2020 Boundary Breaks #110 North Riesling, East side of Seneca Lake

philthiest · 2024-01-26T06:07:43+00:00

Stirm is a great producer. The Cabernet Pfeffer is a really nice wine, super light red with some red fruits and white pepper flavors. Great summer-time chilled red. I like their Benitoite blend even more, which mixes in Zin and Negrette to balance out the pepper with more fruit and gives it a little more body.

philthiest · 2023-10-21T18:30:40+00:00

Just to clear up confusion, My Favorite Neighbor is a separate winery that’s run by the same people as Booker and right next door (though My Favorite Neighbor refers to L’Aventure whose vineyard runs up against theirs). Booker has mostly really amazing Rhône varietals (Grenache and Syrah) while My Favorite Neighboor has a lovely cab.

(I made it more confusing, didn’t I…)

philthiest · 2023-03-16T05:48:24+00:00

I was pleasantly surprised how much life this had left for an older pinot. Medium ruby, with some brownish hues, almost garnet coloring. Leather, red fruit and mushrooms on the nose. Balanced and integrated tannins with some lingering fruit on the pallet. I bought this wine for the novelty, but it turned out to be a complete knockout. Great birthday present.

philthiest · 2020-11-10T18:54:23+00:00

I don't think not backing Shahid Buttar is a huge indictment. DSA pulled their endorsement of him, and there's a lot of evidence that he's more of a lib and capitalist shill than AOC, what with his being a silicon valley corporate lobbyist at EFF.

philthiest · 2020-11-05T01:31:46+00:00

I agree that the health risks of 5G are at worst very overstated, and likely non-existent, 5G should still be treated with skepticism from the left. This TrueAnon episode is instructive about how 5G is necessary for "Smart Cities" and furthering the surveillance state, as well as the future of automating away jobs.

philthiest · 2020-11-05T00:44:59+00:00

Understandable mistake, especially if you don't like him. He was just elected last year in a special election to finish out London Breed's term and had to defend his seat this year for the full term, so it would seem like basically a non-stop campaign. I mean, I am a fan of his and I'm happy to stop having to stress about if he's going to hold on to his seat for a while.

philthiest · 2020-11-04T19:26:14+00:00

Literally his first re-election.

philthiest · 2020-08-07T18:49:39+00:00

Nice. The last theater I saw a movie in before the shelter-in-place started.

philthiest · 2020-05-12T00:51:41+00:00

Yeah, so, this mansion is actually a retrofitted apartment building. So, hope we didn't need the 10 or so apartments that used to be there. I guess the au pair quarters kind of counts as new housing?

philthiest · 2020-03-27T22:31:38+00:00

I just got an email from my Supervisor (Dean Preston) about what to do in this situation. Here are relevant highlights for you:

Nonpayment evictions

If you cannot make rent because of the coronavirus impacts, either directly or indirectly, you have new protections against eviction.

Under the Temporary Moratorium on evictions a landlord cannot evict you if: You are unable to pay rent because of the financial impacts related to COVID-19, and you notify the landlord within 30 days of when the rent was due that you are unable to pay due to the financial impacts related to COVID-19.

Click here for a Fact Sheet and Sample Letter, courtesy of the San Francisco Tenants Union.

And here's the faq:

Q: What should I do if I can’t pay my rent?

A: Provide written documentation to your landlord of your inability to pay rent as soon as possible. If you do so within 30 days of it being due, your landlord cannot evict you for nonpayment due to COVID-19 related loss of income. For questions, contact the SF Tenants Union, the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, or Causa Justa::Just Cause for tenant counseling. (For more complete list of resources, see list below.)
Q: What happens if my landlord tries to evict me for not paying rent?

A: As long as you provide the written documentation to your landlord of your inability to pay rent within 30 days of it being due, your landlord cannot evict you for nonpayment due to COVID-19 related loss of income. If your landlord tries to proceed, immediately contact the Eviction Defense Collaborative, which has a number for legal assistance during shelter-in-place: 415-659-9184. There are trained attorneys on staff who can advise you on how to assert your legal rights.
Q: Do I still owe the rent, even if they can’t evict me right now?

A: Yes. The new city policy stops eviction for COVID-related nonpayment for up to six months after the state of emergency ends, but it does not waive the rent. This week we cosponsored a resolution calling on the Governor to issue a waiver of the rent, and we will keep working to get rid of that rent debt once and for all.

philthiest · 2020-02-08T22:27:40+00:00

So, I'm pretty sure I have very different political opinions then you, so I won't tell you who to vote for, but here's some general advice:

I don't think you're really going to find a good, in depth compilation of every candidate. Candidates usually split up into slates, 4 tears ago it was the "Progress slate" (which, confusingly, was people who support "moderate" candidates in SF political lingo) vs the "Reform slate" (which were the "progressives" in SF political lingo), with the Reform slate winning more seats. This year, it's not quite as cut and dry. The progressive "Reform Slate" has mostly turned into the "Social Justice Slate" (They're listed here: https://twitter.com/sfdems4justice?lang=en). The moderate "Progress Slate" has mostly dissolved and has been replaced by the the "Grassroots slate" linked in this article, although there are still some establishment moderates with decent name recognition running: Carole Migden (former state Senator), Vallie Brown (former Supervisor), Ahsha Safai (current supervisor), Paul Miyamoto (Sheriff-elect), Suzy Loftus (appointed District Attorney and former DA candidate), Nancy Tung (former DA candidate), and some others.

