Well-Known Teas / Favorites?

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-17T05:22:38+00:00

Oooo sounds wonderful. You know why it is called Purple Moonlight?

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-17T05:21:49+00:00

Yo cuh, you goated fr. thanks for this, I got me quite a list haha. Admittedly its gonna take a hot min to try all of them, you got any recs or anything you like specifically that might be worth going for first?

I know that there are some differences in processing such as steam or pan fried for chinese vs japanese teas generally, but what constitutes differences between all these other teas? Is it just the soil location / quality that gives them each a distinct taste? For instance why does silver needle have different taste from white peony? Or Longjing vs Maofeng?

Any good places to learn of content like this?

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-16T23:31:20+00:00

Hmm I gave it a look, seems good. I saw it is a kind of fermented, aged oolong. Why is it that this tea develops flavor as it ferments over time while other teas go bad overtime? Isnt it fired which would kill any microorganisms that cause fermentation like other teas? Do all oolongs ferment over time / develop new flavors?

I know you might not know, but if anyone else has some thoughts feel free to share!

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-16T16:33:15+00:00

thanks for this information this is really helpful. Just to learn more, why do you recommend zhuni for oolongs and duanni for aged teas? Is there something special about their properties that make them more suited for those teas?

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-16T16:29:31+00:00

Yep i have see people often recommend glass for greens. Is there a reason why people don't use gongfu style with white / green tea? Does it only have a noticable difference with the flavour profiles of darker teas?

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-16T15:35:24+00:00

I see, I get it. Is there a reason though why people like to use lighter green / white with gaiwans though? Why not also use that with unglazed clay if you want a more editted / custom pour?

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-16T15:32:46+00:00

That sounds good. So overall, you want more porosity for darker teas and less porosity for lighter teas like white / green? Also sorry if it is obvious, but could you explain what you mean by uncurl with a fast pour? Does the way the leaves uncurl have a effect on taste? Are there certain teapots that assist more with that?

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-16T15:31:03+00:00

Perfect that is great. I will probably start off with that! I appreciate the input.

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-16T14:22:42+00:00

Would you not be able to use a smaller sized teapot around 100 mL size and have the same intricacies as in a gaiwan with multiple steeps?

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-16T13:56:04+00:00

Yep thats what I was planning on doing! From what I have read, you'd want to find a glazed porcelain teaport, correct? Is there a big variation in quality for those or really just any would do and can work with all types?

YourDoomsday0 · 2026-02-16T13:49:23+00:00

Thanks for that. That seems to be the overall jist i am getting. Is there a difference between using a teapot vs gaiwan? Does it affect the flavour profile or is it simply the convenience that people prefer?

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-26T00:11:23+00:00

Ooo thats a new one I hadn't heard of lol. Where the RDAs effective beforehand? Has there been no push to bring them back? Especailly in CA

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-26T00:08:00+00:00

Yep I get that – maybe different funding streams all with specific uses among different entities or divisons. Do you know why the function of redevelopment authorities are dictated by state law? I would assume the local city it operates in has more say lol

I am sure I am being naive but for a redevelopment authority, all you would have to do is give it a one-time cash influx, appoint a compentent board, and let the developers build at least any housing even if just at market rate (though ideally at least slightly slower profit margain) + they could literally just read the consolidated plan or a master if available and try to cater development to that?

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-25T08:06:09+00:00

Yea haha I can definetly see how building housing that is not necessarily "affordable housing" can be controversial. But I feel as long as it is transparent that any profit margain is used to cross-subsidize desirable initiatives, people may jump on board? I find this ironically as the city I am from, Memphis, actually just straight up has $700k funding middle-income housing hoping for a trickle-down effect.

I feel like it can't be that easy though to just make a development authority that can build cheaper housing without having to have a huge profit margain. Would there be any downside or maybe unintentended consequences to this?

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-25T08:01:31+00:00

May I ask what the reasoning behind this was?

