Oof this might be above Lemmy’s pay grade.

Only if you don’t recognize that Trump would be much, much, much worse. And what we see from the election, many can’t seem to see that (in any way).

I see a lot of outlets no longer saying formerly Twitter.

Surprised at 18, but guess it’s not that surprising.

Does that mean they will only use 1/45 the amount?

Why fuck him?

I think this is far from a charged question.

People want the option to use their balcony. Then they realize it’s usually not so pleasant being exposed like that to the sun, wind, temp.

deleted by creator

People are becoming even more tech illiterate.

Work done is force multipled by distance moved. Leg day is simply much more work.

And when you read the whole thing, I think most of it is about compensation. And in common parlance in discussion when we use the term “take”, well it means take. It doesn’t mean take with compensation in common modern parlance. That’s what I’m referring to. They discuss as if it’s only taking. Really they need to remind and acknowledge at a regular basis that there is compensation. Like I said before, if they mentioned it at all, it was so brief and lopsided that I missed it.

I guess we won’t agree, but I feel the need to call out horribly biased “discussion”.

If they covered compensation it was so brief (and lopsided) that I missed it. I think over half the point of that phrase of the amendment was about compensation. But all they said was take take take take private take private take. It was overwhelmingly horribly biased for what they wanted. IMHO take isn’t even the right word because that implies taking without compensation, which there was. If you consider them balanced for scotus and biased for the rest, holy shit.

Just finished listening and have to say that was incredibly bias and wilfully withholding discussion. The obvious other part to me is “just compensation”, that’s the right that is being provided in the amendment. But they never discuss that, they focus only on “public use” - which while can be discussed shouldn’t be the only avenue of discussion. And they continually talk as if Kelo’s property was taken without compensation. I know prosecutors are supposed to argue their case and ignore everything else, and that’s what they did. That was certainly not an academic exercise to present and discuss all information. I certainly won’t be subscribing to them.

Most of that is mountain or desert. Not sure if there’s anything in a temperate area. You’re not going to succeed with a big new city in the middle of Alaska.

Eh I don’t share that concern. DC was created at the height of paranoia and that each state was it’s own country mentality. You have that “patchwork” for plenty of offices already both federal and state jobs. Eg the Pentagon is not in DC. Second I’m thinking offices for the boring jobs like bureau of weights and measures, not the political capitol.

Existing cities have lots of other businesses, they can survive without the fed jobs. And those lots of other businesses are what causes high COL. High population without room to grow.

Link to podcast?

There a huge difference between cut and cover in a green field, vs cut and cover in an existing downtown. Huge. That’s if you can even do it in an existing downtown because of the road alignment and existing underground utilities. It’s really unlikely you can do cut and cover in an existing city and that’s the whole problem. Greenfield you can do with side slope instead of shoring, one story deep instead of two because you can plan out exits to not interfere with an existing road, and no conflicts with traffic/utilities/buildings/noise mitigation to snarl everything up. And when you get out of the planned core you can run it on the surface and still grade separate crossing, which is cheap.

the last 70 years do not suggest huge roads, huge offices, and huge house lead to a utopia.

I’m sorry but this is really twisting what I said. I didn’t say huge roads, I simply said roads (although I can see how that can be misread).

Huge (tall) offices are the whole point, you relocate big offices and lots of jobs. With easy access to subways. That does not mean car dependency. It’s actually the other way around, a bunch of short rise offices quickly become too far away from a subway line.

Nor did I say huge houses, I simply said houses. I could include apartments in there too.

Car dependency depends on the city design, it’s not inherent to the existence of offices and roads. And the whole point of a designed city is you can get the space for cheap subways and space for bike paths without having to cram them into an existing road system. The existing road system is the thorn in the way of subway, transit, trains, and bike paths. Trying to cram all this into existing road system usually doesn’t work, and if you can it gets to be extremely expensive for a subpar system.

a rare case in America where post-WW2 greenfield housing or commercial developments

This is not simply housing or a business park on the edge of an existing city which is usually done in car dependency sprawl style. I’m suggesting a new city.

constant sprawling expansion

Yeah you really seem to think I’m demanding sprawl when I’m not. I don’t know if your twisting is intentional or not but it’s at the point that I think I’m going to end this conversation. It’s really far from my original question anyway.

A new downtown would make a subway very easy and cheap to build, you could cut and cover instead of tunnelling. Cheeeaaap land for huge offices, roads, and even houses. Whenever you try to scale up an existing town/city you run into all the old problems of land and layout problems. Cities bidding against each other would be short term appealing but more expensive when it comes to building everything. Green field is just so cheap.