Berkeley/Bay Area and other places, that is.

I went to school(s) with a lot of poor students. Those students would get government subsidized lunch tickets. No problem.

so it's odd when I read about all these punishments for kids who don't pay their lunch debts. like not being able to buy a yearbook or attend prom.

It reminds me of this.

And the people who defend these practices will say "rules are the rules" and "they should learn to pay off their debt" like in the real world. And I think that these people are likely Trump voters, and note the irony.

Here's a little Cal story. A "friend" borrowed my reg card (when they were printed on punch cards) because he wasn't taking classes for a semester. He checked some books...and then racked up a huge fine. The guy was ready to just skip out and I ready to pound him into ground because...they block registration if you have outstanding fines. This mofo however lucked out because a mutual friend worked at Moffitt in the fines department...and he zeroed it out. The more I think about it, I should have at least punched that guy a few times.

Those folks would bring back debtors prison if possible. That's where we're headed with conservatives at the helm.

The median home price in Charlotte is $230,000, less than a quarter the Berkeley median. You can afford to buy a whole personal library in Charlotte with the money left over from your mortgage payment.

Social justice is not patting your back over not enforcing library late fees, but in ensuring access to reasonably priced real estate by not stifling new construction projects with anti-business, anti-growth nimbyist urban planning policies.

When it comes to home prices between the bay area and some (not all) other places, there's also the supply and demand aspect.

Not defending Berkeley, nor attempting to insult Charlotte. But the much lower home prices in Charlotte or elsewhere are not necessarily the result of brilliant, compassionate affordable housing programs in those locations. Might just be that fewer people with money want to live there.

Anyway, the library fine issue is a small issue in the grand scheme, but reducing or eliminating major punishments and fines is probably a good thing.

Cal88 said:

---

The median home price in Charlotte is $230,000, less than a quarter the Berkeley median. You can afford to buy a whole personal library in Charlotte with the money left over from your mortgage payment.

Social justice is not patting your back over not enforcing library late fees, but in ensuring access to reasonably priced real estate by not stifling new construction projects with anti-business, anti-growth nimbyist urban planning policies.

---

Just curious: does it hurt when your knee jerks that hard?

Cal88 said:

---

The median home price in Charlotte is $230,000, less than a quarter the Berkeley median. You can afford to buy a whole personal library in Charlotte with the money left over from your mortgage payment.

Social justice is not patting your back over not enforcing library late fees, but in ensuring access to reasonably priced real estate by not stifling new construction projects with anti-business, anti-growth nimbyist urban planning policies.

---

If Berkeley housing is too expensive, they can move to Charlotte, check out a library book, and wait to be given free room and board by the city.

As I've told you before, our population density is among the highest in the country. We have already built more housing than other places. Berkeley's population density is 11,322 per square mile. Charlotte's is 2,457 per square mile. Berkeley already houses 4 times the number of people per square mile than Charlotte. Arguing that Berkeley is less socially just because it doesn't build enough housing to bring median housing cost down to Charlotte's level is plain ridiculous. Even if you think it is anti-growth nimbyism of the Bay Area not to build high rise apartments on every inch of available land, which is what you would have to do.

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The median home price in Charlotte is $230,000, less than a quarter the Berkeley median. You can afford to buy a whole personal library in Charlotte with the money left over from your mortgage payment.

Social justice is not patting your back over not enforcing library late fees, but in ensuring access to reasonably priced real estate by not stifling new construction projects with anti-business, anti-growth nimbyist urban planning policies.

---

If Berkeley housing is too expensive, they can move to Charlotte, check out a library book, and wait to be given free room and board by the city.

As I've told you before, our population density is among the highest in the country. We have already built more housing than other places. Berkeley's population density is 11,322 per square mile. Charlotte's is 2,457 per square mile. Berkeley already houses 4 times the number of people per square mile than Charlotte. Arguing that Berkeley is less socially just because it doesn't build enough housing to bring median housing cost down to Charlotte's level is plain ridiculous. Even if you think it is anti-growth nimbyism of the Bay Area not to build high rise apartments on every inch of available land, which is what you would have to do.

---

This

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The median home price in Charlotte is $230,000, less than a quarter the Berkeley median. You can afford to buy a whole personal library in Charlotte with the money left over from your mortgage payment.

Social justice is not patting your back over not enforcing library late fees, but in ensuring access to reasonably priced real estate by not stifling new construction projects with anti-business, anti-growth nimbyist urban planning policies.

---

If Berkeley housing is too expensive, they can move to Charlotte, check out a library book, and wait to be given free room and board by the city.

