Sure… but that’s not what he said. He said that development in a specific area was leading to less density. I had just finished looking for a home in that area clovis, and there were several new apartment complexes (each was 100+ units) amongst other new construction. The claim it was lowering density was a complete fabrication
The serious answer is that the validity of a statement is determined solely by the direction one is punching. Lefties want to punch up, conservatives want to punch down.
In this scenario, you’re working for the man and she isn’t. Therefore, she’s right and you should STFU and do what she wants.
I should add that in high COL areas, there is no such thing as affordable but market rate housing according to lefties. They would prefer something like the counseil house system in the UK or giving the lower third Section 8.
The macro 102 argument doesn’t work because the low income housing that is freed up by building middle income housing still isn’t affordable for the poorest. I happen to agree with you, but solving the problem this way when Jal is more worried about the homeless represents incrementalism and belief that capitalism is not the devil, so he’s naturally going straight to dunk mode.
1 Like
Some awful posting itt over the last few hours. Like I don’t see eye to eye with skydiver about a decent chunk of things but she is actually getting involved with local politics while most of us sit on our ass so…
19 Likes
Correct, I do like this system (council and housing association homes).
Jal is going to bat for a rich white woman tossing out a bad faith argument in service of opposing all new housing development.
A woman who appeared from skydiver’s account to be wanting more affordable housing.
You should be familiar with how someone can make a bad faith argument
1 Like
Originality was never your strong point, was it?
Having done some light googling, this seems to be something that isn’t in any way a fix for housing problems, but is a salvo in a war against single-family zoning.
I did see a group which simultaneously argued that SB10 shouldn’t be applied to SD, but if it is, that it should include a large amount of subsidized housing, which sounds a bit like trying to create the disincentive of too many poor people in the neighborhood.
So Jal is going to be banned for that right?
Stop posting personal information about people that is in no way pertinent to the conversation. I don’t care if they have shared it before - if you are sharing it just to be an asshole, then don’t do it. I’m not going to say it’s doxxing, but do it again and it’s a ban.
Also, it would be nice if you could at least keep your fights to the current topic and not drudge up old arguments.
2 Likes
Dude that’s a ban per our explicit policy, and jal has already done that shit to me.
Someone posting
is begging for their own status as a rich white man to be mentioned, with supporting evidence.
I will discuss with the other mods and a decision will be made.
Did you do anything else jal?
How the fuck is he not banned? This is literally the second time he’s done this shit. It’s an explicit policy.
lol don’t be ridiculous. Mentioning the rich white area someone has posted here about moving to in relation to his own description of someone as a “rich white woman” is entirely pertinent.
People in glass houses…
It’s a week ban. It should be a permanent ban because it’s the second time you’ve done this shit, the first time was towards me.
It’s ridiculous how nothing happens to you even while explicitly breaking the one actual rule we supposedly have on this site. It’s also pathetic how mad you get.
It’s not your decision. If you want it to be, stand as a mod and give us all a laugh.
The only person going mad here appears to be you, ikes.
Cool so you’re good with posting personal information, have done it multiple times, and you won’t even argue that you didn’t do those things?