Last month, the story of a 25-year-old man who's living inside a plywood box parked in his friend's living room became the latest installment in San Francisco's crazy housing market.
In a city where the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is currently $3,590, Peter Berkowitz's tale of paying only $400 a month in rent and squeezing into some 32-square-feet of space became the stuff of legend.
"It fits all my needs where I have a private, sound-proof place where I can keep my belongings," Berkowitz said in an interview with SFGate. "I'm saving thousands of dollars a year. It's a solution that works for me. I don't want to spend so much money on rent."
After media outlets across the country covered the story and the London Guardian ran an editorial by Berkowitz, he began hearing from people who wanted to live in similar humble, inexpensive accommodations. Berkowitz announced in a story on Hoodline this week that he would begin selling custom pods.
Those plans were quickly stopped by the San Francisco's chief housing inspector Rosemary Bosque who told Hoodline that "pods are illegal and a violation of housing, building, and fire safety codes."
"He would have to completely open it up or look at something different, such as a bed with a frame, with curtains, something that was open to the room," Bosque said in the Hoodline interview. "This would be the case for anywhere in the country with respect to building and inhabitability codes."
Thinking outside the box is verboten (forbidden).
Related Stories
Google announces $1B, 10-year plan to add thousands of homes to Bay Area
The housing crisis in the Bay Area, particularly in San Francisco, is a complex and controversial topic with no one-size-fits-all solution — but a check for a billion dollars is about as close as you're going to get, and Google has just announced it's writing one. In a blog post, CEO Sundar Pichai explained that in order to "build a more helpful Google," the company would be making this major investment in what it believes is the most important social issue in the area: housing.
San Francisco is famously among the most expensive places in the world to live now, and many residents of the city, or perhaps I should say former residents, have expressed a deep and bitter hatred for the tech industry they believe converted the area to a playground for the rich while leaving the poor and disadvantaged to fend for themselves.
Google itself has been the subject of many a protest, and no doubt it is aware that its reputation as a friendly and progressive company is in danger from this and numerous other issues, from AI ethics to advertising policies. To remedy this, and perhaps even partly as an act of conscience, Google has embarked on a billion-dollar charm offensive that will add thousands of new homes to the Bay Area over the next ten years.
$750 million of that comes in the form of repurposing its own commercial real estate for residential purposes. This will allow for 15,000 new homes "at all income levels," and while Pichai said that they hope this will help address the "chronic shortage of affordable housing options," the blog post did not specify how many of these new homes would actually be affordable, and where they might be.
Another $250 million will be invested to "provide incentives to enable developers to build at least 5,000 affordable housing units across the market".
They should build an arcology or giant pod hotel.
Also at NPR.
Previously: "It's a Perfect Storm": Homeless Spike in Rural California Linked to Silicon Valley
Silicon Valley Charter Buses Vandalized by Pellet/BB Guns or Rocks
Related: Soaring Rents in Portland, Oregon Cause Homelessness Crisis
City of San Francisco Says It's Illegal to Live in a Box
San Francisco Restaurants Can't Afford Waiters, so they Put Diners to Work
In San Francisco, Making a Living from Your Billionaire Neighbor's Trash
A Rogue Coder Turned a Parking Spot Into a Coworking Space
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @10:52PM
for a renewed look at building codes, and how they should apply.
While the heating/cooling/plumbing/water needs to be handled for an actual building to be inhabitable, should the same restrictions be applied to the choices of subletting renters?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 13 2016, @10:56PM
No need, just buy a truck [sfgate.com] (I'm sure it's illegal in SF, but then you'd be living in the employers parking, which is supposed to be outside SF).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Interesting) by anubi on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:30AM
That is one of the reasons I bought my diesel van.
I am really wondering why I go through the expense of maintaining a fixed residence - as I am now older and no longer employed.
