5 ms·

People in Southern California routinely commute 50 miles. Expecting your groundskeeper to ride a century on top of his actual job is sick and cruel.

by User23 8y ago

epistasis 8y ago
It says a lot more about your worldview than the original poster's that you jump to assuming a 50 mile bike, rather than the simpler notion that people live close to where they work. Is it really so shocking to live that close to a gardener? What is outlandish about that?
- User23 8y ago
  I specified Southern California. If you’re unfamiliar with the dynamics of the region it makes sense that you think it’s outlandish.
  - metildaa 8y ago
    The "dynamics" of SoCal are atrocious, you get the privelege of wasting your life away in traffic to do the simplest things. Public transit is a bad joke too, the light rail in LA waits for cars to pass at intersections! I've never seen that in other metros, as rail always gets signal priority, but it is a great way to drive away riders...
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    We can discuss the practicalites of commuting on the sun, too, if you like.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > Is it really so shocking to live that close to a gardener? What is outlandish about that? I think it's not that people refuse to live next to a gardener, it's that the job of gardener does not allow for an income that someone could afford to live close by given the housing market. It might not be 50 miles, but there are areas of affluence where it would take awhile for a low-income person to reach. There are also areas of affluence right next to considerably run-down (but famous) areas, such as Hollywood. Then again, I'm not sure how much housing there is in the run-down portions.
  - trophycase 8y ago
    Well of course not. That's exactly why the person you are responding to talked about zoning. Without NIMBYs, you could upzone and solve most housing cost issues.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      Southern California is dense and sprawling. Not very vertically dense, mind you, but I'm not sure there's a lot of existing room for new development without displacing people, and I'm also not sure any new development would lower housing costs enough to support the workforce in question. It would take a massive amount of high-density housing to get costs low in certain areas, and low-cost housing doesn't exactly draw in the developers. It may have started as NIMBY, but I think natural market forces eventually reinforce it to the degree that NIMBY isn't necessarily the largest factor at play at this point.
      - Retric 8y ago
        Name one place on Southern California that breaks 25,000 people per square km. It’s all low density. Manila by comparison is 71,263/km2 in it’s core. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila
        kbenson 8y ago
        Given the 500 square miles of Los Angeles and the 4 million people population, that's about a 60' by 60' plot of land per person. Given that doesn't include roads, highways, industrial or commercial zoning, and that people will group in housing (families), I think that's fairly dense for the type of housing which is currently in place, which is homes homes with yards. It's not dense relative to other types of metro areas, but I think it's probably fairly dense for single level housing in an industrialized nation. My point wasn't to imply that Southern California was very densely housed, but that there may not be a huge amount of unutilized land left to build high density housing one, at least not enough to really change the dynamics. And once the conversation shifts from just what to build and where to also who to displace to build it, it's an much harder conversation. I could be entirely wrong, I don't live in LA, but my impression every time I visit is that there's not a lot of unused land, even if the land that is used isn't used efficiently (population density wise). If that's true, it's not just a NIMBY situation (even if it might have traditionally been one), as it's also a "don't displace historical group X that's been living in this area for decades" situation (whether entirely accurate or not).
CalRobert 8y ago
1) That's an absurd straw man. 2) Expecting your groundskeeper to drive a century on top of his (or her) actual job is pretty sick and cruel too 3) I'm pleased you mention Southern California as it's a useful case study of how to turn a pleasant area in to a dystopian hellscape. I've lived in Westwood (near UCLA), Santa Monica, and most recently San Diego (South Park - a fairly upscale neighborhood). I routinely attended meetings of the planning group for South Park, where the attendees, all of whom were homeowners aside from me (and elderly), opposed ANY new housing of ANY sort ANYWHERE. They were blunt about their reasoning - it might hurt their home values. Of course, keeping homes expensive is a great way to ensure your groundskeeper can't live near work. They also hated bike lanes, because they thought it would affect parking. It's rather sickening they cared more about places for cars to sleep than for people to sleep. https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/greatergoldenhill/agendas https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/greater... if you care to go yourself. The area's taxpayers will even give you free parking welfare. Thankfully I escaped SoCal (and the US), but not everyone (including, perhaps, your gardener) is able to do that.
- justtopost 8y ago
  Its almost as if buying and responsibly maintaining your property gave you privlidges.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Over your own property, yes, Don't tell me I have to pay for your "free" (aka taxpayer subsidized) on-street parking. Or stop me from turning a lovely old 4 bedroom home in a nice neighbourhood in to two apartments because you want to live on a skidpad.

