I'm not sure what economically vibrant means but I assume you'd agree that Cupertino is not helping to make any community walkable or dense or integrated, and that they're certainly not abandoning car-centric infrastructure. So... you agree with Tim somewhat??? 
don't know if you saw this thing over here, but we have $5.8 billion in unfunded pension liabilities in SF alone. Even with the tech boom, SF is *barely* able to keep up with its growing liabilities. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-24/san-francisco-boosts-deficit-forecast-anticipating-higher-costs … http://mysfers.org/wp-content/uploads/SFERS_AnnualReport_FY16_web.pdf …pic.twitter.com/TdIOMfbbFS
-
-
if the rate of return was even decreased by one full percentage point, then we'd have a $9 billion liability to cover. http://mysfers.org/wp-content/uploads/SFERS_AnnualReport_FY16_web.pdf …pic.twitter.com/cOYh6GHjab
-
if you're prepared to make the drastic cuts to public sector services and workers that are implied by a slower growth rate (above and beyond the current cannibalization that's happening http://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/Anzia_PensionsintheTrenches_Aug62017.pdf …), then by all means...at least you would be ideologically consistent.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.