hx87

Tax on land value only, excluding improvements. This encourages landowners to build to the limit of marginal construction costs, which benefits both the local economy and tenants.

Companies can't grow faster than the supply of office space, which also has time constraints.

The more important question is: can we have growth in economic output (which is what we actually want) without growth in economic input (which is purely instrumental)?

In order to crack water, you need water, which is in short supply in the desert. Desalination + massive pumps and pipelines from the ocean would soak up any increase you get in price efficiency compared to batteries or even compressed air.

I wonder what the breakeven cost would be of a monthly subscription to ad-free journalism on the quality level of the New York Times (or your preferred equivalent). Something like $200-300 maybe? If it were actually ad-free and zero-clickbait, 100% high quality journalism, I'd be willing to pay about that much.

When you are told something that is wrong, holding onto it after you learn that it is wrong is entitlement.

NIMBYism is pretty much a de facto campaign against internal migration. It's not much of an issue in the fastest growing states, but certain states with hot economies but stagnant or declining populations, like Massachusetts or California, are affected by it.

What factors influence the amount of calories used and taken in (not just eaten)? That's the question, and the answer is hardly rudimentary.

but in my calorie range

That's the difficult part--the insulin spikes from ultraprocessed food will make you hungrier and eat more as well as lower your basal metabolism. "Calorie range" is a moving target.

When your basal metabolism is 4500 calories a day.

The extra bedroom is also optional.

Aesthetic objections to new construction are 99.9% bullshit. Otherwise things like vomit- and baby-poop-green vinyl siding, uniformly white windows with fake grills and little to no trim, McMansion-style hip-roof horrorshows and gables on top of gables wouldn't exist.

The idea that a place like Beverly Hills is going to have to throw up a bunch of new housing to please CA congress

They don't have to do anything except allow private landowners to build higher if they wish.

Your house is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Developers are willing to pay a lot for it since a multifamily building can yield a lot more rent revenue than a single family house. The house is probably worth more in this scenario.

It's almost like they've never heard of orientation, shading, or SHGCs.

The instant you sign a mortgage it becomes in your economic best interest to limit the supply of housing.

Not if you own the underlying land, or at least a portion thereof, and willing to build higher and denser and rent it out. For example, if I own a 1 story house, NIMBYism prevents me from building another story and renting it out as a separate unit for extra income. NIMBYism raises the value of my current property but lowers its potential value.

Dashlane. Synchronization included, easy to use, works both offline and online.

High quality speech recognition is ubiquitous in phone services these days so that isn't a good reason. Besides, if I want to set a 16 char password and am willing to enter that on a keypad, what's the problem?

which means their descendants will not share your ethnic identity - it will be destroyed

Mixed and combined, not destroyed. Besides, where to draw the line? Should Calabrians and Sicilians not live next to each other? Cantonese and Hakka?

If you're poor, how did you come to own the assets in the first place?

If you became poor, then maybe you should sell the property to gain more liquidity, balance your portfolio, and transfer the property to someone with enough income to fully maintain it.

Not true if "investments" are just chasing fixed assets like real estate in a zero-sum manner.

rest of San Francisco’s infrastructure including mass transit

The moment Proposition 13 gets repealed that will no longer be a problem.

Except what the SF Bay Area is facing isn't the Tragedy of the Commons--it's the Tragedy of the Anticommons, where the owners of resources underutilize them.

On average, moving one person from a small town in the midwest to SF reduces resource consumption, so from that point of view construction in SF should be encouraged. Tearing down abandoned houses in small midwestern towns and converting them to wildland should also be encouraged.

That's why they tore down all the single family houses in Sunset & Richmond to make way for 5 story apartment blocks. Oh wait...

If SF Bay Area cities can't be bothered to build enough housing, they should at least have the decency to tax the fuck out of business until they start moving out and housing prices regress to 3x the median rent.

If you want the companies, you must take their employees. If you don't want their employees, you shouldn't have the companies.

But a lot of people would not consider that a good outcome.

If they didn't consider that a good outcome, they would stop paying money to move there, or move out, and cause housing prices to drop, thus solving the problem.

NIMBYism is fine, as long as it is applied to businesses as well as housing. Way too many towns and cities want to maintain their low density small town & suburban characters while attracting employers.

Using single digit numbers by themselves to denote highways is awkward and confusing, but it's much less of a problem with double and triple digit numbers--"I took 95 from Boston to Washington" sounds prettier than "I took 5 from Seattle to Portland". Since the IHS numbering system starts from the southwest and increments up as you go northeast, southwestern Interstate highway numbers are disproportionately single-digit, which is probably why "the" is commonly prepended in SoCal.

That works because Chicago is in the north central part of the country, where highway numbers are firmly in the double digits. In the southwest the numbers are often single digit, so it's awkward and confusing to use without a preprended "I-" or "the".