kabulykos | 7 years ago | on: Facebook has asked U.S. banks to share financial information about customers
kabulykos's comments
kabulykos | 7 years ago | on: Link Between Alzheimer’s and Herpes
kabulykos | 7 years ago | on: EU copyright law proposal rejected
Dude — already happening.
kabulykos | 7 years ago | on: Cities don't have to offer huge subsidies to companies like Apple and Amazon
Historically the latter has been driven by physiological particulars of a state — availability of farm land, coal mines, etc. Has anyone actually thought through how that transitions to a primarily services-based economy?
(Aside: if state governments are a market, then the Senate is socialism, lol)
kabulykos | 8 years ago | on: Becoming a Steelworker Liberated Her, Then Her Job Moved to Mexico
kabulykos | 8 years ago | on: Becoming a Steelworker Liberated Her, Then Her Job Moved to Mexico
kabulykos | 8 years ago | on: Becoming a Steelworker Liberated Her, Then Her Job Moved to Mexico
kabulykos | 10 years ago | on: Governor Brown's housing proposal could mean sweeping Bay Area changes
Maybe (but not necessarily!) the number of police can grow linearly with the growth in taxable property. But police cars and police stations must be acquired from scratch. Same with sanitation workers vs an expanded water treatment plant, bus drivers and buses.
Some of those costs can maybe be amortized via debt issue (bonds), but the cost of servicing those would still be borne by the community overall and not necessarily the newcomers' taxes alone.
When a new development is proposed, it's the developer who's there in the moment, hoping to make business and a profit. The prospective-and-still-hypothetical newcomers are not yet there to make a case that housing be built for them. So it's not insane that the developer be put in a position to minimize negative effects of new building.
This isn't a perfect system, and it's certainly one that can be abused by nimbys as everyone now knows. In particular things get unintuitive for (usually older) folks who are house-rich but cash-poor ... accommodations might leave them with a house worth more, even as a fixed income prevents them from absorbing, say, increased taxes. But, since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, California has been pretty clearly biased towards disproportionately helping out those sorts of people though. Can't say we weren't warned.