" to be messed up. Well, if you refuse to build anything higher than 2 stories, then there's only so many apartments you can pack into a given space.
I say let the housing market in SF implode. At some point, catastrophic change will be forced. If service workers can't live in SF, too bad: they don't have to! They can live somewhere else. And if that means they can't reasonably commute into SF to work, no problem! That means local SF business will have to go without workers, or they'll have to pay them six-figure salaries to come work there. If that means all the local businesses in SF (like grocery stores and restaurants) have to shut down, no problem. At some point, this will cause a complete implosion of the property values in the area (because whoTF wants to live in a city full of ultra-expensive housing and absolutely nothing to do and nowhere to shop or even get any food?), and change will be forced. The sooner, the better too.
I don't see why the downsides (OD, early death, etc.) are a problem. If someone wants to risk those things, let them.
However, insurance companies should be allowed to deny coverage for anyone who's a pro athlete. If they want to screw up their bodies to compete in these dumb sports, then the consequences should fall entirely on them.
we might as well do away with professional sports.
Sounds good to me. I'm all in favor.
I think amateur sports are a great thing to get involved in, but pro sports are just a waste of time and money and just a competition to see who's the best at cheating.
I interviewed at a company that made X-ray systems for welding inspection, way back in the late 1990s. I seem to remember them telling me they had systems that could inspect welds on steel plates used in shipbuilding, which would be several inches thick at the very least. The amount of X-ray radiation produced by one of these machines was huge.
X-raying a bike is nothing, especially when they're all made of carbon fibre now with bits of aluminum and titanium.
I have a simple solution for all of this: you get one bike to finish the stage, and whatever tools and parts you can carry with you. That's it.
If your bike breaks and you can't fix it yourself on the side of the road with the tools you're carrying, you don't finish, or you can walk.
This whole idea of having support cars and spare bikes just defeats the whole point of cycling. If you're in a car race and your engine blows up, you don't get to swap out to another car. So why should you get to swap out to another bike? When I'm taking a long-distance trip on my bike, if it breaks, I better have the tools with me to fix it or else I'm walking, unless I'm lucky enough to be near a bike shop (not likely). The only support car they should have in this race is a truck that picks up failed riders and their broken bikes who decide to throw in the towel.