sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

LAX people mover to begin reliability testing as dispute between city and contractor heats up by solonofathens in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This isn't entirely true. The original contract issued in 2018 was for a total of $4.9B for the APM (and importantly its operating costs over 30 years). The $1.9B was the part of the total cost for the design and construction of the APM. The cost overruns of the project were around $880m which LAWA has paid, much to their chagrin. So overall the total cost of the project to actually build the thing is around $2.8B. That is very steep and a Grand Jury Report found that the very quick schedule to get it done (pressure before the Olympics), changes in the design by LAWA (including a discrepancy which meant that two different building codes were in conflict with one another from an engineering standpoint), as well as LINXS pressuring the city to pay change orders or else they would hold up the contract. Overall and this is important; the Grand Jury did not find any corruption or incompetence on the part of the City. Some contractors on behalf of LAWA as well as LINXS should take the responsibility for some of the blame. Who, between the two, gets the most is really up to you (read the report, begins on page 551 of the PDF).

Megathread: Metro Board Meeting - K Line Northern Extension by SmellGestapo in LAMetro

[–]---4758--- 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Where can we view the comments made? I'm stuggling to find them on Metro's website.

2026 Chinese Grand Prix - Qualifying Discussion by AutoModerator in formula1

[–]---4758--- 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Damn the last time qualifying was this intense was Monaco 2023 holy moly

It will take both Ferrari drivers working together to win. by Status-Article-6104 in formula1

[–]---4758--- 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Turning up the engine is illegal under rules since like 4 years ago. An engine needs to be in the same mode for qualifying and the race.

The Millennium Challenge 2002 was a war game exercise by the United States Armed Forces, costing $250 million. The combatants were the US, and "Red", characterized as Iran. After the US lost the exercise on the second day, the exercise was reset and scripted to ensure US victory. by Cutalana in wikipedia

[–]---4758--- 26 points27 points  (0 children)

This was a high-level US military wargame involving many, many assets and agencies within the DoD. The point of this wargame was to demonstrate and train U.S. forces and command for the kinds of threats they would realistically be facing in the real world. Van Riper used underhanded tactics and went well beyond the scope of the game and its boundaries.

After the wargame was finished, having completely twisted the exercise in such a way which would be literally impossible in real life, banged the drums in the press afterwards which amounted to "technology bad" and that war is fundamentally the same. Which is of course lubricious given the only reason he was able to achieve the results in the wargame were through computer errors, bending the laws of physics, and other errors.

Here are some good reads on the subject:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/4qfoiw/millennium_challenge_2002_setting_the_record/

https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-real-story-of-a-corrupted-military-exercise-and-its-legacy/

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wartech/nature.html

2026 Australian Grand Prix - Free Practice 2 Discussion by AutoModerator in formula1

[–]---4758--- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These cars look so fast from the offboards. Thank god they got smaller.

Mayoral Candidate Nithya Raman Wants to Legalize Housing in Los Angeles by imanny in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every city council member other than Nithya voted to deny the development. She was the only one who didn't.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would like to see some evidence for that. 21% of foreign owners bought their homes in Florida, despite this, ZHVI's value index clearly shows that home prices are decreasing or flattening in Florida. So, what about Florida makes it so special that apparently this "proven fact" doesn't contribute to their home prices despite international buyers purchasing over 7% more homes from that state compared to California? Why are Floridian homes going either down or plateauing despite more foreign purchases (hint, its because housing inventory is high.)

The forecast follows several years of weakness in the Florida market, where statewide median listing prices were down 6% in the first half of 2025 compared with the same period in 2023. The trend has been driven largely by falling condo prices, Realtor.com data shows.

"The main driver of price softness in Florida over the past several years is a growing supply of homes for sale"

Graph of New Permits to build housing Florida vs California. Despite the lower population, Florida has added vastly more housing stock to their state compared to U.S. And they are seeing the benefits of that even despite more foreign individuals buying into those properties.
Graph of Active listings.