As I've told you before, our population density is among the highest in the country. We have already built more housing than other places. Berkeley's population density is 11,322 per square mile. Charlotte's is 2,457 per square mile. Berkeley already houses 4 times the number of people per square mile than Charlotte. Arguing that Berkeley is less socially just because it doesn't build enough housing to bring median housing cost down to Charlotte's level is plain ridiculous. Even if you think it is anti-growth nimbyism of the Bay Area not to build high rise apartments on every inch of available land, which is what you would have to do.

---

This

---

I'd like to know if he thinks Charlotte would be willing to continue to build housing until their density is up to Berkeley's and then continue to build beyond that. Until they do, this complaint is unfair.

Love the conservative mindset. Hey urban areas, why don't you keep building more and increasing your population density. You anti-growth socialists. Oh, and how come you have all these problems that are associated with high population density? It must be mismanagement!

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The median home price in Charlotte is $230,000, less than a quarter the Berkeley median. You can afford to buy a whole personal library in Charlotte with the money left over from your mortgage payment.

Social justice is not patting your back over not enforcing library late fees, but in ensuring access to reasonably priced real estate by not stifling new construction projects with anti-business, anti-growth nimbyist urban planning policies.

---

If Berkeley housing is too expensive, they can move to Charlotte, check out a library book, and wait to be given free room and board by the city.

As I've told you before, our population density is among the highest in the country. We have already built more housing than other places. Berkeley's population density is 11,322 per square mile. Charlotte's is 2,457 per square mile. Berkeley already houses 4 times the number of people per square mile than Charlotte. Arguing that Berkeley is less socially just because it doesn't build enough housing to bring median housing cost down to Charlotte's level is plain ridiculous. Even if you think it is anti-growth nimbyism of the Bay Area not to build high rise apartments on every inch of available land, which is what you would have to do.

---

The population density stat comparison is misleading here, because Charlotte is a fairly large municipality that includes large swaths of green spaces and exurbs. Its urban center though has densities that are similar to Berkeley's. For a metro area of nearly 3 million, it manages to provide its population with quality affordable housing through a more liberal pro-growth urban development policy.



Berkeley has this somewhat unique combination of a corrupt and politically re1arded city hall culture, with sleazy figures like Patrick Kennedy and Ken Sarachan running the show. Denser housing with midrise apartment buildings along the main arteries like University, San Pablo or Shattuck, replacing strip malls and parking lots would actually improve the quality of these neighborhoods.

And if that kind of approach extended to other parts of the inner Bay Area, housing would definitely be a lot more accessible. But between nimby Boomer owners (hello Panoramic Hills Association), dogmatic antigrowth activists (hello Running Wolf) and corrupt, byzantine city hall politics, that's never going to happen.

Yeah, go ahead and move to North Carolina, then tell us about it.

Many of my former Cal friends did move there and to places like Austin or Raleigh. Housing costs and quality of life were factors in their move.

Cal88 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The median home price in Charlotte is $230,000, less than a quarter the Berkeley median. You can afford to buy a whole personal library in Charlotte with the money left over from your mortgage payment.

Social justice is not patting your back over not enforcing library late fees, but in ensuring access to reasonably priced real estate by not stifling new construction projects with anti-business, anti-growth nimbyist urban planning policies.

---

If Berkeley housing is too expensive, they can move to Charlotte, check out a library book, and wait to be given free room and board by the city.

As I've told you before, our population density is among the highest in the country. We have already built more housing than other places. Berkeley's population density is 11,322 per square mile. Charlotte's is 2,457 per square mile. Berkeley already houses 4 times the number of people per square mile than Charlotte. Arguing that Berkeley is less socially just because it doesn't build enough housing to bring median housing cost down to Charlotte's level is plain ridiculous. Even if you think it is anti-growth nimbyism of the Bay Area not to build high rise apartments on every inch of available land, which is what you would have to do.

---

The population density stat comparison is misleading here, because Charlotte is a fairly large municipality that includes large swaths of green spaces and exurbs. Its urban center though has densities that are similar to Berkeley's. For a metro area of nearly 3 million, it manages to provide its population with quality affordable housing through a more liberal pro-growth urban development policy.



Berkeley has this somewhat unique combination of a corrupt and politically re1arded city hall culture, with sleazy figures like Patrick Kennedy and Ken Sarachan running the show. Denser housing with midrise apartment buildings along the main arteries like University, San Pablo or Shattuck, replacing strip malls and parking lots would actually improve the quality of these neighborhoods.

And if that kind of approach extended to other parts of the inner Bay Area, housing would definitely be a lot more accessible. But between nimby Boomer owners (hello Panoramic Hills Association), dogmatic antigrowth activists (hello Running Wolf) and corrupt, byzantine city hall politics, that's never going to happen.

