andys627

>> “If it prevents even a single black person from feeling more isolated in the tech community, feels like a no-brainer to me”.

This is worth breaking the docs. They’ll be easy to fix.

I'm not sure. It would be good to prevent spread of disease. But also, Tesla's mission (https://www.tesla.com/about) is "to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy." This is a generational timescale business - in Musk's mind an extra 1.5% of population dying is probably worth it - especially if the alternative is Tesla dies.

Edit - here's an interesting question - how many lives is accelerating the world's transition to sustainable energy worth? Climate change is surely going to cost lives. Tesla also isn't really the best solution in my mind. I think we should all live in denser cities where you can walk, bike, and use transit.

> Musk went as far as to dare authorities to arrest him.

Is this referring to this tweet (https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1259945593805221891) that said "Tesla is restarting production today against Alameda County rules. I will be on the line with everyone else. If anyone is arrested, I ask that it only be me." ?

The whole thing?

> Try the same thing on Mission, Howard, Folsom, Harrison, Geary, Van Ness, etc. and you’ll see a very different story.

Probably not. More car lanes = more cars. Less car lanes = less cars. People switch modes, drive elsewhere, don't take trips, etc. Time and time again (Paris, London, NYC, SF, Portland, Seattle, and many many more) cities have taken space from cars without carmageddon.

Use free energy to sequester infinite carbon!

A 30 ft radius in Davos contains half the worlds wealth

The Overhead Wire which is about transit, cities, architecture, traffic, built environment: https://theoverheadwire.com/subscriptions/

Worth =/= today's sales...

This is analogous to micro transit - on demand, smaller buses or vans. One crucial difference, the most expensive cost is eliminated - the driver. Larger buses still have a significant place and will become much cheaper when the driver is gone.

Do you have any sources for this info?

Here's a study looking at that: https://bicycle-research.ucdavis.edu/bicyclists-as-consumers...

Found bikers basically spend as much as drivers... they spend less per trip but make more trips.

I don't disagree that they should be compensated. It is not the only moving part, however, and those should be priced in as well.

I don't think they will. The first argument in the article is that people buy these lots to hold and resell later at a higher price when the neighborhood improves. Parking income just pays a little while they wait.

I like this billboard from the good old days https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Ev....

It says: "Everybody works but the vacant lot. I paid $3,600 for this lot and will hold till I get $6000. The profit is unearned increment made possible by the presence of this community and enterprise of its people. I take the profit without earning it."

These lots produce negative externalities to society and should be taxed accordingly.

If you do one thing, email your city council members and ask them to eliminate parking requirements. Here's a sample email which also explains why:

Parking minimums should be eliminated or significantly reduced in central neighborhoods where we've invested in bike lanes, walkability, and transit.

By insisting that we dedicate space for cars even in areas where residents have expressed interest in walking, biking, and using transit, parking minimums "build in" demand for driving and make it easier for people to drive than to use the transit alternatives they prefer.

Parking minimums also make housing more expensive even as our region faces a critical affordable housing shortage. The housing crunch disproportionately affects the poorest among us, who often don't have cars or struggle to afford gas. Why are we requiring these critically affected people to shoulder the cost burden created by parking minimums?

I think the wide angle camera is pretty important if you're into taking pics

Join a non profit working on something you believe in

Not encouraging driving is not the same as discouraging driving. Eliminated parking minimums neither discourages or encourages driving.

I'd argue that if we prefer it so much, the free market would take care of it.

Gov'ts can do 3 things - encourage something, do nothing, or discourage something. Parking minimums encourage people to drive cars. This is LA taking a small step towards picking winners (cars...) just little bit less.

This is not a silver bullet, but a small step in the right direction. I think it causes problems in the short run, but helps strengthen public transit in the long run.

Providing parking is expensive - perhaps developers will create units that are more affordable if they are not required to spend the extra money to provide parking.

We've been digging the "cars first" hole for 75-100 years, so it is going to be painful for a while to get out. Less accommodation for cars is necessary for people to really consider alternatives.

The market works this out "automatically" when supply is greater than demand. If there are too many dwelling units then landlords will compete with eachother for tenants by lowering prices relative to eachother.

We're seeing lots of comments from current bike commuters, representing a survivor bias. Protected bike lanes are built to encourage people who are currently too scared to ride on a regular bike lane.

In Denmark cars are taxed 100% and they still prob aren't paying their fair share. They do have lots of people walking, biking, and taking tansit.

> Driving everywhere in Houston results in a hell of a lot higher quality of life than riding public transit everywhere in Boston.

It's a trade off. One of these tanks the planet and the other doesn't, however.

If you order a Big Mac at McDonalds and hand them $0.25, you haven't paid for for your Big Mac.

Exactly!