People in Southern California routinely commute 50 miles. Expecting your groundskeeper to ride a century on top of his actual job is sick and cruel.

by User23 8y ago

People in Southern California routinely commute 50 miles. Expecting your groundskeeper to ride a century on top of his actual job is sick and cruel.

epistasis 8y ago

It says a lot more about your worldview than the original poster's that you jump to assuming a 50 mile bike, rather than the simpler notion that people live close to where they work. Is it really so shocking to live that close to a gardener? What is outlandish about that?

User23 8y ago
I specified Southern California. If you’re unfamiliar with the dynamics of the region it makes sense that you think it’s outlandish.
- metildaa 8y ago
  The "dynamics" of SoCal are atrocious, you get the privelege of wasting your life away in traffic to do the simplest things. Public transit is a bad joke too, the light rail in LA waits for cars to pass at intersections! I've never seen that in other metros, as rail always gets signal priority, but it is a great way to drive away riders...
- CalRobert 8y ago
  We can discuss the practicalites of commuting on the sun, too, if you like.
kbenson 8y ago
> Is it really so shocking to live that close to a gardener? What is outlandish about that? I think it's not that people refuse to live next to a gardener, it's that the job of gardener does not allow for an income that someone could afford to live close by given the housing market. It might not be 50 miles, but there are areas of affluence where it would take awhile for a low-income person to reach. There are also areas of affluence right next to considerably run-down (but famous) areas, such as Hollywood. Then again, I'm not sure how much housing there is in the run-down portions.
- trophycase 8y ago
  Well of course not. That's exactly why the person you are responding to talked about zoning. Without NIMBYs, you could upzone and solve most housing cost issues.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    Southern California is dense and sprawling. Not very vertically dense, mind you, but I'm not sure there's a lot of existing room for new development without displacing people, and I'm also not sure any new development would lower housing costs enough to support the workforce in question. It would take a massive amount of high-density housing to get costs low in certain areas, and low-cost housing doesn't exactly draw in the developers. It may have started as NIMBY, but I think natural market forces eventually reinforce it to the degree that NIMBY isn't necessarily the largest factor at play at this point.
    - Retric 8y ago
      Name one place on Southern California that breaks 25,000 people per square km. It’s all low density. Manila by comparison is 71,263/km2 in it’s core. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manila
      - kbenson 8y ago
        Given the 500 square miles of Los Angeles and the 4 million people population, that's about a 60' by 60' plot of land per person. Given that doesn't include roads, highways, industrial or commercial zoning, and that people will group in housing (families), I think that's fairly dense for the type of housing which is currently in place, which is homes homes with yards. It's not dense relative to other types of metro areas, but I think it's probably fairly dense for single level housing in an industrialized nation. My point wasn't to imply that Southern California was very densely housed, but that there may not be a huge amount of unutilized land left to build high density housing one, at least not enough to really change the dynamics. And once the conversation shifts from just what to build and where to also who to displace to build it, it's an much harder conversation. I could be entirely wrong, I don't live in LA, but my impression every time I visit is that there's not a lot of unused land, even if the land that is used isn't used efficiently (population density wise). If that's true, it's not just a NIMBY situation (even if it might have traditionally been one), as it's also a "don't displace historical group X that's been living in this area for decades" situation (whether entirely accurate or not).

CalRobert 8y ago

1) That's an absurd straw man. 2) Expecting your groundskeeper to drive a century on top of his (or her) actual job is pretty sick and cruel too 3) I'm pleased you mention Southern California as it's a useful case study of how to turn a pleasant area in to a dystopian hellscape. I've lived in Westwood (near UCLA), Santa Monica, and most recently San Diego (South Park - a fairly upscale neighborhood). I routinely attended meetings of the planning group for South Park, where the attendees, all of whom were homeowners aside from me (and elderly), opposed ANY new housing of ANY sort ANYWHERE. They were blunt about their reasoning - it might hurt their home values. Of course, keeping homes expensive is a great way to ensure your groundskeeper can't live near work. They also hated bike lanes, because they thought it would affect parking. It's rather sickening they cared more about places for cars to sleep than for people to sleep. https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/greatergoldenhill/agendas https://www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/profiles/greater... if you care to go yourself. The area's taxpayers will even give you free parking welfare. Thankfully I escaped SoCal (and the US), but not everyone (including, perhaps, your gardener) is able to do that.

justtopost 8y ago
Its almost as if buying and responsibly maintaining your property gave you privlidges.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Over your own property, yes, Don't tell me I have to pay for your "free" (aka taxpayer subsidized) on-street parking. Or stop me from turning a lovely old 4 bedroom home in a nice neighbourhood in to two apartments because you want to live on a skidpad.