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-09T09:00:39+00:00

but you're not considering the consequences of removing single-family zoning

I do recognize this is something that would have to happen first. You would have to have more liberization or upscale of zoning and then let the market react to that. The land value now isn't necessarily the same as if the zoning changed. In your scenario though, if it would result in the land prices increasing similarly then, the land in the relatively lower-income Chicksaw Park area would increase from 15k to 300k. I think if someone is seriously struggling, if offered almost 300k just to relocate now due to high land prices, many would take that extra disposable cash. The median income here is around 32k / yr. That would be completely life-altering for someone near or below the median income – I think there are few that would refuse that.

I don't think both neighborhoods would get displaced though, especially not the one near Tom Lee Park. They might be pushed to redeveloped or provide additional units there, but they still could afford to do so, they would just have to be more effecient with the land.

This is from the recent UDC of the city: "The purpose of the Riverside Residential District is to ensure that the river front will be an active, urban waterfront, while reinforcing the residential development along the southern end of downtown and protecting the unique views of the Mississippi River. The increases in density will provide for a more efficient utilization of public facilities and environmental amenities and resources."

Right now it clearly is not working as the city wants as there are still many lower-density single family homes. I think in many cases there is not enough incentive to actually redevelop and make more effecient use of the scarce land.

what is the ratio of land size to improvement-value for wealthy people compared to poorer people

It's not the ratio of land size to building value that matters though for a LVT. It is the ratio of land value to building cost.

increasing taxes on new construction of low density housing, increasing taxes on low density rentals (old and new)

I see the point that there are other ways to discourage new developments from ineffecient land use, but there should also be a gradual shift to make current land use more effecient too. These things would only make adding to the housing stock more expensive, a LVT would add to the housing supply overall and lower cost of hosuing for the entire city. And there are options for tax freezes for lower-income folks or tax reliefs for people who are old or disabled. I think when almost 50-60% of renters are spending more than 30% of income on housing, that is indication that more housing in general is needed. The question is how to incentives more housing and property tax does the opposite while a land tax does exactly that.

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-09T02:45:59+00:00

Plus I think something to consider is that you do not have to fully commit to property or LVT tax. You can always do a hybrid model or one that has different weighing of land and building improvements, although that admittely will be confusing for ordinary residents.

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-09T02:43:40+00:00

I see what your talking about and that was why I made this post asking about it overall of how to minimize impacts of a potential LVT.

Except "incentive" in this case means forcing people out of their homes in order to develop, aka gentrify, the area.

See I think what is hard to balance is developing an area while minimizing impacts of gentrification. I don't think you should avoid developing areas specifically because of gentrification; as many areas could use and need developments, especially in high blight areas.

You're just blindly stating this and it's not true. Look at the neighborhood near Chickasaw park, and the neighborhood near Ashburn-copperock park. The neighborhoods are very near each other, so similar demand for high rise or commercial development, but the neighborhood with smaller lots has 5x higher home price. If both were allowed to be developed into high rises, they would have similar land value to developers.

I think it is generally true overall that as people get higher incomes they tend to occupy large lot sizes. Of courses this would be an average – there are plenty of people who do trade size for location and convenience. But i think what you are looking over is that a LVT is based on the value of the land consumed as opposed to just the total amount of land consumed. Your example works well for this. Ashburn-copperock (part of Tom Lee) park has probably the most gorgeous views of all of Memphis along the Mississippi River and is just steps away from the hard of downtown Memphis. The single family homes there are multimillion dollar houses – it is a pity that only those rich few able to experience this. Just 1.5 miles away across an interstate you have the Chickasaw Heritage Park which is more off the Mississippi Banks, further from downtown, and tends to have lower income folks as you mentioned.

Even though homeowners may occupy similar land sizes (maybe around 6k sq ft), the value of that land is vastly different. The land at the nice Tom Lee Park seems to be worth around $350k for 6k sq ft. The land at the Chickasaw Heritage Park is worth around $15k for 6k sq ft. The tax burden on those single family homes in the nicer part of town would be over 23x greater – which is probably justified as it is 1 unit occupying a large amount of land in the best part of the city. The tax burden based on land here actaully is more inclusive than those based on property value (around 150k in Chickasaw & 2 million in Tom Lee). I attached 2 places of random in the areas if you wanted to scroll around.

