6 ms·

I think most of us can acknowledge that what they did was wrong, but it still is an impressive amount of devotion, and cost effective work.

Yoric 3y ago
Yeah, it's the kind of case where it's hard to decide between putting them in jail or giving them some kind of award. Possibly both.
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  Definitely jail. These low-income losers should be punished as strongly as possible, to make an example out of them. It's too bad the Bay Area can't just round up all low-income trash people who can't afford $5M+ homes and ship them off to far-away concentration camps, but until that's legal, they should do everything in their power to keep these useless people out. Whatever useless low-income jobs they were doing, these people don't belong among the people of the Bay Area. Restaurant cooks, janitors, supermarket workers, schoolteachers, firefighters, all these kinds of people are low-income trash and should be pushed out, and the Bay Area will be better off without them around.
  - Two4 3y ago
    </s> ⬅ here, you forgot your closing tag
    - shiroiushi 3y ago
      Interestingly, I actually do wish all these lower-income workers would leave the Bay Area (or at least the highest-priced parts): I'd love to see how all the NIMBYs fare without any supermarkets, restaurants, schools, or firefighters.
      - infotainment 3y ago
        Oh they’d do fine — don’t worry, those low income people just love to spend hours and hours commuting from the Central Valley. Their lives will become worse, but not the NIMBYs!
      - firstplacelast 3y ago
        I would love to just see a hyperlocal minimum wage set in CA that's tied to housing prices. Live in enclaves with an average home of 10M dollars, your house cleaner will need to be paid $500/hour type thing.
        shiroiushi 3y ago
        What I'd like to do is pass a state law that requires employers to pay commuting costs for their employees, plus only allow up to one hour of unpaid commuting. So, suppose the only people applying for your job live 2 hours away. You'll have to pay 1) the federal mileage rate ($0.50/mile??) (or better yet, an even higher state rate to account for higher costs of car ownership there), or buy the employee a company car, for their commute time, and 2) the employee will get paid for 3 hours of commuting time, and only have to actually work 5 hours on-site (but getting paid for 8), so you'll have to hire another employee to cover the time difference. These people living in 10M homes should be paying $500 per plate to eat at a restaurant and $20/gallon for milk from the supermarket. And yes, $500/hr for the house cleaner. Here in Tokyo, it's normal (maybe legally required?) for employers to pay for employees' commuting costs. Of course, since the best public transit system in the world is here, a commuting pass doesn't cost that much.
        drewzero1 3y ago
        The hopelessly optimistic side of me thinks this might be just the thing we need to spur massive improvements in mass transit, when big employers discover that it's cheaper to chip in for some commuter light rail than it is to pay everyone to sit in traffic. Realistically I don't think it'll happen, but I can dream.
  - swang 3y ago
    the main dude was probably making more than your average software engineer: $235,000. regardless wasn't exactly broke or down on his luck. he just didn't want to sell his home in socal and find an apartment up here.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    >> Definitely jail.... Well that's one way to try and make the point. The funny thing is there is a long history of the bay having art predict its own downfall. Mostly with imported talent at that. Thompson was probably the first. He has some choice quotes about the 60's and high water marks. And riding a bike to Oakland high... But this round falls squarely to Willam Gibson.... He pegged the class and culture fall out of corporations. He picked the wrong part of Asia as a motif but was close there. He nailed the homeless camps but had them a bit east on an abandon bay bridge. You could make this same statement, and make it standing on the shoulder of a giant. It could be far more effective and resonant. Go read some Gibson, it will blow your mind ;)
