Re: Someone's praying, Lord.
 

This is what a desperate "has been/never was" looks like.

The fat lady sang, fat man. Good riddance.

Re: Hi Atticus!
 

When I first moved here, I knew lots of people in that sort of job, with degrees from top schools. Hell, I was one of them. It was said that the Bay Area had the best-educated carpenters in the world.

Re: Hi Atticus!
 

I matriculated in the suburbs, not Chicago proper. Draw from that what you will.

And me, I'm flying in my taxi...
 

But this is just a product of the place's history of having good weed and spawning The Dead, right? Nothing to do with productivity or housing costs.

Re: Hi Atticus!
 

We have zoning. But it's dictated by the banks rather than by the government. Right now, we're in a bit of a wary period, because the oil prices aren't definitely coming back up again, and a lot of the big banks think they've over-extended in this market.

My sister, who left San Francisco for Austin two years ago, sent me this today: http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015...g-city/393329/ She is struggling with the changes that the city she loves is going through.

Re: Hi Atticus!
 

Losing diversity here would be awful. But the solution I want is expanded diversity in economic ranks (read: More wealthier people of color), and more available affordable housing. Not trying to insulate "historically" minority neighborhoods.

In SF, which is much younger than many east coast cities, most of those historic neighborhoods used to be white neighborhoods -- working class Italians, Irish, etc. Whites fled as Asians, Latinos, or blacks (depending on the neighborhood) came in. It wasn't that long ago, it was classic white flight, and it reinforced the development of minority ghettos here, as people of color had less power to ensure that they got the same level of services, etc.

Now, you have wealthy people, largely white (also a significant number of Asians) moving into some of these neighborhoods. Partly because they are cheaper than some other areas, but also because the ethnic influence, plus the large number of younger new arrivals to SF who have lived in these areas, make them interesting, fun, diverse neighborhoods. This is the opposite of white flight, and while I understand the negatives it is in many ways a positive thing.

Re: Hi Atticus!
 

Wow! So there were people who were angry nuts in SF service jobs too. Who knew?

I really want to show you, Lord
 

Lord, please forgive me my shadenfreude.

Are there 70s AOR lyrics about soccer?
 

I have recently made clear my view that FIFA is basically run like the mafia. That being said, is the U.S.:

1) International hero stepping in to do the dirty work that others were unwilling to do and/or were not able to do effectively?

or

2) Vindictive international meddler with overreaching prosecutors messing where they don't belong because the U.S. is pissed it did not get a World Cup?

Re: Are there 70s AOR lyrics about soccer?
 

I don't know the answer. But here's a soccer song; 1975, baby!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0WP05R1li0

And if it's unclear, the tifo is Dorothy burning Seattle.

You're Celtic, United/but baby I've decided/you're the best team I've ever seen.
 

Somewhere in the middle, I think, based on my read. Once they got Chuck Blazer to flip (he's the "former Westchester soccer dad" who lived in two apartments at the Trump Tower - one for his cats) and bring US-based CONCACF into the mix, it seems within the sensible (as opposed to the broader "actual") jurisdictional limits of US courts. Nice read here from Vox on the question.

Re: Are there 70s AOR lyrics about soccer?
 

I asked a number of soccer fans from various nations this question over the past few days. The uniform view was, in essence, we are used to US meddling, this time we really like it.

Re: Hi Atticus!
 

I'm not sure that's the goal, but a lot of cultural significance (read: local strips of ethnic food suppliers and restaurants, bars, clothing stores, etc.) is washed away from neighborhoods by gentrification.

Sure. Until all the people who make the neighborhoods interesting are priced out.

The problem is that there is no balance anymore. Once it starts tipping towards gentrification, everyone who doesn't own is eventually forced out. And even some of the owners who can't pay the increased property taxes are forced to sell. SF and NYC need affordable housing spread out in all neighborhoods. There's no fix for the destruction of ethnic neighborhoods, but it would be nice if we made housing available for low income residents in our cities.

TM

Re: Hi Atticus!
 

All true (or mostly -- see below). But what are the solutions? Ban the construction of market-rate housing? That is actually a proposal being made by an SF supervisor with respect to a particular neighborhood, and it's insane (though I don't think it'll get anywhere).

SF has required developers to include low-income housing in most if not all new buildings, and where exceptions are given they require a big amount of $$ to the affordable housing fund. And there are some new affordable developments going up, in decent areas that don't look like slums. These are good developments.

As for the owners being forced out by property taxes, California took care of that decades ago, with Prop 13. It's had some serious consequences, but owners do not, ever, see their property tax increase more than marginally every year.



I separated this because there was something I wanted to say about it in particular, but I cannot remember what.

Re: Hi Atticus!
 

I realize that solutions are difficult. And given the fact that (i) cities are where all foreign money is now parked and (ii) all non-city areas in this country are getting worse and worse every year--driving sensible people the fuck outta there as fast as possible--the problem is only going to get worse.

It makes no sense to ban construction. But cities are going to need to be aggressive about creating low income housing (and I don't mean housing affordable to people making $50-$100k, which is easily considered low income in this city now--I'm talking LOW income). Hell, NYC is already having problems finding people to fill jobs that no one who actually lives here wants to do. Every new condo or co-op should be required to provide a percentage of space to low income housing. The projects should be destroyed slowly as matching (or increasing) units become available. This will solve all sorts of problems, including the awful schools set up to service poor neighborhoods--even given the fact that the truly wealthy in NYC would never send their kids to public schools, no matter how good they are or become.

Sadly, I don't think this would even be enough. Cheap clothing and supermarket and restaurant options (and other stores servicing day-to-day needs) no long really exist in places like Manhattan and are being phased out of Brooklyn, section by section. My neighborhood, which I also grew up in, no longer has even one bodega! That shit is crazy. Even if you are in a rent-controlled apartment, you can't afford anything else.

TM