Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Narrator

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

240 Excellent

About The Narrator

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Because they want to put it off until the next president is in office even though doing so will make it worse?
  2. Not at all. They just eliminated the restriction that only single family homes could be built in any neighborhood. People can now build missing middle housing in addition to single family homes.
  3. Absolutely agree. If we cluster the lower priced housing we create something resembling a ghetto. It should be legal to build missing middle type homes - plexes, row houses, cottages, etc in all neighborhoods. But at a local level, the people already there are a much more powerful influence than the people who aren't there yet because we haven't built for them. Which is why earlier in the thread I think I mentioned that local control is keeping us from solving this issue. Oregon just eliminated single family zoning this last legislative session. That's an amazing step, and one I think that is vital not only to housing affordability but to long term municipal financial stability.
  4. One of the issues is that we have so few high quality urban areas that when one pops up it gets filled by people with means because they're who can afford the in demand place. I don't know how to completely solve this problem because it's not that simple, but it seems like building more cool urban areas would reduce gentrification concerns.
  5. As a general rule, landlords will charge what the market will bear, and their own costs don't have anything to do with that. Do landlords charge less when the mortgage gets paid off? Nah.
  6. The problem here is that the way we build residential (primarily suburban) doesn't kick off enough tax revenue to pay for services and infrastructure maintenance. So we build more, collect impact fees up front, and use those impact fees to do back maintenance, and in the process inherit yet more development that costs more than it makes us long term. It's a ponzi scheme. Growth isn't the problem or the solution. It's what happens to human populations. The problem is how we build to accommodate for that growth.
  7. To grow or not to grow isn't a question. We're going to grow. The question is how we respond to it and if we make smart decisions in light of that fact.
  8. My two cents? Cars don't scale. They take up so much space. So when we grow we have big issues around transportation, and people see growth as the problem, they get upset at growth. They view higher density as more growth, and part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Then they go to city council meetings and yell at city council members who may or may not understand this, because city council isn't a real job. The council members want to protect their city (and not piss off voters) and do what they can to keep the vocal people from getting more upset with them. The system isn't set up to make big change or to do the right thing. The system is set up to preserve the status quo for the most part, but the status quo sucks.
  9. But man, getting a brief glimpse of a boob on the scrambled channel was a thing
  10. When I was a teenager cell phone minutes were precious, but the first incoming minute was free. So naturally I'd have a conversation in multiple calls under a minute.
  11. On top of making housing less affordable, this development style (which is an 80ish year old experiment) is breaking our cities budgets too. Suburban development doesn't kick off enough tax revenue to municipalities to pay for services and cover long term maintenance obligations. And we can get into public health consequences of removing walking from the public sphere, the environmental impact of every part of this, the isolation our entire environment encourages, and a host of other stuff. This is a big problem. We treat these as local issues, but we're probably going to need a national response eventually because the public doesn't understand this and doesn't like change - especially the contingent that votes in higher numbers
  12. Single family zoning, minimum lot sizes, required setback, and minimum parking requirements all force people to be more spread out. Then we don't allow the businesses people need as part of their daily life to be anywhere near where they live. The density isn't high enough to support transit, we don't build infrastructure for anything but cars, so we force people into the most expensive method of transportation. Which makes parking a bigger issue than it should, and more parking spots spread us out even further. We built our entire environment in the way in which makes it the most expensive at just about every possible turn. And looking back into the not distant past, we did most of it on purpose to keep black people out of the white neighborhoods. Basically, we made a bunch of laws to make housing artificially more expensive. Then we applied those laws to about 80 percent of our residential land. And now we are shocked we have a housing affordability crisis. And that's to say nothing of the fact that we treat housing as an investment, and we've got a ton of people with most of their net worth tied up in this asset. Its a huge problem and I don't see any kind of quick, simple, easy fix. We've done the wrong thing in just about every way for decades.
  13. A thousand times this. We can't separate the cost of housing from the cost of transportation, because we all have to get from our house to work and services. Low density suburbs and no convenient public transportation basically just offload the highest transportation cost in money and time off on the poorest among us.
  14. "on one side you have kids being separated from their parents and thrown into cages, but on the other side you have people who condemn that, and I see those as equally negative so here I am in the middle"
  15. How many innocent people are you willing to sacrifice in order to exact vengeance on those guys? I'm opposed to it in all cases, but I admit it bothers me less in some cases than others. There's no question we execute innocents. The only question is how many and if that's acceptable for no real benefit other than it makes some people feel good that a bad guy got killed.