---

No you are the one that is misleading. Berkeley has green areas also and plenty of low density residential areas in the hills. You are comparing the densest few areas of Charlotte to the average for all of Berkeley. Downtown Berkeley is has far higher population density than downtown Charlotte.

It's not NIMBY. It's that people don't agree with you. It is not our responsibility to build more and more and more putting huge pressure on public facilities. While you are figuring out every plot of land you can put housing units have you figured out who is going to pay for things like sewers and expanding highways and transportation systems that are already massively overwhelmed? Let alone the land those expanded systems are going on?

I'm glad your friends left. A bunch of upper middle class people crying because they can't have everything they want at their chosen price point isn't our problem. Stop crying like a snowflake.

OneKeg said:

---

Might just be that fewer people with money want to live there.

---

Ain't no "might be" about it. That's the whole reason.

Almost every conservative criticism about the Bay Area and California boils down to this: it's a high-density area where lots of people want to live, therefore it's expensive. That's not to say the problems aren't real, but they are not the problems of a place where no one wants to live.

sycasey said:

---

OneKeg said:

---

Might just be that fewer people with money want to live there.

---

Ain't no "might be" about it. That's the whole reason.

Almost every conservative criticism about the Bay Area and California boils down to this: it's a high-density area where lots of people want to live, therefore it's expensive. That's not to say the problems aren't real, but they are not the problems of a place where no one wants to live.

---

Yep we agree.

I was going for ironic understatement. Not too successfully I think.

Cal88 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

The median home price in Charlotte is $230,000, less than a quarter the Berkeley median. You can afford to buy a whole personal library in Charlotte with the money left over from your mortgage payment.

Social justice is not patting your back over not enforcing library late fees, but in ensuring access to reasonably priced real estate by not stifling new construction projects with anti-business, anti-growth nimbyist urban planning policies.

---

If Berkeley housing is too expensive, they can move to Charlotte, check out a library book, and wait to be given free room and board by the city.

As I've told you before, our population density is among the highest in the country. We have already built more housing than other places. Berkeley's population density is 11,322 per square mile. Charlotte's is 2,457 per square mile. Berkeley already houses 4 times the number of people per square mile than Charlotte. Arguing that Berkeley is less socially just because it doesn't build enough housing to bring median housing cost down to Charlotte's level is plain ridiculous. Even if you think it is anti-growth nimbyism of the Bay Area not to build high rise apartments on every inch of available land, which is what you would have to do.

---

The population density stat comparison is misleading here, because Charlotte is a fairly large municipality that includes large swaths of green spaces and exurbs. Its urban center though has densities that are similar to Berkeley's. For a metro area of nearly 3 million, it manages to provide its population with quality affordable housing through a more liberal pro-growth urban development policy.



Berkeley has this somewhat unique combination of a corrupt and politically re1arded city hall culture, with sleazy figures like Patrick Kennedy and Ken Sarachan running the show. Denser housing with midrise apartment buildings along the main arteries like University, San Pablo or Shattuck, replacing strip malls and parking lots would actually improve the quality of these neighborhoods.

And if that kind of approach extended to other parts of the inner Bay Area, housing would definitely be a lot more accessible. But between nimby Boomer owners (hello Panoramic Hills Association), dogmatic antigrowth activists (hello Running Wolf) and corrupt, byzantine city hall politics, that's never going to happen.

---

I did enjoy your reference to Running Wolf as "dogmatic."

Nobody lives in California anymore.

It's too crowded.

okaydo said:

---

I went to school(s) with a lot of poor students. Those students would get government subsidized lunch tickets. No problem.

so it's odd when I read about all these punishments for kids who don't pay their lunch debts. like not being able to buy a yearbook or attend prom.

It reminds me of this.

And the people who defend these practices will say "rules are the rules" and "they should learn to pay off their debt" like in the real world. And I think that these people are likely Trump voters, and note the irony.

---

This is a perfect example of making up shaat. Are you sure you wrote for the school paper?

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

I went to school(s) with a lot of poor students. Those students would get government subsidized lunch tickets. No problem.

so it's odd when I read about all these punishments for kids who don't pay their lunch debts. like not being able to buy a yearbook or attend prom.

It reminds me of this.

And the people who defend these practices will say "rules are the rules" and "they should learn to pay off their debt" like in the real world. And I think that these people are likely Trump voters, and note the irony.

---

This is a perfect example of making up shaat. Are you sure you wrote for the school paper?

---

Yeah, my name is T. Christian Miller.

okaydo said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

okaydo said:

---

And the people who defend these practices will say "rules are the rules" and "they should learn to pay off their debt" like in the real world. And I think that these people are likely Trump voters, and note the irony.

---

---

---

And if the above statement is true then would it follow that rule breakers are likely Democrats?