What really makes me angry about this is around 35% of Americans rent. That's a third of people who have no ability to avoid the rapid increase in electricity costs. And I have no idea just how many with their own house have the capital, or legal ability (HOAs), to install solar.
Good luck with your solar install. Signed, a grid tied user with $0.56/kwh power.
That's a consequence of car dependence. Being dependent on cars means cars are an inflexible good. You must buy one to live.
A captured market means manufacturers don't care about selling a cheap car. They'll sell only expensive, high-margin ones. And you'll pay because you must.
Not reported in the article but related is the lengthening loan terms. Edmunds is currently reporting 69.1 months for the average loan term. That means even more people are reaching for 72 month loans instead of the typical 60 month term.
Cars are so expensive that it's no longer possible for the average American to pay off their car in 5 years.
$1,400 a month for a one bedroom is quite good in comparison. San Francisco runs about $3,200/month for a one bedroom.
That's already the case, though a relatively recent change, called Builder's Remedy. An incorporated city is granted the right to zone but if they do not have a state compliant housing element (an eight year plan for expected growth and housing to meet that) and if they deny building permits for that planned housing, then a builder can bypass the city's permitting process. A city effectively forfeits their right to city planning if they don't have an achievable plan for sufficient housing stock.
Berkeley has a state approved housing element. If this protested building is in the plan, then there's not a whole lot the shop owner can do about it. They probably missed their council meetings in figuring out where to put housing during the planning of their city's housing element. Or they're upset that they lost in their local politics.
I'm reasonably sure Dutch civil engineers know this. They were the ones who rewrote the books on traffic safety.
Density helps but it's not a big factor in building public transport. Case in point, NYC is comparible in land size and population density, yet it doesn't come close to Singapore's transport system.
Policy and politics is what drives public transport. They want it, so they have it.
FYI, prop 50 sunsets in 2030 as it's designed to be a short-term response to Texas' mid-decade redistricting. It sucks at the state level (inaccurate representation for state issues) but it re-levels the two parties on the national level.
Ask yourself if you'd like fairer representation in the House for the next five years or if you care more about fair representation in state concerns.
As for me, I'm voting Yes on 50. The temporary nature of the measure makes the bitter taste of it easier for me to swallow. And it's what little we can do to prevent disenfranchisement in the House.
You'll end up with less housing that way. Let alone the extra costs you're taxing on people who don't or cannot drive.
Flip the law around. Deny registering a car without proof of a parking spot. No spot for your car? No car for you.
I wasn't aware of this recent London news. Thanks for the post!
I found this local's commentary regarding the strike and resulting bike traffic. It was interesting to watch and to see how well the lanes held up to rush traffic.
London tube strike cycling boom: Knightsbridge to Bank in rush hour
Scandalous! There should be space for street food carts too!
Can they make it $300 per car, please? Use the extra funds to run free busses.