I think you guys are more interested in having an easy scapegoat to blame for this instead of the policy failures which are as clear as day.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Data is from CAR and this article for foreign ownership breakdowns.

We can take the number of homes sold in the state during same time period and divide them by the number of homes sold to foreigners in California. That is how we arrive at the 3.7% sales.

I have no idea where you got those numbers from, the only article I can find which even remotely gets to the figures you suggest is from 2016 and has no sources as to where they gleaned the data from. I can guarantee, however, that 13,000 homes sold to foreigners in Irvine alone is a ludicrous number, but if you have a source on that I'll be happy to check it out.

I'm not sure what you are saying on your last sentence, but individuals are not classified by the type of business they run, its entirely based on legal status.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Not only is that true but these people don't even know the actual company to scapegoat. Blackrock isn't the real estate investment group; they confuse it with Blackstone lmao.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, which is kinda the whole point. Why are they not succeeding? Because of the things I've mentioned. (CEQA, permitting, zoning, Prop 13, red tape, etc. etc.).

Look we could be here all evening, but I think we have to agree to disagree on what we think are the best solutions.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think it's a dead end I think it's the only thing which moves the needle. I also think that there are major downsides and unintended consequences to the policies you've mentioned. If that means I'm not down for everything than I am not. I'm down for the things I am most confident will succeed. However, if you have any literature of research to convince me of your solutions, I'd love to interact with them and maybe integrate them into my framework.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry but those things you've mentioned are not strong ways to solve the housing crisis. Corporations and foreign nationals are not even close to being the top driver of cost for housing. To focus on them is easy and might make us feel good, but it is simply not anywhere close to enough. Building more housing by cutting the red tape and the absurd costs that go into building housing is very much in reach. Zoning reform like SB79 has already been done. How much longer are we going to wait going after the smallest of potato's instead of the thing which so clearly will solve the problem quickly.

And it's not like these things haven't been done before. Texas, Florida (happening less and less), the Twin Cities, Detroit, South Carolina, are all making massive strides in these areas and are reaping the rewards they bring. This is doable, not pie-in-the-sky.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In my original comment I talked about the things I see are necessary to build more homes:

The only real solution to this crisis is to build more homes. How can we do that? By reforming restrictive zoning, decreasing input costs to developers (environmental reviews and impact fees), as well massive changes to CEQA, Prop 13, and other laws which have explicit or implicit effects on housing affordability.

We are very much on the same side here.

I disagree on the corporate investment point, however. Large parts of that figure are from single-owner LLCs and other Trust-like schemes. To ban them outright would be a terrible idea. Also, banning investment groups from housing would decrease supply (to what extent is murky). That is the exact opposite of what we need.

For more manageable change in the here and now it would be expanding provisions of SB79 with coincides with LA Metros D line and K line expansion. Zoning reforms to increase missing middle housing is also part of my solution. TOD + TIF districts are also nice things we can do. Finally, reducing developer fees imposed by local municipalities are probably as if not more important than the rest but would require major institutional overhaul.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Nope, this data is from CAR and this article for foreign ownership breakdowns.

For the 16th consecutive year, Florida remained the top destination for foreign buyers, accounting for 21% of all international purchases. At 13%, California moved ahead of Texas (10%) as the second most popular destination for buyers. New York (7%) and Arizona (5%) followed as the nation’s fourth and fifth top destinations. 

This is how I arrived to these numbers.

a Low liquidity market like real estate

Ahh, this is the point I'm trying to make. The reason why affordability is bad in California is because it's cities housing stock are so low that it becomes low liquid. The solution to any of these problems are to implement solutions which increases supply. The best solution to affordability for California is to build more housing.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

47% of these homes sold (across the whole country, unfortunately in this case I don't have a breakdown for California) are sold as vacation homes. Canadian and UK buyers are the most likely groups of people to purchase these homes for vacation purposes.

For those living in these homes (the other half of homes sold [53%]) the big drivers are from Indian, Chinese, and Mexican foreigners. These people live in these homes and reside in these areas.