What I see around my area is several young men co-operate around living in industrial buildings and in campers parked around the building. They use the industrial building's plumbing and electrical infrastructure to maintain toilet, bathing, and kitchen use, while the campers serve as bedrooms. They move 'em around all the time so the landlord does not see them as "abandoned", and are careful not to actually "live" in the building, but merely visit it for their personal needs.
I see this and it looks like a great way for me as well to cut back, as I would have a place to go where I have repair tools, food, and personal hygiene supplies stashed, while also being freed for extended stays on the road. Also a place to go if the weather becomes really cold or hot.
Every time I see all these city officials pushing their requirements onto poorer people who are only trying to survive, it sure makes me want to re-evaluate the salary structure of city officials. They are showing off in brilliant colors how overpaid they are. What are people to do when they simply cannot earn enough money to pay for rent? They do the best they can. If that's not good enough, I guess they may as well start "breaking the Law"... and once one is forced to break one, they might as well break 'em all.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 14 2016, @03:05AM
If you don't mind me asking... where's this, in US?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Informative) by anubi on Thursday April 14 2016, @04:08AM
Orange County, California.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 14 2016, @04:28AM
Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by legont on Thursday April 14 2016, @05:41AM
Wallmart does not mind people living on their parking lots. Down south-west it was rather popular when I rode it last summer. Here [dailykos.com] are some logistics review.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday April 14 2016, @06:45AM
I have heard about that... darned nice of WalMart to offer. Here's hoping some ass-types don't spoil the relationship by leaving messes.
Thanks for that helpful link... he discusses quite a few things I had been pondering over.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:41PM
That depends. The Walmart near where I used to live allowed that, but the one near where I live now has signs explicitly saying you cannot park overnight. It does share the plaza with other strip mall stores though, and it is in a better neighbourhood so it may not be their choice.
(Score: 4, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:01PM
The issue is fire safety.
I imagine the reason is the small flammable enclosure with a small opening makes it a deathtrap in a fire. I get that some people don't like the government dictating how they live or governing their property. But this time, I'm on their side. Otherwise some slumlord wannabe would build a dozen of these in a single apartment.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:41PM
Don't fall for that one. There are many legitimate safety concerns, but safety is also the number one excuse for all sorts of rules, a great pretext to extract more money from struggling people, or to practice racism or push an agenda such as banning abortions on grounds of women's safety. One reason homeowners have to mow their lawns is that tall grass is a fire safety issue. Never mind that fire is an important part of the ecology of both grasslands and forests, Smokey Bear says only you can prevent fires. Fireplaces cause 5% of home fires, yet they are still allowed. Further, what if the pod was built out of material that isn't flammable? Why not drywall, same as used for interior walls in most homes? As to the restricted exits problem, what if the pod was made in such a way that from the inside, the walls could be instantly dropped by pulling a pin? Lastly, there are other products with fire safety concerns, such as space heaters. What is the city doing about that? Nothing? Letting the state handle it? Their safety concerns seem awfully selective and arbitrary. Can SF point to data and studies showing that pods should be high on the list of fire safety concerns?
For another example of using safety as a pretext, consider Virginia's exceptionally strict vehicle requirements. Windshields basically can't have any cracks in them at all, thought the law is worded to make it sound more lenient. Why? It's for your safety, citizen. Don't worry about how much that enriched the glass industry, your safety is what counts. Another requirement is that side marker lights, which are not required and many cars do not have them, must work if present. Others states do not care about those lights.
Never mind that traveling about in a steel box at 100 kph is far more dangerous than living in a box, letting grass grow, or having a cracked windshield. Never mind that there aren't any honest studies to show that cracked windshields are significantly more dangerous.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:42AM
One reason homeowners have to mow their lawns is that tall grass is a fire safety issue. Never mind that fire is an important part of the ecology of both grasslands and forests,
This makes no sense. Subdivisions are not natural habitats of grasslands or forests, and letting lawns burn is going to translate to houses burning. I don't think I need to explain why this is a problem.