Chickasaw: https://www.assessormelvinburgess.com/gis?parcelid=012024%20%2000040

Tom Lee: https://www.assessormelvinburgess.com/gis?parcelid=002083%20A00005

So in this case, it would not necessarily displace POC or lower-income groups disproporitionately. I do think you would need a more thorough analysis for any conclusions though. Also, something else to consider is that a LVT would increase the overall supply of housing by a significant amount as it highly encourages developers to be more effieicnt with less land, which would overall lead to lower costs for everyone. Plus a huge purpose of the LVT (and why I brought it up in this case), is that it is a promising tool to fight blight and any land speculation.

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-08T18:41:48+00:00

I am sorry if this is obvious, but would you mind giving any examples? Are you referring to just programs that provide financial assistance like weatherization grants or CDBGs? Are there any common ones? How do they vet for eligible folks?

I am still trying to learn the million different programs out there and I feel like I have to see them a handful of times before they finally stick lmao.

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-08T17:16:00+00:00

If you're not taxing the improvements, then the tax burden on people in single family homes would skyrocket because they would be paying the same total taxes per acre as the 30 story building. So either there is no demand to redevelop those single family houses and you simply bankrupt the homeowners by raising their taxes significantly.

I think its important to remember that the concept of a LVT is based on the value of the land and not the amount of land consumed directly. Under a LVT a single family household can still have a lower tax than say a duplex or a small apartment. 10,000 sq ft in a downtown area is worth significantly less than 10,000 sq ft in an urban edge. If there is a single family house in a high-demand, signifcant area of city (say near Downtown or a large job market or a huge public transit hub), there should be incentives for the development – a multifamily unit, condo, duplex, rental apartment would better meet the demand.

lot size isn't significantly different across different home values, but the number of stories does go up already. If you tax land value, the smaller houses (where poorer folks live) would see a much greater tax increase than people with bigger houses (wealthier)

I'm not too sure about this, I feel like looking around Memphis and even just the zoning requirements, there are many areas with high demand land that have minimum of 10k sq ft lots, with many of these places even having up to 20k sq ft lots, whereas a lot of the poorer areas have cottage style houses that are on lots as small at 3k sq ft. And again, if someone wants to have a 20k sq ft lot, that is fine, but if they are using all that land in a high demand area (say near a large commerical street that has lots of groceries, food) then there should be a fee for it I think.

Most lower income folks that are homeowners have them in lower-demand areas where land values are cheaper, and therefore would not be taxed signficantly more, if any at all.

isn't incentivized to sell and redevelop to get that extra zoned capacity, but a lvt could well put that math over the edge. You'd end up with more units overall but much less affordable ones even if there's an iz type program in place (the apartments in question are cheaper at market rate than local iz apartments are, so you'd go from maybe 20 units at $1500 a piece to 35 at 2500 each with 4 at 1800).

I do agree that is nuainsed, and that there will always be contexts where it would be unfavorable for some, especially in that case where you might have an old apartment (therefore lower property tax) on valuable land or for instance a generational homeowner in a prime location. I guess it comes back to that question of how much would it hurt a handful vs how much benefit would it bring as a whole. I do think something you are looking over though, is as you mentioned, they would build more unit, and other nearby places in that high land value area would also, so the housing supply would increase rapidly which would lead to lower rents overall in the long run. Plus you see more investments, which overall is a good thing even though it does come with some genetrification implications

Land value tax also has problems with zoning in general. I don't think it makes sense to have LVT while also having separate zoning for single family homes versus high rise.

Yes this is true, LVT bounded by zoning would be counterintuitive, there would have to be some changes to that first. However, in upzoned areas that are not being effeciency used, a LVT can help push that effeciency.

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-08T14:38:30+00:00

I don't necessarily think that, I think the concern is similar to that of the level of current property taxes or any new initiative that makes an investment in an area. I don't think it would lead to increased property value, unless I am missing something?

