Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Koya

Members
  • Content Count

    42,752
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Koya last won the day on June 18 2018

Koya had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11,058 Excellent

About Koya

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

22,902 profile views
  1. No, that is not what was stated. The nuance is important. First, yes, we need to build more housing - of all types. Yes, a focus on lower price points. But at ALL price points is the key factor here. And lower price points need to be focused on middle class, not subsidized and low income housing. That said, we must understand the root causes of the issue - WHY, at any number of levels, are we not producing enough housing. Then, we have to understand a multi-tiered approach to overcoming the obstacles to housing. It's not as simple as "just build more" - for the reasons I listed (and many more, to be honest). MOST of all, I want to know what do you mean by "housing settlements" - utilizing verbiage like that is very much a part of the problem: 1. It connotes that even low or moderately priced housing is a "settlement" which is a negative if not deraugotory term. That perpetuates the fears in many communities that lead to NIMBYism in the first place... settlement also connotes, whether you meant it or not, that those folks living there will be "different" - racially/ethnically, socially, economically - which is one of the most common reasons why folks present NIMBYism (racism/classism). I'm not saying you harbor these feelings, but that language is at best, suspect, so I'm curious just why you chose "settlements" as a work. 2. "Lower cost" does not mean "subsidized" or "low income" - accessory dwelling units and other missing middle product types are hardly aimed for low income... what we need is for both single family and multifamily to be delivered where middle class America does not have to spend 30%+ of their income on housing, and moreso on housing + transportation. Heck, my last point about transportation is something that doesn't even have to do with the sheer supply vs demand numbers in aggregate, so curious why you'd suggest it was a lot of words (it was) to "only" say we need more housing.
  2. Heya folks - as many of you know, I've steered clear of engaging in the forums for reasons stated a number of times, but this happens to be a subject of which, I have deep knowledge. In addition to affordability being one of the greatest issues facing almost every community in which I work (mixed-use real estate development and consulting work, the latter usually for municipal clients), I recently completed a 40 page white paper on the affordability crisis for a client detailing the causes, and potential strategies to overcome, this issue. Yes, I am known for lengthy posts, but I'll try to keep this under 40 pages (if folks want a link or copy of the report I'll be happy to send via email, just PM me... and I have written probably a half dozen articles/blogs including a 5 part series on this issue). A few top line thoughts: Yes it's a crisis. Undersupply and growing demand 1. It is absolutely a crisis. We have under produced housing by nearly 7.5 MILLION units from 2000-2015. 2. To exacerbate the lack of overall production, much of the existing product is not suited for what today's consumer wants. There is increased demand for rental apartments that is even further lacking than for sale single family... and both product types are in even greater demand (with less relative supply) in walkable, urban, locations (center city cores, mixed-use suburban nodes, smaller cities, and historic downtowns). 3. This is economics 101 - there is a SEVERE lack of demand. Overall, and moreso for the aforementioned market segments/geographic locations. Causes of the crisis: We ain't building enough (Duh) 1. The primary reason for housing affordability crisis is lack of new supply of new housing, especially those offerings that meet today's demand. This is due to a number of factors 2. The biggest factor is local resistance to almost any type of development, ESPECIALLY any development with density / rentals / multifamily (the most constrained and in demand product types as compared with demand... not saying there is more demand OVERALL for these typologies, but we have more single family homes compared to demand than we do for an albeit smaller overall market segment in rental apartments or condos, but there is such a dearth of the latter that there's a greater relative imbalance). NIMBYism is especially acute in the very areas that have the greatest demand such as the Bay Area. 3. For a confluence of factors, including NIMBYism and local resistance, there is even GREATER lack of supply not only for rentals in general, but for attainably priced rentals. The same can be said for single family homes. For rental/multifamily, there is such risk involved in the process that only large, very well capitalized developers can take the chance that a project might take 5, 7, 10 years to get approvals. And some, never gain them at all. This also results in only very large scale, institutional sized development as opposed to a range of building sizes. It doesnt make sense to built 30, 70, 100 units. So you see all these "similar looking" 250-350 unit buildings, often taking up an entire block for effenciency sake... but degrading the overall urban experience, walkability, and overall value of an area long term. In terms of single family homes, who is going to build a 1200 sf house when any number of factors (including prohibitions on small scale multifamily like a four-plex or six plex, or lack of legal ability to build and accessory dwelling unit) make it far more profitable to build 3,500 sf. So, if you only want/need/can afford the typical house of 30 or 50 years ago, there's very little new supply - often none. Long story short: our system is so difficult for developers to build, it only makes sense to build BIG... and to aim for lux and super lux segments. As noted, there are affordable housing programs such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and other public programs, but that often means you can build for the poor or the rich, but not the vast majority of people in between. Some strategies to address the issue (basically, make building more housing and more varied housing legal) 1. Most of all... WE NEED MORE SUPPLY. So we need to create an environment where there is more development - of all product types, within all communities, at all scales. Small, medium, large. Attainably priced through luxury (fyi, building more luxury, contrary to the complaints of the un/misinformed, actually helps LOWER the overall cost of housing for an area/region through increased supply, even if that new supply is too expensive for most, as other existing product then drops a rung on the "lux" meter) 2. Build a lot more "Missing Middle" product - by making it legal Missing middle usually connotes anything from accessory dwelling units to two-six or even 12 plexes. These building types used to be found in almost every neighborhood... but neighborhood resistence/NIMBYism, often fueled by classest/economicist/racist underpinnings has resulted in almost no new product of these types being built. These are simply ways to "gentle densification" of existing neighborhoods, and has been embraced by areas like Oregon and Minneapolis, that have made it all but illegal for local municipalities to have single family home ONLY zoning. 