It makes perfect sense to require lawn mowing to prevent grass fires. What's bad is that this issue could be avoided altogether by simply not having a lawn, and doing "xeriscaping" instead, so that you don't need to cut any grass. However, many places do not allow homeowners to do this, even though it saves hugely on labor, water, etc.
(Score: 1) by dingus on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:50AM
How often do hot embers hit your lawn?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:21AM
How often do hot embers hit your lawn *and* cause it to start on fire?
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:16AM
Well lets see I find like 1-2 cigarette butts on my front lawn a week being that I'm on a somewhat traversed street. It's not a far stretch to imagine a fire happening if my lawn was full of dry grass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @03:32AM
I can imagine many things, but that doesn't mean those things are at all likely to happen. The question is, what is the probability of the event happening, or better yet, what is the probability that it will happen in the environment you live in? We make lots of rules based on things that are highly unlikely to happen, and it is sometimes foolish.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:37AM
All it takes is someone tossing a cigarette out their window into your grass when it's gotten really dry.
(Score: 1) by dingus on Thursday April 14 2016, @03:14PM
Then why doesn't the giant field out by a nearby overpass catch on fire all the time?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 14 2016, @03:48PM
In Arizona, they do; it's a real problem. That's why they have highway signs warning about wildfire danger, and stiff penalties for anyone who starts one.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:20AM
Mowing the lawn shows our penchant for fighting nature rather than working with it. Why don't we instead build our homes so they are impervious to fires? In any case, we mow the lawn much more often than necessary if the goal was only to limit the fuel available for fires. Fire prevention is unnecessary when the weather is wet and the grass is green.
The way we mow shows another of our foibles. We do it with machines, and especially noisy, polluting, and expensive machines at that. Why not use goats? I can imagine why: safety. Goat poop is unsanitary, goats are filthy, dangerous, and unruly creatures, etc. Can you imagine our farmer ancestors turning over in their graves at our stupidity?
When we impose changes, we often find there are a host of unintended consequences, few of them good. Somehow, we've allowed ourselves to be taken in by the notion that grass is a liability rather than a valuable resource. We spend inordinate amounts of time and money to cut down and throw away grass. A lawn care industry has sprung up to exploit our foolishness on this matter, and I'm sure has not been shy about strengthening and expanding it to, uh, "grow" their business.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:17AM
Why don't we instead build our homes so they are impervious to fires?
How exactly do you propose to do that?
Large commercial buildings are made of concrete and steel. They burn.
Large ships are made of steel. They burn.
Maybe not quite as readily as wood, and not as completely, but there's no way to make your house impervious to fire without basically making it out of bare steel and then leaving it completely empty: no furniture, no curtains, no papers, no bed, no carpet, no wood floors (just bare steel), nothing.
The way we mow shows another of our foibles. We do it with machines, and especially noisy, polluting, and expensive machines at that. Why not use goats?
Because then you have goat shit all over, and there's no way to keep them in your yard reliably. A better method is to go to Lowe's and buy a reel mower for $79. It's just that Americans are too stupid and insist on gas-powered mowers. But I am slowly seeing more and more reel mowers, thanks to today's postage-stamp yards.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @04:46PM
A better method is to go to Lowe's and buy a reel mower for $79. It's just that Americans are too stupid and insist on gas-powered mowers.
They are bloody useless if you have trees. I tried one once, the smallest twig hidden in the grass would jam it. After 30 minutes of frustration I took it back and bought an electric and a 100 ft cord instead.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Thursday April 14 2016, @11:07AM
Riiight...haven't actually ever had or even dealt with a goat, have ya city guy? Let this old hillbilly teach you a few things about goats...
1.- They are just smart enough to be dangerous, as in smart enough to get out of fences and collars but NOT smart enough to not play in traffic, 2.- Goats tear shit up and will eat ANYTHING. You've heard them old jokes about goats eating cans and shit? That really isn't far off the mark and if you have a goat anything and everything that anybody tosses or the wind blows into your yard, paper, cups tossed from cars, beer cans, anything the goat can get a hold of WILL be shredded and all over your yard. Finally 3.- Goats STINK, they stink really really bad. Ever smell goat shit? Its pretty nasty and I'm sure your neighbors would just love your ass after having their house filled with the stench of goat shit in the middle of summer. 4.- You will end up having to buy feed as the goat quickly turns your yard into a dirt clod, as they tend to turn anyplace they are kept into a dirt clod as they keep the grass cut down so much that it just dies.
There is a REASON why most towns ban barnyard animals, and that is because they need to be...well in the barnyard. Thinking a goat is some sort of magical lawn mower? Yeah why don't you try that and get back to us? I know of which I speak as I like to record some tracks and spend some time every chance I get with a nice studio owner who has goats, you can tell exactly which pen is the goats BTW, as unlike the other animals the goat pen? Is the only place that is completely dead and lifeless. He tried what you are suggesting, he ended up buying a riding lawnmower as the goats just killed the yard dead. Unfortunately for him his wife had done named the damned things so now he is stuck with 'em and is constantly having to go hunting for them as they get out the fence and just go wandering off.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:10PM
Didn't FDR or somebody get a herd of sheep to keep the White House lawn mowed and cut down on expenses?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday April 14 2016, @03:42PM
Several of the problems you're discussing arise from simple overcrowding. Too many goats or not enough yard. Perhaps cows would work better, but I picked on goats for their much smaller size. I have not experienced working with farm animals myself, but I am not completely ignorant. Visited many times, and I know how bad the cow barn and hog pen can stink. You telling me that goats are worse than that? And these factory farms for the birds, ugh. Sometimes you can smell it from a mile away. My father grew up on a farm, and has many stories about it. They didn't keep goats or sheep though. They kept cattle, chickens, hogs, and turkeys.
Anyway, why do we all need our very own yards? So some of us can be even more stupid and blow a fortune on a private swimming pool? So Fido has an out of the way place that's still nearby? Not for veggie gardens, that's for sure. Most of us city people can't be bothered with that. Sometimes you even have to fight the city to grow a freaking garden, the ordinances are so crazy. One thing I much prefer about living in an apartment is that the yard is their problem, not mine. Why can't a similar setup work for houses? Have goatherds move them about, graze on hundreds of yards.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday April 14 2016, @07:38PM
While you are correct about overcrowding, one goat would be overcrowded in 3 or 4 city yards. And a cow, while less destructive, would be even more overcrowded. Cows don't eat as wide a variety of things, and they're a lot larger, so they need a lot more food. A couple of small cows / half acre would be overcrowded...and I'm talking about the entire half acre being devoted to pastrue. (N.B.: They wouldn't be severely overcrowded. In most parts of the country, and if given sufficient water, a half acre could support a couple of small cows for about six months without problems. Of course, cows also require more vetinary care than does a goat. And if you want milk....Whee! You start getting into real work.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:19AM
And just how probable are these scenarios?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:03PM
Most of those codes are there for a reason. Usually someone took something that is 99% the time reasonable and then extended it out and created a hazard.
Places like SF have fairly strict firecode/egress codes. There is a reason for that when the whole place comes shaking down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_San_Francisco_earthquake#Earthquake [wikipedia.org]
a city where the average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is currently $3,590
The problem is financial one and rent-controlled with a regulatory captured body setting what can and can not be built.
When I first saw his wooden fort the first thing that popped into my head was 'better not let the fire marshal see that'. Apparently going viral on that made that exact issue happen.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nuke on Thursday April 14 2016, @09:47AM
The SF fire of 1906 was the first thing I thought of, and I'm not even in the USA. Fire regulations are based on bitter experience paid for many times over.
I have no sympathy with this guy. He is a salesman and a businessman (or aiming to be) and he clearly knows how to make a pitch at popular opinion (you can even see it working here). He knows that most people will assume a stereotyped image of a poor penniless student needing a roof over his head. He is of course nothing of the sort; and living in one himself, despite the fact that he could easily afford better, shows this to be a sales publicity stunt.