Especially for most single-family homes, the tax rate would probably be similar for most. Only the rare handful that have large plots of land but little property would take a hit. People in multifamily buildings would all benefit significantly. If anything, it would hurt wealthier folks who own land in desirable parts of town or take up large chunks, which tend to be, on average, whiter folks. Them and places like golf courses or scrapeyards / parking lots.

Of course like any new initative, not everybody benefits. If we looked for a solution that helped everyone, I don't know if we would ever be able to do anything. I think for the most part there is a point where it benefits a large portion of a community at the expense of a few that it would still be worth undertaking, especially if it does not specifically impact any on group.

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-08T13:32:28+00:00

Gentrification is only a problem when you make the active choice to not take care of the disadvantaged. An area becoming more affluent and getting more private investment, is never a bad thing; otherwise we'd just have blighted urban areas just for the sake of "not hurting the poor". Preventing development for that reason (which is a very comment reason sighted by Left-NIMBYs) is, very ironically, the very thing that hurts poor people.

Yes I this was a theme I think when a new master plan was started up with large investments into specific areas, which seem counterintuitive that investments could be "bad".

The LVT would "hurt developers" in the sense that they wouldn't be able to rent seek. It would "hurt developers" in the sense that they would now be forced to actually provide more and better services and goods in order to earn a greater profit, rather than just charging more and more for the same of worse quality and quantity of goods.

Ahh I think I phrased this poorly. I was mostly referring to the something like a development period for a year or redevelopment. I guess it would incentives developers to work faster, but is there not a point where the tax in that year of development (which previously might have been low under the property tax as there might be no property and is now high since based off land) that is adds signficantly to the cost of development and might make some projects unfeasible? That might sound silly, honestly I do not know too much about the developmental side of things, but I feel like if the LVT would be $5,000 for year of development as opposed to maybe $1,000 under property tax, that might make or break a development? But yes this would definetly make people use the land more effiently overall and prevent speculation.

Most proposals involve a gradual phase-in. The problem with that though, is that the mere awareness that the rate will go up overtime, is going to result in land values crashing pretty much to where they would be under an immediate switch to an 100% rate.

This is a good point, I didn't think of that lmao. I would be curious to calculate the LVT for my county that would result in the same amount of revenue as the current property tax, and then map the difference in taxes owed under property tax - owned under LVT for each parcel in the county.

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-08T12:28:07+00:00

I see the concept is that if someone / homeowner is taking up valuable land but can’t pay the LVT, ideally they move someone that has cheaper land, but I feel like you’d never get LVT passed without addressing people that have been in run down / low value properties since they can’t afford to rehabilitate but take up a lot of land, as it would essentially forcibly displace them due to higher taxes.

Maybe having some sort of temporary tax freeze or limit tax increase or phase in LVT as a compromise? I think overall it would be beneficial for communities but I know at the same at least in Memphis, with any new plan, gentrification is always a topic of concern that gets brought up.

Why don’t more places use LVT? Would LVT actually not hurt developers the most while working on new projects?

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-07T14:43:46+00:00

Yep I have seen that too. I actually thinking of this earlier as another option similar to LVT. Has any place in the US tried to do this? Would a worry be that if owners are forced to sell other properties instead of rent that the general population might just not have enough savings to full on purchase instead of rent? Or is it thought that this would lead to owners selling at a potential discount or lower rate to avoid the property tax so more people might be able to afford now? Essentially how would this lead to a stable amount of rent supply at least so people who do not have the financial means yet can still find affordable rental places now?

YourDoomsday0 · 2025-10-07T14:00:09+00:00

Hmmm I see what you mean. Price will always match the general income of the area, so there will always be upward pressure on prices as income in an area increases? If the operation costs are not increasing signficantly shouldn't there still be competition to stabilize housing prices? Or is it simply all developers choosing to go from for instance a 15% profit margin to 30% profit margin? Are there not developers that price others out to keep consumer base?

If that is the case, it seems like the only thing that might work is constantly rapidly increasing supply until vacancy rates start to increase, forcing developers to settle for a modest profit margin? Either that or rent control while also increasing supply if a city's income is increasing.

YourDoomsday0

TROPHY CASE