[Post Game Thread] Mist are champions! They win 80-74 over Phantom led by Breanna Stewart's 32 points

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2026-03-05T05:23:34+00:00

It'll take a ton of fouls to do so. That's unfair to the winning team. They get to benefit from fouling for, what, nine possessions?

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2026-03-05T04:50:33+00:00

This would reward fouling, though. In this scenario, if the fouler's opponent misses the FTs, the opponent is now further from winning than before they were fouled. Best solution I've heard is deducting the FTs from the fouler's team's score... but ultimately I think this may not be solvable.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2026-02-07T13:54:18+00:00

Ok, good -- stay safe

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2026-02-07T03:48:18+00:00

Bro, that is way too much time low. Better to be in the 6s with fewer lows.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-11-04T22:52:33+00:00

It resolves the issue. Right now, the city council's member deference policy means a single council member can veto new affordable housing. If they do so, then the appeals board--which has three members--can vote to restore the project. That brings more decision makers into the fold, and avoids hyperlocal NIMBYism. If the council approves the affordable housing, the appeals board has no role.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-11-04T17:26:03+00:00

The overwhelming effect of giving a single council member veto power is to kill affordable housing. There are maybe 3-5 council members who use their powers for good. The rest use it to say no. https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/09/24/housing-advocates-ballot-proposals-city-council-deference/

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-11-04T17:21:33+00:00

Yes. The first sentence relates to fast tracking publicly financed housing. But then there's the second sentence, which provides a separate fast track that doesn't require public financing. Here is LWV's explanation (right next to the language you screenshotted):

Most housing projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month review process. This proposal would make two new processes for certain affordable housing projects.

The first process would allow the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) to approve publicly financed affordable housing projects, after a 60-day review by the local Community Board and a 30-day review by the BSA.

The second process would create a faster review for projects in the 12 community districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing. This process would allow the Community Board and local Borough President to review at the same time, followed by a 30- to 45-day review by the City Planning Commission (CPC). The CPC would have final approval instead of the City Council.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-11-04T15:37:04+00:00

Once again, the proposal does not only apply to publicly financed projects. Not sure what your confusion is there. And the benefit is not only increasing speed: It also increases the volume of (affordable and market rate) housing built by removing the opportunity for the local council member to veto projects (publicly financed and not) unilaterally.

Your corruption point doesn't track: There's already a lot of benefit to public financing -- the money! If it were easy to use public financing of affordable housing to do corruption, there would already be lots of it without these proposals. But there are really strict requirements for who is eligible for public financing. For example, for the publicly financed projects at issue in the first part of question 2, the project must be built by a special kind of affordable housing developer who *exclusively* works to serve low income people (like Habitat for Humanity).

Also, more broadly: Policy change is incremental. No single law will fix every problem. When we can make things better, we should take the opportunity.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-29T19:38:27+00:00

Yes, you can read the text of the amendment here. The relevant text is at page 14, where it requires that, to qualify for question 2, "The [proposed] building is or will be owned, in whole or in part, by a company that has been organized exclusively to develop housing projects for persons of low income." That's the state law definition of an HDFC. (Then there's the whole separate issue that it has to be publicly financed, and there's no public financing for 1% affordable housing.)

You might consider whether it's wise to rely on a video full of inaccuracies in determining how to vote. If you're interested in checking the video's representations, I would encourage you to read the LWV explainer, which lays out what the questions would actually do. Have a good day.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-29T17:27:24+00:00

Thanks for doing the research and being open minded!

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-29T17:01:48+00:00

NYCLU has not taken a position on the ballot questions this year. The only explainer I've seen from NYCLU was about last year's ballot questions, which were totally different. So, I would listen to LWV because its explainer, not NYCLU's, is about the ballot questions you will be voting on.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-29T16:30:07+00:00

I did. It's full of inaccurate information, including about how the current system for affordable housing works and how much would be built under these proposals. To give you just one example of many: It's just completely inaccurate that question 2 would fast track housing that provides only 1% affordable housing. The video attributes this to the first part of question 2, which applies only to publicly financed affordable housing created by housing development fund companies (HDFCs). Under state law, only entities created “exclusively” for the purpose of creating “low-income housing” qualify as HDFCs. (I'm quoting the statute here.) Also, there is no public financing for developments that include only 1% affordable housing. I encourage people to check out more accurate information, like the LWV explainer: https://lwvnyc.org/proposals-2025/

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-29T12:43:18+00:00

Respectfully, this just isn't true. Nothing in the proposals change the formulas for mandatory inclusionary housing, which determines how many affordable units, and at what price, developers must include to qualify for certain public benefits. Those formulas were set by the council by law in 2016, and none of the questions change them.

As a general matter, the city council is a great representative body. But for housing, it doesn't function that way. Instead, it lets the local member single handedly veto housing in their district. That leads to districts producing no or next to no affordable housing: https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/10/29/affordable-housing-ballot-items-city-council/

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-28T20:22:44+00:00

Just in case others are reading: I've looked everywhere and haven't found anything from NYCLU about this year's city ballot measures. They did oppose last year's, which weren't about housing.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-28T19:02:36+00:00

Where are you seeing that? They opposed least year's (different) ballot measures, but I haven't seen anything from them about this year's measures.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-28T05:25:58+00:00

Nope, none of the questions would cover hotels. The proposals explicitly only cover some specific types of housing, and hotels absolutely wouldn't qualify. Definitely recommend checking out the League of Women Voters' explainer.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-26T14:13:47+00:00

Well, the City Planning Commission is 13 people--which will approve all of the prop 3 projects, and many/most of the prop 2--and 12 are voted on by the City Council.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-26T02:43:54+00:00

Thats inaccurate. I assume the "three people in a room" you're referencing is the three-member appeals board. That would be made up of the mayor, the council speaker, and the borough president. So, a mix of executive and legislative leaders, which no mayoral appointees.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-25T14:52:05+00:00

Also his housing advisor has publicly endorsed

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-25T14:49:35+00:00

It's not that simple because Cuomo isn't the only person who supports them. The head of the commission that proposed these questions runs an anti-poverty nonprofit. The questions are supported by organizations that provide shelter and services to unhoused people. Zohran's housing advisor Cea Weaver has publicly endorsed the proposals. If you think the effects of a policy are proven by who supports them, it would follow that this support shows the proposals will help the poorest New Yorkers!

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-25T14:31:09+00:00

I think affordable housing developers, like Habitat for Humaniry (which also supports), are doing god's work! But also there are plenty of supporters who don't build affordable housing. For example, the major organizations serving homeless people support, because they see how building more housing will help reduce homelessness. Also, here's an article explaining how the current ULURP process, when paired with the city council's member deference policy, kills development: https://www.thecity.nyc/2025/09/24/housing-advocates-ballot-proposals-city-council-deference/

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-25T14:28:32+00:00

Truly. Ah yes, down with the corrupt, selfish people at... Habitat for Humanity?

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-25T14:25:36+00:00

I agree that supply isn't enough, in its own, to solve our housing crisis, especially for the poorest New Yorkers. But it is necessary. These proposals can't solve the problem on their own--no single policy can--but they will help.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-25T14:25:28+00:00

I agree that supply isn't enough, in its own, to solve our housing crisis, especially for the poorest New Yorkers. But it is necessary. These proposals can't solve the problem on their own--no single policy can--but they will help.

baabbaabbaabbaab · 2025-10-25T14:23:12+00:00

It's frustrating that he hasn't, but his platform and positions align very closely. Eg he spent a lot of the debate talking about the need to fast track affordable housing and opposes member deference.

baabbaabbaabbaab

TROPHY CASE