The real question is: Why are these paid activists against democracy and community and the environment?
-
-
Second, densification is good for the environment. Every additional resident we accept in California is one less resident that imposes more heavily on the environment - heating or cooling - elsewhere in the US.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @issiromem @kimmaicutler
Because there’s no density anywhere else in the US? We have exclusive rights to density in CA? Manhattan’s not dense at all. Bring us all the growth - what a really dumb approach.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @rihallix @kimmaicutler
You have two assets here that you don't have in most other parts of the country: Silicon Valley and a perfect climate. Excluding people from the Bay Area via land use policy is costly to the US Re Silicon Valley https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/chang-tai.hsieh/research/growth.pdf … Re Perfect climate http://www.nber.org/papers/w14238
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @issiromem @kimmaicutler
Why is it so imperative that we have to grow? Growth comes often at great cost to quality of life.
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @rihallix @issiromem
Do you have giant non-negotiable pension liabilities that are protected by the last 63 years of CA Supreme court interpretations of contract law and insufficient (and also constitutionally capped) municipal tax revenues to cover this structural gap? Great! You need growth.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @issiromem
That’s one way to solve it. There are others with less adverse impact.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rihallix @issiromem
When you figure out how to amend the California constitution to make it less structurally reliant on high growth and high wealth inequality industries, please get back to us. But for the time being, the general fund is 70% dependent on personal income & capital gains tax, thus
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
the Bay Area/Silicon Valley essentially funds a significant part if not close to half of the CA govt every year.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @issiromem
Sounds like sb827 doesn’t need to be a statewide law then.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Ask yourself why Marin has mysteriously managed to constrain its population to roughly 200K people over the past several decades while Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, Contra Costa counties, etc have had to grow and also are more racially, socioeconomically diverse
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @issiromem
That’s an easy one - I wrote this op ed addressing that precise allegationhttp://www.marinij.com/opinion/20180110/marin-voice-heroic-efforts-that-made-marin-shouldnt-be-vilified …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I’m missing the part in that article about racial and socioeconomic diversity. Instead, your article admits the real reason: property values
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes - 6 more replies
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.