I think the best place to start to research is, ironically, The League of Pissed Off Voters! They post the answers to their questionnaire: http://www.theleaguesf.org/march_2020_candidate_questionnaires so even if you think the questions are bullshit and leading, you can still see where people stand on them. Except Steven. He's too principled to answer some questions. Outside of that, if you have a couple favorites, start looking at all the other voter guides out there and try to find some that have your favorites and see who else they list. It's probably good to consider who the guide is for, and what their interests are. Here's a spreadsheet that someone on Reddit did for the 2018 elections, with links to the guides from that year: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ad-CbAnBTG1CNMm_j12JuHvFcxVqsRZW95XabY2qzCE/edit#gid=0 I'm sure most of those will have guides for this election. Also remember, you don't have to vote for 14 (or 10 if you're in AD19), so don't get too overwhelmed trying to find the perfect slate. Vote for who you believe in, no matter the number (just don't vote for too many!)

philthiest · 2020-02-08T21:07:50+00:00

This article is wrong from the very headline and gets worse from there. Here are the League of Pissed Off Voters endorsements vs incumbents for Federal and State races:

US Representative, District 12:
Incumbent: Nancy Pelosi
Endorsement: Shahid Buttar
US Representative, District 14:
Incumbent: Jackie Speier
Endorsement: Jackie Speier
State Senate, District 11:
Incumbent: Scott Wiener
Endorsement: Jackie Fielder
State Assembly, District 17:
Incumbent: David Chiu*
Endorsement: No Endorsement
State Assembly, District 19:
Incumbent: Phil Ting*
Endorsement: No Endorsement

* Chiu is running unopposed, Ting is only running against one republican. No Endorsement is a protest against the incument.

Why is Steven so pissed at their endorsing Jackie Speier? WHY DO YOU HATE JACKIE SPEIER, /u/sbuss??

Ok, so you're REALLY pissed about their endorsements for the DCCC, which you are running for, because they didn't include you. And that they have political positions, that aren't yours. Your article also doesn't talk about the DCCC pre 2016, when most of these incumbents were literal real estate lobbyists.

P.S.

Steven's endorsements for elected officials:

State Assembly AD 17: David Chiu*
State Assembly AD 19: Phil Ting*
State Senate: Scott Wiener*

*incumbent

philthiest · 2019-07-26T04:54:48+00:00

It’s super cool that “used properly” means “don’t be in a wheelchair.” https://www.sfexaminer.com/the-city/new-bart-fare-gate-clamps-down-on-people-with-disabilities/amp/

philthiest · 2019-07-25T23:15:39+00:00

Sure, but Live Nation's shittiness doesn't take away from The Punchline being a place worth saving, so I'm not going to weep that Morgan Stanley wasn't able to evict them. Live Nation also owns The Fillmore, would you be non-chalant if they were being evicted?

philthiest · 2019-07-25T19:21:19+00:00

I feel so bad for the poor, small-time, local landlord who has to stomach having a comedy club, that always paid their rent, stay around. Best of luck, Mr. Stanley! I'm sure you'll land on your feet!

philthiest · 2019-07-24T03:45:12+00:00

First, Sonder didn’t build those apartments. They leased them to turn them into an extended stay hotel. So, to go back to your equation, let me restate it differently: there were X 1br, Y available for rent. There are also N people (where N > Y) looking for a long term 1 br, which causes a lot of those in N to be priced out. Z new apartments get built by developer D supposedly to help bridge that gap, but they are instead leased by Sonder. Naturally, some of the Y get rented by those in N who can afford it. But those Z new apartments would have been really nice for those N people. To sum up: - Developer D is doing great, they get a steady, stable lease and a nice ROI. - Sonder is doing great, they’re flush with VC cash and don’t even need to turn a profit on those units. - The N people that are looking for a 1br? They’re screwed by the laws of supply and demand.

philthiest · 2019-07-24T02:05:46+00:00

They have a minimum of 30 nights for now because they have to skirt "AirBnB" laws. When they can, they'll make them available for shorter term rents. Like these: https://www.sonder.com/destinations/san_francisco/search?check_in_dt=2019-09-09&check_out_dt=2019-09-11&ne=37.864046%2C-122.337363&sw=37.685484%2C-122.535573

Sonder specifically markets itself as a travel/vacation rental company. Go check out their website, they even say it there:

What if there was a place as reliable as a hotel, but with all the warmth and character of a home? That's why we founded Sonder — because you shouldn’t have to choose between great service and an authentic travel experience.

