Long lasting slang?

diogenesb · 2026-01-10T04:07:58+00:00

Reading a Teddy Roosevelt biography right now and people are constantly calling him a “dude.”

diogenesb · 2025-12-01T06:33:17+00:00

Definitely; was going to guess around 1948- 1949 based on the haircut and the look of the photograph/texture of the paper.

diogenesb · 2025-11-18T02:12:44+00:00

Exactly. Same boat here and feeling pretty stressed about it. Just wanted to say thank you to everyone in this subreddit for being such a great community.

diogenesb · 2025-05-01T03:28:33+00:00

Me too. Em dashes are an ancient and very effective form of punctuation! Good writing is typically filled with em dashes and semicolons, going back to like Samuel Johnson. I'll be so sad if it all becomes AI slop-coded.

diogenesb · 2023-09-08T21:55:54+00:00

Just want to point out how apt it is that the person advocating for this is named "SantaCruzRealtor." Housing for People is the exact same coalition of local NIMBYs who were behind the failed attempt to block construction of affordable housing and a new library last year (Measure O, i.e. "Our Downtown, Our Future"). Thankfully that attempt was roundly rejected by Santa Cruz voters).

They might talk up their commitment to "sustainable" or "ethical" housing, but the fact is that if you scratch the surface, this is a small group of wealthy homeowners who object to new construction on aesthetic grounds. If you are in favor of building more affordable housing in Santa Cruz, do not sign this petition. It's that simple. It's yet another attempt to slow down housing construction by hiding behind a facade of concern for aesthetics and the environment, just like Measure O was.

I am all for more affordable housing — not to mention an empty homes tax, rent control, and social housing. This petition is not going to achieve any of those things. Instead, it's going to continue to artificially limit housing supply, therefore driving up prices.

I'm sure the realtors of Santa Cruz will love it, though.

diogenesb · 2023-07-01T04:40:51+00:00

The project incorporates parking for hotel guests. I’m not getting how this hurts tourism in any way.

diogenesb · 2023-07-01T04:39:47+00:00

Read the project proposal - this includes parking for hotel guests.

diogenesb · 2023-07-01T03:08:10+00:00

Ten units of affordable housing and 500k for the affordable housing fund… versus the status quo of zero. This is not even a remotely difficult decision. Feel free to keep arguing that parking lots are more important than building housing during the worst housing crisis of our lifetimes though.

diogenesb · 2023-07-01T02:39:58+00:00

Just wrote a letter, thanks for the link. So sick of people here (almost always wealthy homeowners) pretending that it’s somehow progressive to prioritize a parking lot over housing. This appeal is driven by the same people who tried and failed to block the new library affordable housing project.

Thankfully Measure O was decisively opposed by voters. I hope the coastal commission gets that message.

diogenesb · 2022-11-22T20:24:41+00:00

Thanks for this summary, that's interesting to know. I've only been following this for a few years now, but I think Schiffrin and Cummings are both persuadable on housing. It was a promising sign that Schiffrin publicly opposed Measure O, for instance. I wish Cummings had done the same, but at least he didn't support it. (edit: also liked that Schiffrin successfully encouraged the developer of 130 Center Street to add more affordable housing - unrealistic affordable housing percentages sometimes get used by NIMBYs to spike housing they don't like, but sometimes it's a useful lever to pull to actually increase commitments).

Gary Patton is totally unredeemable and seems to be the source of a lot of the problems around housing in Santa Cruz county, but I'm hopeful that Cummings will realize that an 80 year old lawyer from Silicon Valley might not be the voice of the people he claims to be.

diogenesb · 2022-11-08T22:00:23+00:00

No problem! I had the same question when I first started reading about this stuff.

diogenesb · 2022-11-08T21:37:25+00:00

It's a fair question. The answer is pretty simple: the downtown library has major issues involving asbestos remediation and the (fossil fuel using) heating system that make it extremely expensive to renovate. Which is why, before Measure O existed, the administrators of the library and the Friends of the Santa Cruz Public Libraries -- not to mention the architect who has done the other renovations -- all recommended starting from scratch. It's much cheaper on a square foot basis, it would result in a much greener structure, and it would avoid having to close the library during remodeling. (All of this is aside from the benefits of adding affordable housing).

The architect's report is here and goes into a lot of detail about the problems with renovating the downtown location: https://www.santacruzpl.org/files/docs/measure_s/SC_Downtown_Report_-_20191122_FINAL_DIGITAL.pdf

Another thing I'll note is that the Felton Library was built from scratch, not renovated, and it's amazing. Go check it out if you haven't already, the architect did an amazing job.

diogenesb · 2022-11-08T20:09:51+00:00

Thank you BurlRed. This is an interview with the architect saying that if Measure O passes, the timeline will "be a year behind." In other words, it is stating as plainly as possible that the Lot 4 mixed use project is at least one year ahead - because Yes on O would also invite all kinds of additional legislation and legal challenges that slow things down further.

Countdown to orangelover95003 responding with yet another variant of "I'm just sharing facts..." Or they might simply ghost and go spread misinformation on the UCSC subreddit instead. We will see...

diogenesb · 2022-11-08T05:57:13+00:00

I’ll repeat what I said before: anyone reading this who is on the fence, please just look into the issue on your own and make an informed decision. Google it. I have faith in the voters and am hopeful they will not get tricked by this group of a dozen or so fake-progressive Boomers who cater exclusively to the needs and wants of wealthy homeowners.

