If the script was flipped and there was housing there of any kind, they would 100% oppose an airport being built in its place.

Oh he’s on my list don’t you worry! JD Scholten is also a pretty good candidate, he just announced as well. Seems like the team around Sage is better than Scholten’s team, at least based on the campaign videos released so far. But between them a formidable challenger will certainly be there.

Never smashed the donate button so hard

Never smashed the donate button so hard

I'm a weird little freak who thinks a lot about zoning, so I have very little in the way of usable campaign advice. But "run like a populist" + "implement abundance-style reforms once in office" + "use the fruit of those reforms to achieve populist ends" seems like the correct synthesis.

“Breaking news: people like catchy taglines with easily defined villains — less enthused by sensible solutions that would actually solve many of the underlying problems”

Wow who would have thought.

I wonder if they did exactly 0 turnovers and just skeeted it wrong

I hear you, I agree about this, but it’s the wrong argument. You can make the exact opposite argument and it’s just as valid.

“This is not hard. What you do is, you set aside your precious little checklist, and YOU DON’T VOTE FOR THE PERSON YOU DISAGREE WITH ON HOW THE CITY SHOULD BE RUN”

See?

“0+” turnovers?

Keep telling yourself that’s how it works

Gentrification is the building of new, better housing, combined with high quality commercial tenants. So de-gentrification would be building shittier housing and having low quality commercial. The only way wealthy people won’t move into the area and out-bid others is if it’s a less desirable place

That’s great. It would be a better plan if it didn’t include a rent freeze.

So one thing that no city has ever been able to do, and two things that will make the city a less desirable place to live. Cool cool cool.

De-growth is not the way

Jesus Christ. Hope that made you feel better. I know you’re not doing anything to make the problem better.

NYC is not unique, other than it being maybe the most desirable place to live in the world. Policy choices have been made to warp the market, so yes it’s unique in that sense. But fundamentals of supply and demand aren’t different there than anywhere else.

Housing is housing. They should all be market rent. Specific units shouldn’t be stabilized or market. People that need help should get help, but it’s counterproductive the way it’s currently set up, freezing rent on any units would only make it worse.

That’s quite an assumption, that someone who doesn’t currently live in NYC doesn’t know the value of strong neighborhood. Anything that’s not NYC might as well be a farm town.

3) “Squat” in the sense that they don’t utilize the full unit, but they refuse to move.

I’m all for providing lower income individuals or those with limited mobility free moving services. I’m just saying that one single person staying in a larger unit makes it more expensive for others.

1) Great, so he should just do that, the thing that helps, not the thing that hurts.

2) You said “where will they go” and my point is just that, if they can’t afford the neighborhood they currently live in, because market rent is too high, they can move to a different neighborhood.

1) Not what I said.

2) Way to use an ad hominem (I guess?)

3) You literally don’t know anything about me. I’ve never owned property in a major city. I was able to rent in the Boston area for years in large part because rent freezes were banned in 1994.

1) Build more housing, that fixes most of the issue.

2) No one is entitled to live in any one particular housing unit that they don’t own themselves.

3) What’s being done about older empty nesters essentially squatting on large units that would better serve larger families?

You gotta reconsider the rent freeze thing. If it’s just a virtue signal thing, okay. But rent freezes have been proven again and again to not work. They help one very narrow band of people, at the expense of everyone else

Caveats: I don’t live in NYC, and I’d still absolutely rank Zohran > Cuomo

Lost the turnover battle 21-14, and relatedly had 11 fewer shots attempted.

I see a YIMBY, I follow

I could see that.

Other thing is that, the difference between 99.7% and 99.4% seems insignificant, but it’s actually a 2x increase in a comeback happening. Difference between 99.8% and 99.0% is a 5x increase. So maybe it was like a low-99% odds instead of a high-99% odds. I’d totally believe that

True randomness can make that happen.

I’m not saying I know for sure that the %s are correct. I’d be interested what the live betting odds were at that time. That’s probably more accurate.

Will still go down as a legendary moment since they pulled it out in OT.

But yeah, would have been quite the embarrassment if he hadn’t.

If teams that are up by 20 points in the 3rd quarter win 90% of the time, then it should be a 90% win probability.

If there are 100 games in a season where a team has exactly a 20 point lead in the 3rd quarter, and they win 90% of the time, the trailing team still wins 10 of those games in a season

You’re misunderstanding what the win probability is saying. If it says 95% win probability, it doesn’t mean it’s gonna continue to be a blowout 95% of the time. A large chunk of those wins will happen with the leading team blowing most or all of the lead and still winning the game.

How do you know they’re not shifting? My assumption was that it was running some model on all previous data, weighted more heavily to recent data. So every game where an unlikely event happens, the model adjusts for that going forward. Is that not the case?