94 karma · joined September 9, 2010
They should have solved the architectural problem incrementally without adding a 1.0 language rewrite to the mix and then slowly rebuilt the app using Swift.
This is so obvious to anyone with experience it seems pretty evident that the decision making process there at the time was deeply flawed.
But that would require regulations which is bad for job creations or something.
Most of those you label "NIMBY" are just looking to maintain an existing community and civic service level.
The people you should be directing your ire towards is not your strawman "NIMBY" but the city planners and commercial developers who overzone and overbuild office space and under-zone housing.
Nevermind the fact that the question here is about homelessness which is exacerbated when you lobby to mow down affordable SROs and rent controlled housing so some developers can rebuild luxury condos in their place.
How exactly will that help the homelessness problem?
I just hope they crash less than my smartphone...or smart tv...or smart refrigerator... or...
The root cause was losing a lot of funding for mental health services during the Gov. Reagan years.
But go ahead with your strawman.
Apparently the investors/builders have a price floor they cant go under else the situation becomes financially unviable.
Also - it would appear that several of these new builds are having a tough time filling units at luxury prices.
Who knew?! I thought if we just kept building the market fairy would magically lower prices everywhere.
That sounds a lot more tangible and useful than an imaginary hyper loop or putting more "self driving" cars on the road.
Uninsured, automated gypsy cabs. No danger there.
For the record, its not that great of a surf spot, but this is more about letting someone establish precedent and thus leading to more beach access rights (Malibu...) getting chipped away at slowly but surely.
It would be great if we had Hawaii's right-of-way laws...
And to the original poster - not sure why you were down voted for asking a question.
You mean the "red tape" meant to ensure that buildings don't collapse on you while you work, or in your sleep as the ground the building is built on turns into quicksand?
Or maybe the "red tape" that exists to ensure that there is adequate transportation and services to support increased density.
I think what would happen is a lot of shitty housing would be built that would kill a lot of people and bring the city to a halt during the next sizable earthquake.
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard this one. I refuse to believe that professional landlords are keeping units off the market when the current rental market may well represent the top of what they can get for the next 5 years. Most of the long term landlords who bought 20-30 years ago have gone through at least 3 down markets from the late 80s to now. The current employment gold rush in SF is just that, and I suspect long term owners recognize that and want to strike while the iron is hot.
I am willing to change my opinion if anyone could provide any tangible data, but I only see this argument bandied about with no actual proof.
So in my rebuttal, I would say that I guess that there are less than 100 units like that across the city. I have no proof, but I feel thats the case, therefore rent control not bad. See how that works?
http://www.quora.com/Family/I-caught-my-younger-brother-watc...
http://www.quora.com/How-does-a-sixteen-year-old-get-a-girlf...
Look - I don't care if Quora wants to spam my inbox with link bait in order to generate AU and page views, but they could at least not try to take the high road and pretend to be anything more than the lowest common denominator, no-business-model, spam factory that they are.
http://www.quora.com/Interracial-Dating-and-Relationships/Wh...
and
http://www.quora.com/Dating-and-Relationships-1/How-do-Asian...
and
http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-worst-experience-youve-had-...
That right there is a whole lotta value.