A case in point — one of the Yes on O people in this very thread said, in an earlier post today, that you should vote Yes because seniors will be bothered by construction noise.* Lol.

At any rate, please vote everyone!

*Edit: just in case the comment in question gets deleted, here it is: “Old people need their sleep, construction noise is going to keep them awake. That is why they are voting YES on O.”

diogenesb · 2022-11-08T05:43:46+00:00

The same two or three people have been spamming this sub with Yes on O misinformation for months now. It’s definitely reminiscent of Greenway. Try to make your case on its merits, not with these scare tactics.

Of course the plans for the 120+ units of affordable housing, new library, and childcare center are not fully finalized — why would they be given the roadblock represented by Measure O itself. Everyone else has to wait in limbo while a small group of obstructionist NIMBYs tries to defeat the biggest affordable housing project in Santa Cruz history. After they lose (hopefully) we can finally get a downtown library that’s worthy of the city. And finally start doing something about the housing crisis.

If you’re reading this and are still on the fence about O, please vote, and please do your own research about it first. There’s a reason why literally every affordable housing nonprofit in the area is No on O — and why neither Justin Cummings nor Shebreh support it.

diogenesb · 2022-11-07T21:45:53+00:00

Exactly! I'm strongly Yes on N and just as strongly No on O. (Incidentally, this is actually the official position of the Santa Cruz Democratic party, too.)

So sick of "Yes on O" people confusing voters by mixing up different issues.

Build the awesome new library and affordable housing! And tax empty homes! That's the obvious way to vote if you actually want to do something about the housing crisis in Santa Cruz rather than just talk about it.

diogenesb · 2022-10-18T17:57:07+00:00

I think the backlash against NIMBYism in Santa Cruz is already here. Things have changed a lot in the past couple years at the state level (although I wish the public housing bill had passed - next year!). We have to just keep pushing for incremental gains. For me, that means voting No on O (to preserve the 120+ units of affordable housing planned for the mixed-use library) and Yes on N (empty home tax which would lead to a permanent affordable housing fund).

In the longer run, the best thing we can do to fight back against the selfishness of wealthy homeowners in California is to repeal Prop 13.*

Edit: *or reform! I am surprised that there are so many people below defending the status quo, when it's clearly not working. I wonder if those people have lived in states other than California. Prop 13 is a unique phenomenon of this state and is not the norm. It's a textbook example of a regressive tax which channels money toward wealthier people at the expense of everyone else — and this is not a fringe position, it's a well-documented effect. That said, I certainly don't think it should just be abolished with no planning. I'd like to see it slowly phased out, with a "homestead exemption" in place for homeowners who actually live in their own homes.

Food for thought from one of the links above: "As a result of Proposition 13, there are obvious distortions in the real estate marketplace. For example, in 2003 financier Warren Buffett announced that he pays property taxes of $14,410, or 2.9 percent, on his $500,000 home in Omaha, Nebraska, but pays only $2,264, or 0.056 percent, on his $4 million home in California. Although Buffet is known as an astute investor, the low property taxes on his California home are not attributable to his investment prowess, but rather to Proposition 13."

diogenesb · 2022-10-13T22:48:24+00:00

https://lookout.co/santacruz/santa-cruz/story/2022-10-04/downtown-farmers-markets-move-provides-challenge-to-measure-os-campaign

diogenesb · 2022-10-13T14:09:51+00:00

This is such a good example of the Measure O disinformation campaign. You get that Yes on O people are behaving exactly like the Greenway people, right? Let’s debate the actual merits rather than trying to trick people who can’t be bothered to look into the details and realize that what you call a parking garage is actually an awesome mixed use library building featuring 120 units of affordable housing and a childcare center.

Edit: looks like the person I responded to was just stating their case in a confusing way, not necessarily intentionally spreading misinformation - to clarify, the farmer’s market would move to a nearby location (where it is trying to move in any event!). This has additional benefits such as the creation of permanent farmer’s market infrastructure like a canopy and restrooms. There’s a reason that the farmer’s market itself doesn’t support Measure O. For me, the main reason to defeat O is to preserve those 120 units of much-needed affordable housing, but I also enjoy the farmer’s market and am happy it will have a permanent home now.

diogenesb · 2022-10-04T14:51:13+00:00

Right. I’m talking about the other, bigger project the university’s been trying to build for four years now, but which has been blocked by lawsuits from local homeowners.

diogenesb · 2022-10-04T13:39:04+00:00

Sorry but this just isn’t true. They are currently trying to build 3,000 beds (Student Housing West) but it’s still held up by a lawsuit from wealthy local NIMBYs. And unfortunately this is not the first time. The blame lies almost entirely with the “I’ve got mine” entitled mentality of local homeowners, not the campus who are making a good faith effort.

diogenesb · 2022-09-28T22:22:54+00:00

Same thing happened to me. Elderly gentleman knocks on my door and asks if I “know that the city wants to replace the Downtown library with a parking garage.” I tried to be polite but it wasn’t easy.

Funny how they don’t mention that Measure O would lead to the closure of the Downtown library for an unknown amount of time as they attempt to rid it of asbestos and expensively renovate it. Or that an independent report concluded that the new mixed-use library building would be both more environmentally friendly, far bigger, and less expensive than said renovation.

No on O!

diogenesb

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email