07.03.2026 05:27
👍 2
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Wow we really are just redoing the early 2000s at this point
Did you ever see a goose
kissing a moose?
Down by the bay
@raffic.bsky.social
*Sobs in BART funding*
RIP my basement
Ancient Greek pottery (I think) showing nude Olympians
RETVRN
It's happening again!
2027 redistricting anyone?
Oh man I would love to take this
What's a Santa Clara?
I think that this AI is responding at a superficial level to the superficial emails that your coworkers' AI generated in response to a superficial email that your boss's AI wrote that was a follow-up up on the new superficial AI strategy that was written by your executive team's AI that was...
"I wasn't notified!" I shout at the public meeting about the project that I am attending due to the postcard I received in the mail.
bsky.app/profile/theo...
Look, I can't contact my rep about this because HE'S THE ASSHAT PROPOSING IT.
Please contact your reps to vote no on resolution 140.
www.savetheboundarywaters.org/whats-latest...
People don't live in linkedin blog posts. They live in homes. We should be those.
And the homeless are not a card I'm playing. They are real people who desperately need homes and I care about their concerns a hell of a lot more than some dude's aesthetic preferences or magical thinking about how a city can be designed.
No, you really don't. You have an option on the table, build these units or not. This is real and tangible and will get people off the streets. You can also work on more systemic issues and solutions but saying that you won't build anything now until you fix everything else is BS.
This reads like a lot of pablum that boils down 'i support housing only if it matches my exact aesthetics and those preferences are more important than actually making sure that everyone has a home.'
We need to repeal prop 13 to fix our funding. In the meantime, we should build all the subsidized housing we can and we should do it as efficiently as possible. This is subsidized housing, you should support it.
It's housing for the unhoused. What more of an explanation do you want?
Saying that we'll only build housing after the socialist revolution is a very great way to oppose any new housing in your neighborhood while still sounding progressive. But at the end of the day, you're just opposing housing.
I'm sure that the 70 people who will no longer be living on the street would take offense at the idea that it's a token gesture.
Scaled social housing and fixing our taxes is great but that's a multi-decade effort. People need homes now.
Cities should not ask the most fortunate for permission to help the least fortunate.
The thought behind it goes, our neighbors are unhoused, in an extremely rich part of the wealthiest country in history. That's a travesty and we should be ashamed. So no, we shouldn't delay this project until every person with an opinion is satisfied that it meets their arbitrary quality standards.
I do not believe for a second that there has been no thought behind it. It has had at least one public meeting and a vote by the elected representatives of the people. I'm sure there's been more.
But this is missing the actual point. We are talking about homes for the unhoused.
So politicians who ran and were elected on the promise of addressing the housing crisis should abandon that because 20 people at a random public meeting think they should get a veto over housing for the most vulnerable?
That day, Mason and dozens of his other neighbors learned city officials had planned a press conference just behind their houses on the 2.5 acre lot at 350 Merrydale Rd., where they would announce the creation of an interim tiny cabin community for 70 homeless people living in encampments in downtown San Rafael. “That was how they introduced it to the neighborhood,” Mason said. “We were blindsided, truly.”
The issue has positioned residents and the city along predictable fault lines that highlight two competing concerns in the Bay Area: an urgency in addressing homelessness and often-pointed debates about where facilities should be located. The San Rafael City Council unanimously voted to acquire the property and proceed with the project in mid-November, even after dozens of community members packed the meeting.
How can both of these paragraphs be true? If there was a public meeting where residents were able to voice their concerns then it wasn't done in secret. The 20 people at this meeting might not have gotten their way but that doesn't mean that their voice wasn't heard.
Let's do 1912 discourse
Oceans are now battlefields
Is this the Claremont Ave site?