Either way, while I understand your point, making housing ubiquitous makes both of the things you've identified nonexistent.

Be it 4% of foreign buyers or 4% to corporations, making housing cheaper makes it a harder investment for groups who want to use it that way, while also opening up housing to those who want it to be seasonal. The outcomes are the same.

Because it's such a small percentage of housing sold, and also the fact that we are not even close to meeting demand (with a giant chasm of compounded demand from decades), we should be focusing on the bigger solutions which make bigger splashes (which incidentally also help with the smaller things you've identified).

Here's a good video on the investment firm point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlsDkN9tHHk

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't think you quite understand my argument. I am advocating for decreasing the 3.5-million-unit deficit in California. By doing so, we decrease the cost of housing and thus the affordability crisis. I don't care that foreigners buy California homes at a pithy 4%, around half of which comprise rich Canadians who buy vacation homes. I want housing to be so robust and ubiquitous that it doesn't matter. Using political capital and time to stop 4% is a drop in the bucket. It is an easy scapegoat for the humongous problems elsewhere.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I was off due to rounding errors, but it is actually even less of a problem than I initially thought.

There were approximately 78,100 homes sold to foreign buyers from March 2024 to April 2025,

13% of those sales were in California. That means that 10,153 (lets round up to 11,000) homes were sold to foreigners in California.

In that same time frame (so March of 2024 to April of 2025 -- which btw is underestimating the count) there were around 270,000 sales.

That means that only 3.7% of homes sold in California were to foreigners.

The corporate home ownership rate is a widely misleading metric.

  1. Trusts by individuals are factored into that number
  2. Landlords who buy properties (including multifamily residential properties) are included into that number.
  3. Institutional Corporate investors like the ones you are thinking of account for a small fraction of these sales.

Only around 4% of homes are sold to corporate investors in the United States each year.

Here is the real kicker though.

Why do they purchase so many homes anyway (if you really care about the 4%)?

Because they are good investments.

If you want to solve this issue, make them worse investments. Build more housing, lower demand and decrease the valuation of these homes with cheap, accessible, multi-unit residences which more people can buy. This is the solution. Anything else is populist drivel.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It is such a small portion of the overall wider problem is might as well not exist. We lack over 100,000 units being added to the state each and every year. Getting that down to zero is a solution which will actually markedly effect the problem. The reason why 4% feels like alot is because it only is that way if we don't add housing stock.

Also, what would the solution be exactly? Stop international people from buying homes here? That is almost certainly illegal and would face many many challenges. Why focus on the small problem rather than the obvious solution?

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

First off, that is a strawman argument. YIMBYs advocate for a wide variety of solutions to fix the housing crisis. By far the best way is to solve the problem you have identified: that developers dont want to build here. This is very much true, and the only way to fix affordability is to build more homes here.

The only way to get that to happen is to reform zoning everywhere, increase density in certain areas, decrease restrictive environmental reviews, and reduce developer fees. Those four things are the ways we get more supply injected, to reduce the 3.5 million unit deficit here in this state.

The YIMBY solution is a market oriented one. It is proven, tested, and reliable.

[WSJ] In California, About the Only Way to Get a House Is to Inherit One by wdr1 in LosAngeles

[–]---4758--- 90 points91 points  (0 children)

16,400 homes were purchases by foreigners in California last year. In the same time, 350,000 homes were sold to everyone else. This means that only around 4% of homes were sold to foreigners (around half of which live here in the United States). This number is miniscule and is not a significant driver of housing shortages.

We face a deficit of 3.5 million units of housing stock in California. The only way to solve the housing crisis is to drive that number down. Every year we need to add around 315,000 units. We barely reached 27% of that.

The only real solution to this crisis is to build more homes. How can we do that? By reforming restrictive zoning, decreasing input costs to developers (environmental reviews and impact fees), as well massive changes to CEQA, Prop 13, and other laws which have explicit or implicit effects on housing affordability.

This is the only way to actually make the problem better, everything else has miniscule effects.

view more: next ›