    - xyzzy123 3y ago
      GP is completely on-point, you just have to read the post in Jello Biafra's voice.
  - tomjakubowski 3y ago
    One of the guys was deputy director at Caltrain. Very doubtful he had "low income". And he was siphoning public funds to do it, for his own benefit, something which actually does hurt people with low incomes.
  - infecto 3y ago
    $230+k is low-income?
- chucksta 3y ago
  Definitely earned their place leading some internal jail improvement programs
- fortran77 3y ago
  It’s not ok to steal public funds. It’s sad that you think that merits a reward.
- Y_Y 3y ago
  Reminds me of the opening of the Suez Canal, where a British naval ship did something that obviously pleased the admiralty but which they were obliged to condemn. > As the time approached for the ships to ceremoneously enter the new canal for the first time, the contingent of British ships were second to the French in the congested approach. Captain Nares had difficulty accepting this positioning, and so, during the night and without using lights, he maneuvered Newport forward into an inextricable position in front of the French yacht accorded the honor of entering the canal first. The French were understandably upset, and protested to the Admiralty. Captain George Nares received an official reprimand from the Admiralty, but was, apparently, the object of great admiration for his clever actions, and was questioned at length about how the feat was accomplished. From https://web.archive.org/web/20151009025658/http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/Education/Learning_Resources/Challenger/people1.php https://web.archive.org/web/20151009025658/http://aquarium.u...
mistermann 3y ago
Considering it costs $900k for affordable housing, I'm not sure what the word wrong even means at this point. If democracy is good (the greatest?) and that's what it produces, I think we might have to start redefining the meanings of plenty of words...or should, anyways. Oh well, I'm sure it will all work out fine as long as we think positive.
- rendall 3y ago
  Your thesis here is that since housing is unaffordable in California, and California is a democracy, therefore democracy produces unaffordable housing?
  - netsharc 3y ago
    The old quote is, "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.". It feels like whatever -ism you want to organize society under, you have to have checks and balances, in order to prevent things like grift causing 900k apartments...
    - rendall 3y ago
      It might be too broad a brush to paint capitalism or democracy as the unique cause of the Bay Area problem of unaffordable housing, given that affordable housing exists in both capitalist and democratic regions in the US and around the world.
      - mistermann 3y ago
        Whether "unique" is in the claim is not a trivial detail. One should always be wary of bugs in the interpreter, they are far less battle tested than compilers, operating systems, etc.
      - netsharc 3y ago
        My point is, the -ism doesn't matter, corruption exists everywhere, so saying the corruption is the result of capitalism/democracy is bullshit. Indeed a "proper" democracy seems to be a lot more resilient against corruption, although I wonder if it's more to do with the society's cohesiveness, e.g. in Scandinavia. Then again the crazies like to call Scandinavia "a socialist hell hole", so maybe even socialism can be done right if you have the right society...
dheera 3y ago
I don't think what they did was wrong at all. They were serving their city, they have every right to be housed by it and not be priced out by greedy landlords.
- kortilla 3y ago
  That argument doesn’t make sense. The city doesn’t provide homes to any other workers
- xsmasher 3y ago
  The diverted company funds and property to their own sole benefit, in secret.
hackerlight 3y ago
Misusing public money (instead of their own money) was wrong but I don't have a problem with the squatting part. There wasn't a clear victim and it satisfied someone's need for housing in otherwise unused property. That's commendable, even if it was illegal.
- roughly 3y ago
  If they’d paid for it with their own money I’d have a hard time getting real mad about this.