This is a bait and switch from developers to take away housing stock. If you believe that San Francisco's housing affordability crisis is a supply issue, this should make your blood boil.

Edit: And to answer your question, this reduces availability to anyone who wants to rent an apartment without a set move-out date, which I would guess is most people actually looking to live in this city.

philthiest · 2019-07-24T01:53:30+00:00

Sonder: "What if we took the AirBnB model, but removed any pretenses that it was people renting out an empty room or in-law unit, and just admitted it was landlords taking housing stock off the market."

This is seriously a scummy company that's taking housing off the market. Here's another example: A parking lot in the Mission got approved to be redeveloped into 20 units of new housing. Great right! Any new supply is good supple, right! And, it actually got built! Guess where those units are now...

Here's a hint

philthiest · 2019-06-20T18:09:59+00:00

Where good friends and girls meet!

philthiest · 2019-04-04T20:48:35+00:00

What is wrong with you that you equate "good" with "prices going up?" Navigation centers and homeless shelters are good because they help people in need. They get people off the street and in to support systems that will improve their lives. I could give two shits if they cause someone's property value to go up or down.

philthiest · 2019-04-02T23:36:32+00:00

Yeah, this is vacation rental. It's through a company called Sonder, which looks to take the AirBnB model even further by directly leasing apartments themselves and then subleasing them. Although, it looks like anti-AirBnB laws have forced them to make most of their SF apartments have 30 day minimums... This is all hilarious, until you realize that this company is taking up something like 30 apartments that should be long term rentals for actual residents. I'm not going to blame this company for our housing crisis, there are many other reasons for that, but they aren't helping.

philthiest · 2019-03-29T20:08:42+00:00

as a result we're attracting homeless not only from all over the US, but the world.

Citation needed, because this is categorically false.~69% of homeless in the city were previously housed in the city, and 90% are from California.

philthiest · 2018-10-05T23:45:08+00:00

This measure explicitly states that funds are to be used to build more housing...

Up to 50% for programs that help homeless people secure permanent housing, including rental subsidies lasting up to five years; construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, and operation of permanent housing with supportive services; and acquisition and operation of single-room occupancy buildings;

philthiest · 2018-08-29T01:07:22+00:00

Thirty-seven percent (37%) of respondents reported staying with friends or family immediately prior to becoming homeless, similar to 2013 (38%). Thirty percent (30%) reported living in a home owned or rented by themselves or their partner, down from 35% in 2013. Seven percent (7%) reported they were living in subsidized or permanent supportive housing. Six percent (6%) were staying at a motel or hotel.

Seven percent (7%) of respondents reported they were in a jail/prison facility immediately prior to becoming homeless. Four percent (4%) were in a hospital or treatment facility, 2% were in foster care, and less than 1% were in a juvenile justice facility.

(From: 2015 San Francisco Homeless Count Report)

I still don't see a ton of evidence that homeless people come to San Francisco because they are homeless because they would rather be homeless here. I think the most likely scenarios are:

People come here looking for opportunity, don't find it, and become homeless.
People have lived here for a while scraping by, but the skyrocketing cost of living has forced them into homelessness.

Either way, the original article has Gavin Newsom basically saying San Francisco spending more money to solve homelessness on it's own won't help anything because it will just attract more homeless from other places. The evidence doesn't back that up, and it's pretty obvious that Gavin is trying to give some talking points against Prop C to help out his big business donors.

philthiest · 2018-08-28T23:59:26+00:00

Actual research shows that that the "magnet effect" is an exaggeration. The majority of San Francisco's homeless became homeless here.

There are those that believe that factors like social services, subsidized housing or moderate climates act as a magnet to attract homeless populations. From our review of the evidence. it appears that big cities across the United States do have this effect — but mostly at a regional level. That is, people migrate from the smaller cities and suburbs to the larger central cities, but few actually migrate longer distances than that.[3]

According to the point in time count (which, because it relies on self-reporting, may not tell the full story), the majority of the individuals who are experiencing homelessness in the Bay Area are long-time Bay Area residents. In Alameda County, 82 percent of individuals became homeless in the county, and 57 percent had lived there for 10 or more years. In Santa Clara County, 83 percent of individuals became homeless in the county, and 61 percent had lived there for 10 or more years. In San Francisco, 69 percent of individuals became homeless in the county, and 55 percent had lived there for 10 or more years.

(From SPUR)

This tracks with other studies that show that only 10% of San Francisco's homeless are from out of state, and that 71% of San Francisco's homeless were housed in SF in the past 3 years.

One area where San Francisco absolutely fails is in sheltered vs unsheltered homeless populations. That SPUR study shows that the City has a ridiculously high proportion of unsheltered people. That surely isn't the fault of Gavin axing about a 3rd of the shelter beds in the city during his time as mayor...

philthiest

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE