Does Todd Gloria commute by bicycle? Does anyone? (Fresno, Bakersfield: house, quality of life)

[phinneas j. whoopee]

Originally Posted by Axxlrod

Close Vandenberg?

Will never happen. It's the only US launch facility capable of obtaining polar orbit.

People often talk about how turning Camp Pendleton into housing would help solve the housing crisis. It would be a cold day in hell when the Marine Corp would abandon that base, but even if they did, the housing that would be put there would be astronomically expensive.

My comments about Vandenberg were obviously tongue in cheek, however I would still assert the position that our housing crisis is self inflicted and there is a lot of undeveloped open space in this state not being utilized. Its robbing many Americansvof the dream of home ownership.

[phinneas j. whoopee]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

You just can't leave them out of sight. It's so easy to steal a battery off an E bike it's just stupid. The tweakers will be all over them. My bike lock cost 80 bucks but won't stop someone stealing the battery.

Back around 2008 I used a bicycle as my sole transportation for a couple of years. Not just any bike, it was an all titanium hardtail MTB I spent about a year collecting exotic components off ebay building. I had over $4k into it though retail all the parts added up to over $6k easy.
So I was nervous even locking it up to go into Target for 20 minutes. I bought the real thick kryptonite NY U lock, and found a couple of different rare and expensive locks on ebay including a cobralinks jr. (little brother to those big armored cable locks that were sold at harley davidson dealers) and a huge Streetcuffs that looked like handcuffs for king kong.
The best lock is 2 different ones because thieves usually specialize and carry tools for one kind of lock. But no lock is impenetrable especially against the mighty cordless angle grinder. (The kryptonite fahgeddaboutit NY U I have is tested to endure just over 2 minutes against an angle grinder)
If all else fails and you lock your bike up really good the thieves often destroy your bike out of contempt.
My ti bike never got stolen but I never left it long.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by Axxlrod

My bike battery is locked in a compartment and needs a key to access. A thief would need power tools and some time to get to it. I don't leave my ebike anywhere though.

Many just take a good fist punch to dislodge the battery. Most of those with the battery on the downtube.

[Axxlrod]

Originally Posted by phinneas j. whoopee

My comments about Vandenberg were obviously tongue in cheek, however I would still assert the position that our housing crisis is self inflicted and there is a lot of undeveloped open space in this state not being utilized. Its robbing many Americansvof the dream of home ownership.

So every bit of open space not built to house people is being underutilized and this is robbing people of the dream of home ownership? Garbage.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Axxlrod

So every bit of open space not built to house people is being underutilized and this is robbing people of the dream of home ownership? Garbage.

Yeah I have to agree with you. Part of California's appeal is our scenic beauty and our open space. If we build all over it, then we actually deteriorate our quality of life. At that point, you could just live in Oklahoma.

We don't even need raw, unused land to build housing. We have tons of already developed land that's in dire need of redevelopment. And this is the direction in which zoning is going. For example, rickety old strip malls can now be turned into multi-family that makes better use of the space and will be more attractive. Also, underutilized parking lots, especially for houses of worship, can be developed into multifamily housing. Anytime we can turn an eyesore into something architecturally interesting and useful, it's a win-win. When we turn open space into housing, it's a win-lose.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Yeah I have to agree with you. Part of California's appeal is our scenic beauty and our open space. If we build all over it, then we actually deteriorate our quality of life. At that point, you could just live in Oklahoma.

We don't even need raw, unused land to build housing. We have tons of already developed land that's in dire need of redevelopment. And this is the direction in which zoning is going. For example, rickety old strip malls can now be turned into multi-family that makes better use of the space and will be more attractive. Also, underutilized parking lots, especially for houses of worship, can be developed into multifamily housing. Anytime we can turn an eyesore into something architecturally interesting and useful, it's a win-win. When we turn open space into housing, it's a win-lose.

I don’t understand why the state will change single family zoning, incentivise density in neighborhoods, build bike lanes, trolleys, billions in new stuff before dealing with the vacant strip malls and parking lots right in areas with existing bus lines and bike lanes. Its really nuts to me. Every district has that one vacant lot that needs to be remediated but no developer will touch it… It seems like this is something a city council person can easily deal with personally. Get involved and use some state money to buy and remediate that land then sell it to a developer. But they never do this.

[Axxlrod]

Originally Posted by NYSD1995

I don’t understand why the state will change single family zoning, incentivise density in neighborhoods, build bike lanes, trolleys, billions in new stuff before dealing with the vacant strip malls and parking lots right in areas with existing bus lines and bike lanes. Its really nuts to me. Every district has that one vacant lot that needs to be remediated but no developer will touch it… It seems like this is something a city council person can easily deal with personally. Get involved and use some state money to buy and remediate that land then sell it to a developer. But they never do this.

What you are describing is eminent domain. The process exists, but is rather arduous. Plus you are calling for the trampling of private property rights. What if the owner of the despised parking lot does not want to sell? What if he plans on giving it to his children when he dies, and they can redevelop it?

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by Axxlrod

What you are describing is eminent domain. The process exists, but is rather arduous. Plus you are calling for the trampling of private property rights. What if the owner of the despised parking lot does not want to sell? What if he plans on giving it to his children when he dies, and they can redevelop it?

Not eminent domain - just incentives and influence. Most of these parcels are sitting there because the landowner can’t sell them without remediating to meet the state environmental standards. So why not solve 2 problems at once?

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Yeah I have to agree with you. Part of California's appeal is our scenic beauty and our open space. If we build all over it, then we actually deteriorate our quality of life. At that point, you could just live in Oklahoma.

We don't even need raw, unused land to build housing. We have tons of already developed land that's in dire need of redevelopment. And this is the direction in which zoning is going. For example, rickety old strip malls can now be turned into multi-family that makes better use of the space and will be more attractive. Also, underutilized parking lots, especially for houses of worship, can be developed into multifamily housing. Anytime we can turn an eyesore into something architecturally interesting and useful, it's a win-win. When we turn open space into housing, it's a win-lose.

There's an old church over by my Mom's place on a huge lot and it's either closed or hardly gets used.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by NYSD1995

I don’t understand why the state will change single family zoning, incentivise density in neighborhoods, build bike lanes, trolleys, billions in new stuff before dealing with the vacant strip malls and parking lots right in areas with existing bus lines and bike lanes. Its really nuts to me. Every district has that one vacant lot that needs to be remediated but no developer will touch it… It seems like this is something a city council person can easily deal with personally. Get involved and use some state money to buy and remediate that land then sell it to a developer. But they never do this.

The single family zoning changes are terrible and were already tried in the 60s which led to historic neighborhoods becoming ruined by ugly, crappy apartment buildings right in between charming homes. It ruined the character of many neighborhoods and was often taught in city planning classes as a mistake not to repeat. It's when practicality overrides aesthetics and beauty. Humans need more than just bedrooms, we need tree lined sidewalks, parks, flowers, nice architecture, etc. Just like we don't all just eat packaged ramen noodles for every meal even though it's practical and cheap.
Anyway, I agree with you that there are so many blighted properties, and redeveloping these is now a cornerstone of the city's new housing plan. So I think we will finally see those blocks starting to become nicer. Time to fix mistakes instead of making new ones!!