In fact he wants to bust planning regulations and be the first off the line in the resultant race to the bottom, and profit! The "bottom" being the nightmare you see in Soylent Green for example. Visit Africa and parts of South America for more examples of what you get without housing regulations - overcrowding, and fire and sanitation hazards. If this guy got away with selling and his buyers with using these pods, he would not be the only salesman and manufacturer involved for long though; there would soon be entrepreneurs with far more capital than himself buying up warehouses and filling them with thousands of people in similar pods.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @10:59PM
What happens when there's nowhere for the working/middle class to live within a city, and anywhere cheap enough to live is too far away for commuting to make economic sense? How does a city function without police, firemen, teachers, and janitors?
I don't know, but SF seems determined to run the experiment so we can all find out.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:10PM
If you can cut your in-office time down to one day a week, you could just live in another country:
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/commuting-from-barcelona-a-london-worker-who-makes-it-pay [theguardian.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by TheRaven on Thursday April 14 2016, @08:27AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:31PM
Not sure why that was marked off-topic, must have been a mistake. Oh well, I'll fix that.
You're answer is pretty much what would happen when it becomes too expensive for employees to live in a city. Companies start putting offices in smaller towns near by, which then grow to become their own little sub-section of the city. Like if you look at Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Toronto use to be (still is according to the locals) a half-dozen or so smaller places, like Hamilton. Smaller cities close to the big one get bigger and bigger until they're absorbed into the largest city, then smaller towns/cities further out grow till they become part of that and so on.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:47AM
I don't know either, but I think we should allow SF to find out.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:33PM
The people of SanFran are getting what they said they wanted, good and hard.
They pass anti-sprawl laws because they hate suburbs. Then they pass laws restricting upward growth because they don't want to ruin the look of the place. Then they rent control and eliminate any remaining incentive to find some way to build new rental units. Now they bitch because nobody is left able to live in the place while working any non-high rolling startup job. And you can't commute from a distant area because the highways won't support the traffic and building more of anything in CA seems improbable.
Eventually enough people will flee the madness that balance will be forced to return, the hardy folk who remain will be ok, supply and demand back in balance and prices more affordable. But currently it is just lunacy.
So instead of just laughing at the silly progs how about a real suggestion? Do the math people, you would have to clear $43K after taxes just to pay rent? How does anyone expect a city to be livable in that scenario? They need to accept the consequences of the reality they made and just set an absolute maximum allowable population, and set it low enough that it is sustainable. Create tradeable residency licenses like Blue Hells everywhere sell taxi medallions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:03AM
Some cities want and expect a minimum household income of say $80,000. Keeps the riff raff out and brings around desirable people is the mentality behind this. What you end up with is busy bodies who are much too interested in their neighbors affairs, HOA nazis and the like.
There was a Simpsons scene with a new high end mall - the entrance said "Our Prices Discriminate Because We Can't"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:50AM
The problem with that is: who is going to be your police or put out your fires or take out your trash? If the city is small and surrounded by other, poorer municipalities, they just "outsource" the problem by letting the poorer people live outside the city and commute, but the whole Bay Area is getting like this so there's no practical way for janitors to commute in.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Thursday April 14 2016, @08:36AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 14 2016, @03:41PM
You're forgetting about all the other jobs that are necessary for a city to function and be a decent place to live. All the city administration workers, the blue-collar laborers who fix stuff and do new construction (well, maybe not so much of the latter in SanFran), all the retail clerks when you want to buy something, the teachers for your kids at school, etc. What are you going to do, have a whole city the size of SanFran with only wealthy people living in it (plus a few cops being massively overpaid), no schools, no shops or restaurants, just a giant bedroom community, and any time they want to go out to eat, buy groceries, etc. they have to drive 40 miles away?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:04AM
You need at least an extra 10+ grand living in the OUTSKIRTS of the bay area to live equivalently.
