It’s true for alcohol too.

Why is this paternalistic logic okay when it’s about gambling? If you made the same argument about alcohol’s impacts on society as a justification for banning it, you’d rightly be laughed at.

That was part of a major lobbying effort that the NYTimes just wrote a big investigative piece on.

> Four years ago, betting on live sports was illegal in most of the United States. Now, fans watching games or attending them at stadiums are barraged with advertisements encouraging them to bet on matchups, not just watch as spectators.

> This transformation in sports betting started nearly a decade ago, at first with the explosion of wagering on fantasy sports. Then in 2018, the Supreme Court cleared the way for states to legalize wagers on live games. Today, 31 states and Washington, D.C., permit sports gambling either online or in person, and five more states have passed laws that will allow such betting in the future. Professional sports in the U.S. now are part of a multibillion-dollar corporate gambling enterprise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/briefing/gambling-sports-betting.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

I believe so but this was like 10 years ago so not sure.

Yeah I saw the NY Phil do Koyaanisqatsi live and it was mind-blowing.

Didn't NYS pass a law during COVID that gyms have to let you cancel online if they take signups online?

That's such a common sense consumer protection.

Until fairly recently, you could even pass it on to your kids.

It was basically rent control for landlords and created a landed elite who paid very little into state coffers.

But it was sold with progressive framing like “save grandma’s house” and some people still believe that to this day.

They’re both pretty big factors. Prop 13 strongly disincentivizes seniors from selling their family homes after their kids leave the house, for one thing.

It’s pretty normal in other housing markets for retirees to move to smaller housing when their kids are grown. The family home then becomes a home for a young family. So instead CA has a ton of older folks in massive houses because they’d actually pay more to move somewhere smaller.

Also if we loosened zoning you’d still have a ton of older people refusing to sell for redevelopment because their property taxes are capped at a few hundred dollars per year. So again it interferes with a lot of housing cycles.

Prop 13 doesn’t have any means testing though. And it isn’t even limited to a single primary residence. So landlords with a dozen rental properties and even golf courses in Malibu are paying next to no property tax.

Prop 13 was incredibly bad for California’s housing market. And it just caused cities/counties to raise taxes in other ways so it became a regressive subsidy for homeowners who are wealthier than those who do not own.

I cancelled and got an electric scooter. I can bring it in far more places than a bicycle because it’s smaller but definitely a bumpier ride.

They’re still manually replacing e-bike batteries which is a huge cost in terms of labor.

Yeah but then you also end up with stupid shit like Prop 65’s meaningless cancer warnings on every product.

Yeah every ice storm would destroy every parked car if this was true.

I’ve lived in a place that gets ice storms regularly. You’d find your car covered in thick sheets of ice every time. Just had to scrape it off or wait for it to melt and you were good to go.

Going after lawyers seems especially risky.

I’m sure they’re using indoor grow light setups. Grow lights are pretty cheap and energy efficient these days.

My guess is she will revive the shelved proposal to mandate more dense housing around train stations.

Long Island's lawmakers got it killed last time it was proposed. But they were Democrats then. Now they have all GOP lawmakers who won't be able to use internal party influence to block it.

New Jersey passed a similar law and it's been very successful. They now build more housing than any part of the tristate region.

They're not unaffordable to everyone. People are renting all those market-rate apartments that get built. The vacancy rate is extremely low.

I already explained how it helps. It preserves more affordable housing by preventing gentrification of existing housing units.

And presumably these new buildings will also increase the affordable housing supply because 25% of the units will have to be set aside for lower income people... that happens with most new developments in NYC. 1/3 of the new units added over the last few decades have been permanently affordable.

Rents are never going to go down until the rate of construction surpasses the rate of population growth... or there's a mass exodus like during COVID. Otherwise our shortage just gets worse every year. And NYC has been growing in population 5x faster than housing supply has grown for the past few decades at least. In that context, new construction can only slow rent increases.

It doesn’t matter if they’re market rate or not. It still helps the overall housing market.

Even if you can’t personally afford a unit, as long as someone moves into it, that person is no longer competing with others for more affordable units.

Any increase in housing supply is positive.

It looks like Cape Cod when you’re there. It is weird and cool.

So is that measuring people’s yards though? I think the article is talking about public green space.

I don't think anyone would guess Manhattan.

Last time I went there, some young guy in a NYC Parks uniform popped out and I thought I was busted.

But he was like “Oh you’re good. I’m just walking the tracks too and wore this old uniform in case I got caught.”

Remember when a deer swam to Manhattan and it was major news?