if you're interested in debating in good faith and are willing not to have a pseudonym, I'd be happy to continue discussing policy. But if not, blocked!
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Feel free. I use a pseudonym because bitter YIMBYs kept doxxing me. Like you, they assume that a million $ home is a mansion owned by an unworthy patrician. The gap between my reality and your fantasy I fear is too big to be bridged
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MyBackyardPara1
Housing did not used to be 10X median incomes in the Bay Area, it was 4X median income in the late 1970s. But then the state downzoned, restricted supply, capped its property taxes (which got priced into higher property values and also gutted education funding).
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
That’s true. If want want to turn back the clock 45 years, good luck. Turn it back for health care too, please. Resuscitate journalism too. Life has changed. It’s gotten worse in many ways, but your approach isn’t practical.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MyBackyardPara1
No, I'm saying things are more expensive because of choices that voters have deliberately made over the last 40 years. I don't see a solution from you, other than telling people to move to other states, which in actual practice will mean lower-income/middle-class Californians.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Living where you can actually afford to live is not a radical thought. Your last sentence confused me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MyBackyardPara1
so encouraging people to sprawl out into hazardous wildland-urban interface areas with deadly fire risk or into Texas/Southwest where per capita carbon emissions are 2-3X higher than they are in California are cool with you. Great.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Let’s take three California cities in terrible trouble. Stockton, Modesto, Fresno. Let’s give Big Tech tax incentives to build satellite offices in those cities. Your thoughts?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MyBackyardPara1
tech companies tend to follow where engineers go and accumulate mass, not the other way around. The companies came to SF after a critical mass of engineers started living up here in the first dot-com boom.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler
I think a good number of current tech employees have moved to work at Google (adding to the demand for housing and driving up prices). I think they’d find a job at Google more appealing if housing didn’t cost a fortune. (Btw, Google currently has 70 offices around the world.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes after Google became a giant publicly traded company, and after Silicon Valley had been around for 50 years.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
And it continues to grow. As do the others. Why not encourage expansion to our cites that are suffering rather than allow runaway costs and unhealthy density?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.