22 May
2013
22 May
'13
6:05 a.m.
Sonja, Romy, & YOs-
Yep, and I mis-read that part too (what you said, "I'm trying to help
you duh! LOL").
That's what two hours' sleep the night before, does to my head. Four
hours' sleep, I'm tolerably lucid. Two hours, eh, forget it, at that
point I'm basically tripping-out.
Chronic sleep deprivation sucks, and I'm on track for another night of
four hours' sleep right now (one more service request to complete after
a brief break here...), and a lengthy field item to deal with in San
Francisco today Wednesday.
Monday was a mess and a write-off day. Sorry if I pissed anyone off.
If there are any remaining "issues" they can be dealt with one-to-one,
in person. I may be late getting to the meeting, depending on the work
in San Francisco.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-21-Tue 10:09 AM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
I'm trying to help you duh! Lol
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:
The dumb thing about saying "the dumb thing about this thread," is
that in the time it takes to complain about someone else's use of
recycled electrons, one could have ignored the thread entirely, or
done some other productive task, rather than telling the author of
the thread what task they should have been doing instead.
If I'm not interested in a topic, I just don't read that topic, or
thread, or whatever.
And one of the key reasons that rents are so high, is that a state
legislator from somewhere in 925 managed to pass, about 15 years
ago, a state bill that effectively wiped out rent control.
Getting him voted out of office would be good retaliation (better
late than never) if he's still around, but introducing a ballot
measure to re-establish rent control would be even better. That
will also take some of the speculative pressure off the finite
supply of land. Ultimately what's going to be needed is some kind
of comprehensive land reform, prohibiting speculation and the
mechanisms that feed it. Another topic for another day.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-21-Tue 7:19 AM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
The dumb thing about this thread is that in
the time it took to
write any of the multiple paragraph emails, the author could have
looked to see whether there are any organizations in SF (or
berkeley) lobbying to make building new housing housing easier.
Whether or not you can have a relationship in a single bed is
irrelevant. Everyone agrees here, rent is too damn high. Part of
the cause of this is artificially limited supply.
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Georgio510 wrote:
Re. Romy-
Yes, apts in HK and Tokyo are small, but not so small that
you can't have a double bed and a dinner table (Tokyo apts
even have space for small washing machines & small
wall-mounted dryers). And in any case, Japan has a decent
social safety net, something we shredded starting with Reagan.
If you're interested, I can show you some floorplans I've
created for micro living spaces. The stuff I designed is
geared toward the hacker/maker lifestyle with a strong
emphasis on sustainability. I'd happily live in a tiny space
of my own making, but not a developer's design that can't be
hacked or modded and is geared toward the media-consumption
lifestyle.
Agreed, the large houses Americans have had for the past
century or so are ridiculous, not to mention _lawns_. But
there's a difference between a wasteful 4,000 square foot
suburban sprawl, and an apartment that's smaller than a
camping trailer.
Something else about those tiny apartments: if your best
friend loses his/her job, s/he can't sleep on your couch when
there's no room for a couch. Sleeping on the floor in the
tiny aisle next to your bed gets old after about the second
time s/he gets stepped on when you get out of bed at night to
go to the bathroom.
The Oligarchy likes to have it both ways: Big houses for
people who can afford to buy more stuff. Prison-sized
apartments for people who can't. Increase the class divide:
more at the top, less at the bottom.
The profit motive for those prison-sized apartments is that
developers get more per square foot. $750 for 200 square
feet translates to $3.75 per square foot. Contrast to $2,000
for 800 square feet, which translates to $2.50 per square foot.
See how that works? Fifty percent increase in price per
square foot. Clever racket, eh?
Decrease in cars is a factor of available public transport
for the hours and places needed. Someone who works the late
shift across the Bay and comes home after BART stops running,
is probably going to end up with a car, even if they have to
play parking space roulette every day. BART running 24/7
would do more to decrease car commuting in the Bay Area, than
squeezing people into shoe-boxes.
Larger apartments mean you have more choices as to how you
live and who you live with. Smaller apartments mean fewer
choices. Again, we're not talking about
multi-thousand-square-foot sprawl, but about having enough
space for someone to choose whether to live alone or with a
friend, or offer their couch to an unemployed friend, or the
options available for single parents with kids who are
toddlers or older.
200 square feet also means you can't telecommute or telework,
because there's not enough space for even a small desk for a
computer. Using a tablet while sitting on the edge of the
bed gets old real fast too. And forget about modifying the
space in any way: those places are like hotel rooms, no user
modifications or space hacks allowed. What's important is
_choice_. The choice to work and play at home sometimes, and
in communal space sometimes.
How these neo boarding houses are worse than work lofts: for
one thing, you can't work there. And no space for a kitchen
table, so forget about inviting friends over for dinner. No
space for anything that involves having more than on
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org');>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss