Right. It's hard to pad the resume with bad stuff that people hate.

Loud as fuck though. Really tough to carry on a conversation.

Trick will be finding one you can actually hear each other in.

Anyway, the Pet Shop is actually not bad for casual drinks.

Iron Monkey has a bunch of different little places you can kind of tuck yourself away in.

Archers is far from a dive, but has a nice small bar and good cocktails.

O' Haras is a classic standard pub. Ed and Mary's is probably as friendly a place as you could possibly find, and you'll likely have 4 other interesting characters to talk with/listen to while there. I just talked myself into Ed and Mary's. Go there.

>You can improve public transit without starving poorer people of options.

Actually, because of the geometry of cars and space constraints you cannot. It very clearly is an either-or sort of situation, outside of massive subway projects or marginal, low value improvements.

​

>Let me know when “good mass transit” is more than a pipe dream. Otherwise, this “cars don’t belong in cities” stance is just to make gentrifiers and anti-car folks happier.

Whether or not it is likely to happen has no bearing on if it is correct.

Anyway, is the right solution for cities less cars and functional transit and does that make for more options for more people than car-oriented options in cities? The answer is very obviously yes.

Will cities in the US act on this and make cities better via transit improvements? Likely not.

So, take fun fact "Fun fact, poor people are less likely to live near convenient modes of transportation compared to most people in this sub." combine it with the fun fact that the poor are less likely to own cars and what do you get? Poor people stranded and isolated with no good options. Making daily life more difficult and precarious as even getting to jobs is difficult.

By taking as many cars out of a city as possible (and this is about cities) you make it possible to extend functional mass transit to more places. Your argument 'people don't live near mass transit' is exactly because we cater to cars. You can't fix it without limiting car access, and make no mistake, fixing it benefits the disadvantaged a hell of a lot more than doing the opposite.

If you don't do that you make driving a requirement (as it is now) and driving is more expensive and more exclusionary than good mass transit.

As for disabled, another fun fact, the disabled are much less likely to have cars and many of them can't drive. By taking as many cars as possible out of the city you provide more room and convenience for those that absolutely do need to drive and make it possible for those who can't to function in society.

Fun fact, poor people are much more likely to not have cars.

Where I went as well. Super easy and quick.

Funny thing about the TPK is it would be pretty freaking useless without all the connecting infrastructure. Pretending it exists all by itself with no externalities is a fiction that exists only on paper.

It is eye opening when you see what fare evasion vs fare enforcement costs the MTA.

I would much rather the enforcement money be used for stuff that more directly impacts quality of life when riding (disruptive passengers, cleaning stations, etc.)

I mean, it's a message board and basically half the posts are questions about where to eat and visit. Soliciting opinions on places doesn't seem out of line.

Make the horn louder, got it.

Crossing the street is a wild adventure, especially the last couple of years as all traffic laws seem to have become optional.

I hope they are doing well.

So you want our mayor to draft legislation and fight a legal battle to stop a total of what, $100k of potential grift?

Does he use city resources for it, because I think that is a money loser overall.

I get it, and that is a real thing he could do, but I have a hard time thinking that is the sort of thing worth spending his time and resources on. But might be worth backing as a politician if a good government group drafted the legislation and did most of the heavy lifting.

That's not an ask. Specifically, what should he do about this? He's not legally allowed to stop it, so he can't fire someone for it.

I suppose he could say, "Hey, stop that!" And then...

Given the outlined cases, it just seems like picking a fight for no good reason, one that can't legally be won and has almost no financial consequences.

I'd rather people spend their time fighting for things that will make more of a difference rather than burning political capital on this sort of thing.

When you start screaming about a $6k or even 22k part time job that can't legally be prevented, that makes me less likely to listen the next time you start screaming, and that next time you might have an actual point.

This seems somewhat important:

“The courts ruled in 2008 that the Faulkner Act could not restrict this or put it on the ballot, and the mayor does not have the legal authority to restrict this,” Wallace-Scalcione said.

What is it they would like Fulop to do?

Damn, I was just chatting with him last week. RIP Scott, you were a good one.

They want someone to build houses for free in some neighborhood that is not theirs. And, also, lots of parking but no traffic.

Probably not, but then the prices of the existing stock would have had to gone up more before the projects penciled out.

Now? Developers. What we do is add more units to the building so the increased density can pay for the below market units.

If JC didn't build these places, where do you expect the people who now live here would live instead? Development showed up because they were filling up brownstones in Paulus Hook and VVP. I mean look at the prices in The Heights, they haven't built any fancy highrises there.

If the country built enough houses in places people wanted to live we wouldn't have to worry about this crap. In the past, believe it or not, cities had room for both rich people and poor people. Then we passed a bunch of zoning reforms, stopped building and now the cities fill up with rich people and people blame the development. As if the people with $1m homes that used to house factory workers wouldn't be in something else if it existed.

I would love someone to explain to me the mechanism by which having less houses makes them more affordable, other than, maybe, if you make a place shitty enough no one wants to live there.

At 1 1/2? Playgrounds all over if it's nice. There are a few indoor playground types of places as well:

https://www.funzyplay.com/play-newport

Kids also like trains, so maybe a light rail ride?

Because it costs a fuckton of money and no one is voting to raise their taxes for it?

The council barely got through the last affordable housing proposal in the face of enormous opposition, not from developers, but from homeowners. Turns out the best affordable housing is the affordable housing in someone else's neighborhood and most people do not it want near them because to make the numbers work it means increased density/numbers of units and people flip the fuck out about parking, or height or whatever.

I generally make it to about 42nd before there's a bike in the morning.

It's not a bad idea, in fact it's such a good idea that everyone else has normally already taken a bike (and I get there early). Maybe they restock at a certain time mid-commute time and it works.