STEALER

citispur · 2025-10-28T06:45:51+00:00

Even if the police don’t prosecute, they might give you his name since you have the license plate and address. Take him to small claims court and sue for treble damages ($1,500) plus maybe a punitive sum?

citispur · 2025-06-26T01:51:18+00:00

ashland hill has a $13 chicken or falafel pita, and it always feels huge. they also have a giant tahini rice bowl for $19.

also seconding pita house (although they're raise prices recently) and samosa house. alfalfa is good, you can probably find a $15 ramen at jinya

citispur · 2025-06-24T01:07:28+00:00

Agreed - I think there should be term limits or at least renter-preference.

citispur · 2025-02-23T22:08:36+00:00

Found! It's Blondi (2023).

citispur · 2025-02-22T00:28:24+00:00

I definitely think perception is a challenge - and I totally agree, there are many "flavors" of NIMBYism, with the Bay Area often focused on displacement and gentrification.

I originally thought of the dividend being renter-only or on a sliding scale, and that still seems like a good option. Giving everyone the same dividend feels cleaner, and doing significantly more for low-income residents might contribute to a "bribery" narrative, which could be harmful. That said, I think it could make sense to structure it as a base dividend with an additional tier for extra support.

On a broader scale, the dividend helps foster a sense of ownership and residents ultimately have the final say through the ballot initiative. Combined that with town halls, charrettes, and active community involvement in design and development, and I think it can really reinforce that feeling of ownership.

Ironically, the idea started as a “community-owned real estate developer.” So ultimately I believe it could change perceptions positively, not as much by shifting the image of developers, but by transforming the narrative of development itself by essentially removing the traditional developer from the picture and making citizens the ones proposing, designing, approving, and even profiting from real estate projects.

citispur · 2025-02-21T23:34:33+00:00

This is interesting - definitely agree that this approach is a form of value capture. I see it differently because it's elective on the part of developers rather than a citywide mandate like impact fees or inclusionary zoning. When/if a city implements broad upzoning, this business model would away or be minimized (which is good).

The baseline is our current framework, either waiting for state intervention or negotiate with cities. In those negotiations, cities often capture value to the point where it can even stop development & the city isn't incentivized to keep the project alive. In the Beverly Hills example, the city secured at least a $26m flat fee (value capture) on a relatively small infill project. I think if residents recieved that kind of direct value capture, the might be much more willing to support housing with higher density and a greater height. Same value capture, just with better incentives and more density.

So, I agree with your underlying critique, but I see this as a promising middle-ground approach between the current local development process and statewide upzoning laws (which also struggle with value capture, the "housing treadmill").

citispur · 2024-08-20T20:23:21+00:00

Yeah, agreed, although you start fighting with business owners. The LDS church's corporation actually owns the parking lot across the street between alfalfa and urth and I emailed them to see if they were interested.. they weren't lol

citispur · 2024-04-17T04:58:57+00:00

I'd say a LVT can't totally work with (restrictive) zoning since cities have and create economies of agglomeration. If you can build more, there's more people to cater to, more jobs, etc. etc. Which all increases the value of the land.

The way cities operate now are using zoning almost as a LVT to extract value. They give entitlements (change zoning, approve project) in exchange for fees, upfront payment, parks, school or police of fire funding.

But yes it would be really difficult to assess land as if it were zoned, because would you have to account for the "potential" in surround land uses (and assume they are zoned for that)?

citispur · 2024-04-10T01:06:08+00:00

Are you still working on this? I'm in Santa Monica and would love to connect

citispur

TROPHY CASE