A friend did exactly that and thankfully negotiated well enough to get the equivalent cost of living increase (they tried to offer him the same he was making out in the sticks!)
That said, the really issue is imaginary property and services becoming more financially successful than physical work. All that technical infrastructure may be self supporting in another 20 years, but if all the farmers, mechanics, and industrial workers walked out today none of the tech world would mean shit.
Maybe somebody should organize that.
(Score: 1) by dingus on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:56AM
I'd be down for a general strike. Anarcho-syndicalism when?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:02PM
who is john galt
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:25AM
That said, the really issue is imaginary property and services becoming more financially successful than physical work.
Well i got news for you: it's not by fuckin accident. I am intelligent enough to figure out how to do anything your farmers, mechanics, and industrial workers can do. However reverse is not true, hence why I get paid more. You can talk imaginary bullshits all you want, about how XYZ nerd could not work a day as ABC, but that is just plain nonsense. Sure the body would be sore doing manual labor if it was not used to it, but guess what? After few months it would be used to it.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday April 14 2016, @04:29AM
If the politicians and bankers crash the economy again, they can't lower the interest rate again to inject liquidity.
You will get to verify your claim.
I am afraid interesting times await all of us - as most of us have drank the kool-aid and are deeply indebted, and will be asked to remit that which we cannot simply print.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1) by Gault.Drakkor on Thursday April 14 2016, @05:13PM
Hmm well if they can't build out, can't build up.
Perhaps they should build down?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Rich on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:42PM
He should have called his box a "cubicle" instead. They could hardly complain about keeping people in that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:13AM
Agreed.
He built furniture, not a structure.
I'm not sure why the building inspector has any say over other things that pass as furniture.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:54PM
Furniture has a lot of fire safety laws as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @06:41PM
Hah. You must not be aware of the open office fad sweeping the MBA courses...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:50PM
At least 14 people were killed by an arsonist on December 12, 1975.
http://www.foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_GARTLAND_FIRE! [foundsf.org]
http://www.guardiansofthecity.org/sffd/fires/notable_fires/1975_gartland_apartments.html [guardiansofthecity.org]
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/joegarofoli/article/Remember-the-Gartland-Wall-dancers-invoke-2770426.php [sfgate.com]
Now there's another rash of fires in the Mission District.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/4/2/hot-rental-market-sparks-suspicions-of-landlord-arson-in-san-francisco.html [aljazeera.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday April 13 2016, @11:55PM
There's something so very San Francisco about that sentence.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jelizondo on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:48AM
As the French author, Anatole France, wrote in "The Red Lily" (1894):
So you see, if you can't afford the rent, too bad, the law applies to everyone.
God, I hate stupid laws. But I hate more the stupid bureaucrat who enforces laws that actually cause harm to people trying to make a living honestly.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by dingus on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:01AM
The law is an adroit mixture of customs that are beneficial to society, and could be followed even if no law existed, and others that are of advantage to a ruling minority, but harmful to the masses of men, and can be enforced on them only by terror.
-Peter Kropotkin
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:43PM
Laws can only be enforced if the enforcers know about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @05:45PM
The panopticon makes would-be transgressors into self-enforcers.
Non-law can be illegally enforced by enforcers.
Living in fear that the Gestapo might visit and notice the box in your living room is punishment without a direct enforcer.
Discuss.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Friday April 15 2016, @03:32AM
The law of locality still applies and to reach out there needs to be some kind of medium. Cut the medium out, problem solved. In this case drop the smartphone, sensors and media out. Seems like a cultural bubble problem where people has been lulled into write about everything they do, it's plain stupid.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:12AM
We need to send out a few settler units within our borders and found new cities.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:09AM
Nope. It's all already colonized, or purchased by the feds to barter mineral rights of off to foreign nations for kickbacks.
No worries though. The Nazi Stranglehold on Antarctica will be paying off soon. They're vicious warriors hardened by a harsh climate and even harsher experience with using social media.