3. Allow and incentivize more 30-100 unit developments. This is a key factor in smaller urban areas, historic downtowns and suburban locations. As I will get to in my final point, below, we need to create an environment where local and regional, smaller scale investors/developers, can make money building smaller scale apartment complexes. We can't survive only building 250+ units at a time, by a handful of the same companies - who are the only ones that can sustain the economics and/or have the political connections to get things done. 4. Streamline the approval process: Not only do we need to make it legal to build these housing types - we need to DRASTICALLY reduce to risk (both time and cost... not to mention overall uncertainty) of the entitlement/zoning process. Make the process clear, transparent, and fair. Have what is legal clearly defined... as opposed to today where many/most municipalities have vague or none-existent multifamily zoning where it really comes down to the whims of the city council and mayor to approve or decline each individual project. The result of how we do it today is a lack of certainty, the ability for only politically connect developers to succeed, and too much leverage on behalf of elected boards to try to get a pound of flesh (or multiple pounds) from a developer in the form of additional requirements that the developer has to provide (more affordable housing, more parks/amenities for the public, ridiculously high impact and connection fees that render all but super lux developments economically infeasible). 5. Proximity, transit, and walkable, mixed-use development: Far too often, we look at the cost of housing as just that: housing. It's really the cost of housing in terms of its effect on the cost of living. The average car costs about $9,000-10,000 A YEAR to own and operate. Not to mention time lost to commuting. For those who must drive 45, 60, 90 minutes from their place of employment because they can't afford anything closer, those costs climb higher... for those who can least afford it. If we build more housing near employment centers and also provide non-auto only options to commute, we can provide significant cost relief to families. I'll have to confirm, but if a family can go from two cars to one car, they gain something like $150,000 more in ability to pay for a mortgage, and something like $1000-1,500 more in their pocket for rent. Those are HUGE costs, and absolutely dependent on where housing is located. Hope this first (and classically lengthy) post is informative. Feel cute, might delete later (or rather, may or may not check in, as I don't want to get wrapped into the other threads here for aforementioned reasons). I will check my PMs though either way. I could literally go on for pages here, but those are the basics. TL;DR - we need to vastly increase supply of housing of all types, but especially multifamily and missing middle product types to counter the vast imbalance between growing demand, and stagnant and mis-purposed supply.
  3. I've "known" SoCalDraftKiller about as long as anyone on these boards. He and I would text from time to time - not only to discuss potential trades, at that. He had been dealt a tough hand, and I know the last year was a struggle. Here I was stupid enough to wonder what happened to him managing his latest NEWZA team, apparently after he had passed - and felt terrible for it. Knowing Gary (his real name), he'd have given me some sarcastic gruff before laughing it off. A true loss to the board. Here I came to check on Keerok's son - and was reminded of this tragedy as well. RIP and may you draft 8 pitchers to start your WIS league to be played in the Field of s, SoCal
  4. Came back to see just how things were going. 😢 @Keerock the most sincere condolences, and thank you for sharing this most difficult journey with us. Jack has been and always will be an inspiration to so many of us - as are you for how you have dealt with such a trying time of life, and true tragedy. Hugs my friend.
  5. Continued thoughts, prayers, well wishes, and good vibes. Keep up the fight Jack!
  6. Wait, for real? If that’s the case I feel awful. Thought it was just a flake and go.
  7. Sorry only log in occasionally. I’m fine. i guess my offer to pay for SoCals fee was stupid in hindsight (especially considering I am about as tight financially as I’ve been in 20 years, but wanted to give the guy a chance to stay on). We should have just brought on new blood.
  8. We have national leadership that has clearly shown authoritarian desires. And an entire party that has cow-towed and fallen in line to protect, at ever step, this authoritarian leader, his approach and his actions. This same group of people and their supporters have bludgeoned truth and objective reality to such a point that clear, fact based truths are fake news, and outlandish lies must be accepted as, at the least, true objective possibilities if not actual reality. Falling prey to this post-truth world, sadly, are communities such as this. Where we are not allowed to call things as they truly are - be it clear trolling behavior (not simply a different viewpoint or opinion, but purposefully antagonistic lies like staying ad nauseam that we all should take Barr at his word since he has proven himself to only put forth unfettered truth and never would distort the words nor intent of Mueller) or when we call into question the alliance and allegiance of another poster who so clearly pushes Russian propaganda at literally every turn to the extent that I can’t honestly recall ONE instance of this poster putting forth any fact or argument that would call into question then Russians and/or undercut the Russians position. Every single post is supportive of Russia and those who