mmirate t1_jbj7zkd wrote

If the adjacent strip mall has some of their parking go unused, why are they not willing to sell some of the adjacent portion to the developer? And if the adjacent street parking is underused, then why is the developer unwilling to convince the city to sell some of it so that the developer can narrow away those spaces and gain a bit more usable land for parking?


mmirate t1_jbepzg4 wrote

Cars are the entire reason that people can live in cheap middle-o'-nowhere areas and work in one of several possible mutually-competing not-so-cheap maximally-centralized areas. If you get rid of cars, or make it impossible to drive a car into the centralized areas to work, then you will make life unprofitable for a lot of people.


mmirate t1_jbeb8b2 wrote

While parking minimums can be bad, the developer choosing to put adequate parking on her development can easily be a wise choice. Specifically, doing so means the development will be attractive to a much bigger pool of prospective tenants, i.e. those who aren't necessarily content to spend all of their time inside a shithole.

Increased demand means higher price which means the developer will actually make money by developing which means the developer will actually develop instead of doing something else with her life.


mmirate t1_jamf6in wrote

Sure it's valuable, but not valuable enough to outweigh the inherent unprofitability of working in the same town I live in; nor to outweigh "my fair share" of the costs of changing things to work that way.


mmirate t1_j9z7eev wrote

> In the last election, four of the Senators who voted against legalization were replaced by pro-legalization Senators: > > > > Sen. Cavanaugh, Kevin J. [D] --> Sen. Keith Murphy, R-Manchester > > Sen. Daniels, Gary L. [R] --> Sen. Shannon Chandley, D-Amherst > > Sen. Giuda, Robert "Bob" [R] --> Sen. Tim Lang, R-Sanbornton > > Sen. Morse, Charles "Chuck" W. [R] --> Sen. Daryl Abbas, R-Salem

Three of the four outgoing anti-legalization Senators are Republican, but so are three of the four incoming pro-legalization Senators.


mmirate t1_j22myf5 wrote

If this were true, then certainly a private university (which does have First Amendment rights like any private citizen and unlike the gov't itself) could have policies and regulations regarding the religion that it is the university's purpose to teach, and it could legally refuse to be associated with a group that violates them. Bizarrely, courts have recently found to the contrary.


mmirate t1_j1vhu5r wrote

Guns are tools - metal, wood, and some springs - without a finger on the trigger, they are inert. Living animals are just that - living, biological creatures (albeit not sentient, not agent, and not otherwise asserting the natural rights that humans assert). The former do not have "a mind of their own", and the latter do, however limited it may be.


mmirate t1_j12fuiq wrote

Modern medicine has removed almost all evolutionary pressure upon human life.

And worse yet, LBJ started our government to provide evolutionary "anti-pressure" upon human reproduction in the US, by subsidizing the poorest to have more bastards.