Their plan for global warming will soon leave them the only habitable environment on Earth. California is has been subject to their weather warfare for decades now. What do you think the chemtrails are for? Once America has been sufficiently weakened through worthless techhorny naval gazing, climate catastrophe, and ideological subversion, the Nazis will emerge from their snowy bunkers and retake the world in one great final blitzkrieg.
Our only hope is to get enough of our people into space before hand, so they'll have a chance to create self sustaining habitats in the Asteroid Belt. From there, they can throw rocks at the Nazified homeworld, decimating the land and triggering another ice age.
Then they can recolonize... If they have no qualms about murdering a whole planet of newly sentient Apes.
That's why America needs Water Filters and Seeds to defeat the New World Order.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:57PM
Wow, talk about a big need for a "WHOOSH!" That went completely over your head.
(Score: 3, Funny) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:05PM
To horribly abuse Arthur C. Clarke:
Sufficiently advanced sarcasm is indistinguishable from being WHOOSH'd.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 14 2016, @11:33AM
There's plenty of room in the West. China has created entire large cities [wikipedia.org] from next to nothing, so could America.
But then, if America focused growth into high density development instead of sprawl the way it has done the last 60 years, there would be no need for new cities and there would be greater efficiency in infrastructure and services.
A lower birthrate would help, too, but people like making babies too much and the retirement structure is designed around there being many more young people than old people.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:08PM
I must disagree with you based on your tone, not so much content. Some people do not want to live in a city no matter what is considered "good" by well-intention-ed but nonetheless meddlesome folk. If you enjoy living in the city, by all means do so. But I have had enough of dealing with the less than rosy side of population density (crime, shit parking, graffiti, vandalism, takes 25 minutes to drive 5 miles, air is suffocating, it's too fuckin hot in the summer, everyone is always in a rush, no one respects shared spaces, dog shit EVERYWHERE, I can just go on all day....). The reason there is shit ton of suburbs isn't some fluke, it's what people want. Giving people what you think they need instead of what they want is not a solution for anything. It's likely to just piss them off.
SF problem is high density commercial space paired with low density housing. That's just zoning failure, even a middle-school kid who had a go at Sim City would not fuck this up as badly. You can have low density housing and low density commercial real estate, and there would be no problems. You overbuild commercial real estate, congratulations: Now you have nowhere for the people to live! They could have had a mixture of low/low and high/high, and let people decide where they want to live based on preference and some smaller economic forces. But they thought they knew better.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:21PM
My tone? Well, OK. I grew up in the Rocky Mountains, so I am quite familiar with rural living. I have lived in NYC for 20 years, and have a good handle on urban living, too. I know the strengths and weaknesses of both. There are people who couldn't imagine living any place with a population under 10 million, and people whose heads explode when they hit the big city of 5,000 people. It sounds like you're one of the latter. That's fine.
But this article was talking about people who want to live in the city but can't afford (or don't want to pay) the rent. For those people (among whom you are not), more housing/denser urban cores would be good, because then they could keep their jobs, enjoy the things the city has to offer, and afford to live there.
And suburbs? That was a multi-decade project of zoning and capital projects to make America dependent on the automobile and oil. White flight, as sparked by racism, helped a lot, too.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:08AM
"The Box: Think Outside of It, Live Inside of It"
(was: "Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair")
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @02:57AM
Live in communes! Practice what you preach for bloody once!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:18PM
The underlying issue isn't whether or not one can safely and legally live in a box.
The real question is why people have to resort to living in boxes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:51PM
People have to resort to living in boxes because of a government that is so intrusive that it tries to control things like whether people can choose to live inside boxes.
(Score: 1) by It doesn't come easy on Thursday April 14 2016, @12:22PM
Use the US Government's recent practice -- call it something other than a box (I'd call it a portable free speech platform, then be sure to write something for or against the government on the outside).
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Thursday April 14 2016, @01:09PM
Yeah, the box can be your "First Amendment Zone"