work toward their means without one strike against that goal - yet we get castigated for suggesting that at best this behavior is not only furthering the aims of our greatest historic international adversary, but is in such lockstep as to appear to be a collaborator to that end. We can not be truthful about what we feel are the underpinnings of those who support either the greatest national threat to our Democracy (even if it helps their IRAs), nor those who appear 100% aligned with foreign adversaries. Yet, the purveyors of post truth doctrine are allowed to posit and promote not only outright lies, but to do so while purposefully antagonizing (apparently trolling) and looking to get a rise from others. It makes you wonder why bother participating in such a forum, when the truth is not permitted; when we are unable to adequately call into question the underlying rationale and motivations of what many of not most of us see as legitimate threats to our nation’s well being and democracy itself. for some of us, there is no wonder left, and so we have left. Those who sought to destroy truthful discourse because such truths hurt their particular cause have won the battle here. So other than occasional notes of sadness such as this, there is no point in engaging in meaningful discourse on these essential issues in this forum. And why bother participating on a forum that has bent to the wishes of those who desire a post-truth world. It should, however, be known that these notes are layered with the hope that those who control moderation here might recognize that they have fallen into the trap set by national and foreign threats to freedom, and our democratic norms and institutions, and as such, reset the discourse to again allow fair, if uncomfortable, truths to be told. Until then, those who sought and seek to destroy truth to promote their propaganda as the new reality continue to win, at the expense of everything I once though this nation stood for. And with it, a casualty has become one of the communities I used to hold most dear - because truth can no longer exist here. And until it does, what use does such a forum have?
  9. Willing to trade offense for some pitching - edema altuve with my depth at the position. No one is untouchable for if it’s a true top tier starter... interested in a good closer as well. Would consider trading back Severino if it’s a truly enticing offer, or if it’s a build for the future to get me top tier for more immediate future.
  10. To be clear, a propagandist, which I do firmly believe describes your pattern of behavior over the past couple years, does not connote being a foreign agent. Perhaps you are a sympathizer. Perhaps a true believer in Putin, Assad and their brethren. I dont know. I do know the propaganda you spread and where it aligns... over and over again. While I dont know your base motivations nor allegiances, the pattern at least makes me wonder. Just being bluntly honest as I've learned skepticism and vigilance is necessary to retain freedoms and democracy. Especially in light of how friends I've known real world have been pulled into becoming similar mouthpieces for Russian interests in the context we now know to have been a concerted efforts by foreign powers to do just that. Persuade, convert, weaponize Americans against the very freedoms and institutions that are designed to protect our freedoms. And I can say, as vocal on some of these issues as even the most ardent of those folks have been, the propaganda I've seen spread by you has been so far above and beyond and appears so singularly aligned with anything that would benefit russia, I dont know what else to call it. This conclusion arises from the individuals, nations and efforts you have supported from Putin and any number of Russian related policies, to Assad, to the insistence on clouding any legitimacy for Obama as you paint him the worse of any number of comparisons (including those listed above). That said, you do engage in ongoing discourse, even if in my opinion its disingenuous and misleading at best, with all arrows pointing to pro russia. This is why I felt you deserved the respect of a response. Sorry to derail the convo but did want to give you an answer.
  11. It is one thing to 'name call' other posters. Another altogether to accurately describe their behavior to forward important aspects of the conversation, the implication of certain behaviors, thought processes, and subsequent policies and actions. As you note, the inability to speak honestly, sincerely, and in an earnest manner, is a form of thought censorship that only reinforces the negative repercussions of a clear intentional strategy of a President, he GOP, and their supporters to one one hand muddy the truth, eliminate legitimate, fact based debate, and literally have us 'ignore' the facts, the truth, that which we see, that which we hear. The mod's choice to curtail a check on lies, trolling, purposeful obfuscation, while allowing trolling, lies, and obfuscation to continue feeds right into the strategy of those who wish to eliminate objective truth to eliminate legitimate dissent and destroy thoughtful and constructive discourse. This is all the more true when someone has indeed acted, for years now, as a true propagandist (to the point that I've seriously at times considered is it our responsibility to point out a poster to some authorities as someone that might literally be infiltrating our public discourse / social media in a manner that can only be described as curiously aligned with foreign entities - on a full range of issues, not just Russian meddling in our elections - entities/nations that have been PROVEN to have undertaken concerted campaigns to do just that across any number of platforms. Do we ignore these realities and possibilities? Considering the orchestrated campaigns on other platforms, should we just naively assume there's not chance that such forces are looking to influence this community in a less than honest and earnest manner, and for the benefit of foreign entities that are still conducting ongoing efforts to damage our democracy? So much for being resilient to protect our democracies and freedoms. As such, I took the @FBG Moderator 's suggestion. Other than my posts in dire hope to change management's mind as to allow legit discourse (including harsh truths and realities), I can no longer in good conscience participate in muted discussions whereby the truth is shackled while those who wish to blur the truth for their agenda's purpose are allowed to continue doing just that.
  12. I've got plenty. Unfortunately only a handful are actually playing in the next couple weeks