Yoric 3y ago

Yeah, it's the kind of case where it's hard to decide between putting them in jail or giving them some kind of award. Possibly both.

shiroiushi 3y ago
Definitely jail. These low-income losers should be punished as strongly as possible, to make an example out of them. It's too bad the Bay Area can't just round up all low-income trash people who can't afford $5M+ homes and ship them off to far-away concentration camps, but until that's legal, they should do everything in their power to keep these useless people out. Whatever useless low-income jobs they were doing, these people don't belong among the people of the Bay Area. Restaurant cooks, janitors, supermarket workers, schoolteachers, firefighters, all these kinds of people are low-income trash and should be pushed out, and the Bay Area will be better off without them around.
- Two4 3y ago
  </s> ⬅ here, you forgot your closing tag
  - shiroiushi 3y ago
    Interestingly, I actually do wish all these lower-income workers would leave the Bay Area (or at least the highest-priced parts): I'd love to see how all the NIMBYs fare without any supermarkets, restaurants, schools, or firefighters.
    - infotainment 3y ago
      Oh they’d do fine — don’t worry, those low income people just love to spend hours and hours commuting from the Central Valley. Their lives will become worse, but not the NIMBYs!
    - firstplacelast 3y ago
      I would love to just see a hyperlocal minimum wage set in CA that's tied to housing prices. Live in enclaves with an average home of 10M dollars, your house cleaner will need to be paid $500/hour type thing.
      - shiroiushi 3y ago
        What I'd like to do is pass a state law that requires employers to pay commuting costs for their employees, plus only allow up to one hour of unpaid commuting. So, suppose the only people applying for your job live 2 hours away. You'll have to pay 1) the federal mileage rate ($0.50/mile??) (or better yet, an even higher state rate to account for higher costs of car ownership there), or buy the employee a company car, for their commute time, and 2) the employee will get paid for 3 hours of commuting time, and only have to actually work 5 hours on-site (but getting paid for 8), so you'll have to hire another employee to cover the time difference. These people living in 10M homes should be paying $500 per plate to eat at a restaurant and $20/gallon for milk from the supermarket. And yes, $500/hr for the house cleaner. Here in Tokyo, it's normal (maybe legally required?) for employers to pay for employees' commuting costs. Of course, since the best public transit system in the world is here, a commuting pass doesn't cost that much.
        drewzero1 3y ago
        The hopelessly optimistic side of me thinks this might be just the thing we need to spur massive improvements in mass transit, when big employers discover that it's cheaper to chip in for some commuter light rail than it is to pay everyone to sit in traffic. Realistically I don't think it'll happen, but I can dream.
- swang 3y ago
  the main dude was probably making more than your average software engineer: $235,000. regardless wasn't exactly broke or down on his luck. he just didn't want to sell his home in socal and find an apartment up here.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  >> Definitely jail.... Well that's one way to try and make the point. The funny thing is there is a long history of the bay having art predict its own downfall. Mostly with imported talent at that. Thompson was probably the first. He has some choice quotes about the 60's and high water marks. And riding a bike to Oakland high... But this round falls squarely to Willam Gibson.... He pegged the class and culture fall out of corporations. He picked the wrong part of Asia as a motif but was close there. He nailed the homeless camps but had them a bit east on an abandon bay bridge. You could make this same statement, and make it standing on the shoulder of a giant. It could be far more effective and resonant. Go read some Gibson, it will blow your mind ;)
  - xyzzy123 3y ago
    GP is completely on-point, you just have to read the post in Jello Biafra's voice.
- tomjakubowski 3y ago
  One of the guys was deputy director at Caltrain. Very doubtful he had "low income". And he was siphoning public funds to do it, for his own benefit, something which actually does hurt people with low incomes.
- infecto 3y ago
  $230+k is low-income?
chucksta 3y ago
Definitely earned their place leading some internal jail improvement programs
fortran77 3y ago
It’s not ok to steal public funds. It’s sad that you think that merits a reward.
Y_Y 3y ago
Reminds me of the opening of the Suez Canal, where a British naval ship did something that obviously pleased the admiralty but which they were obliged to condemn. > As the time approached for the ships to ceremoneously enter the new canal for the first time, the contingent of British ships were second to the French in the congested approach. Captain Nares had difficulty accepting this positioning, and so, during the night and without using lights, he maneuvered Newport forward into an inextricable position in front of the French yacht accorded the honor of entering the canal first. The French were understandably upset, and protested to the Admiralty. Captain George Nares received an official reprimand from the Admiralty, but was, apparently, the object of great admiration for his clever actions, and was questioned at length about how the feat was accomplished. From https://web.archive.org/web/20151009025658/http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/Education/Learning_Resources/Challenger/people1.php https://web.archive.org/web/20151009025658/http://aquarium.u...

mistermann 3y ago

Considering it costs $900k for affordable housing, I'm not sure what the word wrong even means at this point. If democracy is good (the greatest?) and that's what it produces, I think we might have to start redefining the meanings of plenty of words...or should, anyways. Oh well, I'm sure it will all work out fine as long as we think positive.

rendall 3y ago
Your thesis here is that since housing is unaffordable in California, and California is a democracy, therefore democracy produces unaffordable housing?
- netsharc 3y ago
  The old quote is, "Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.". It feels like whatever -ism you want to organize society under, you have to have checks and balances, in order to prevent things like grift causing 900k apartments...
  - rendall 3y ago
    It might be too broad a brush to paint capitalism or democracy as the unique cause of the Bay Area problem of unaffordable housing, given that affordable housing exists in both capitalist and democratic regions in the US and around the world.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      Whether "unique" is in the claim is not a trivial detail. One should always be wary of bugs in the interpreter, they are far less battle tested than compilers, operating systems, etc.
    - netsharc 3y ago
      My point is, the -ism doesn't matter, corruption exists everywhere, so saying the corruption is the result of capitalism/democracy is bullshit. Indeed a "proper" democracy seems to be a lot more resilient against corruption, although I wonder if it's more to do with the society's cohesiveness, e.g. in Scandinavia. Then again the crazies like to call Scandinavia "a socialist hell hole", so maybe even socialism can be done right if you have the right society...

dheera 3y ago

I don't think what they did was wrong at all. They were serving their city, they have every right to be housed by it and not be priced out by greedy landlords.

kortilla 3y ago
That argument doesn’t make sense. The city doesn’t provide homes to any other workers
xsmasher 3y ago
The diverted company funds and property to their own sole benefit, in secret.

hackerlight 3y ago

Misusing public money (instead of their own money) was wrong but I don't have a problem with the squatting part. There wasn't a clear victim and it satisfied someone's need for housing in otherwise unused property. That's commendable, even if it was illegal.

roughly 3y ago
If they’d paid for it with their own money I’d have a hard time getting real mad about this.