ANT will love this

Background: I live in a luxury bldg in Philly. Philly is currently trying to pass an updated sidewalk behavior bill, which will be harsher on panhandlers, flash mobs, and other unruly sidewalk behavior. My bldg, has an email list-serv, and I wanted to share an exchange between me and "Earl" on the list-serv.

Earl:
I think that you guys are out of your minds! It takes a group of privileged people to support such a stupid bill! Let's put people in jail for not breaking a law! Wow, I can't believe I live amongst you people!

Me:
Don't speak ill of the gestapo Earl. ;)

I couldn't care less if one day some police van mopped up all the beggars off the Market St. Bridge and elsewhere in the city and I never saw or heard from them again...whatever makes my property value higher is fine by me.

Earl:
I hope to God that whoever you are, that you wouldn't dare mock me! I didn't say what I said as disrespect to anyone! Putting homeless people in jail wouldn't solve anything! There will always be homeless people, just like blacks and Jews, but maybe you'd like to get rid of them also! Think about it! That would be a violation of their civil rights! Have you ever heard of that?
My father in law, who use to be the police chief of New York city, said that this same law was talked about there (NY)! It wasn't passed because it would have caused a rise in taxes just to house these people in prison! Instead the city put the money into programs to help get these people off of the streets and into housing! Maybe you should read up a little more, then you'd know that 20% of homeless people are schizophrenic, estimates to 400,000 people. Translate that to dollars and you'd understand that it's a boat load. But all you care about is the value of your property, not the lives of others! You are a sad example of a human! I'm going to donate some money to a good cause in your name!

Me:
Earl,

Our rights end where others' rights begin. As Jerry pointed out, if you actually did some research into the bill, you would find that it is not extreme at all. It is simply calling for behavior that would allow individuals to walk around the streets in peace. I don't like beggars, flash mobs, or any other unruly sidewalk behavior. They don't have civil rights as far as this goes because their "right" to beg for money causes a nuisance and infringes on my right to enjoy the public spaces near my home.

While I did say I wouldn't mind if a police van mopped all these people up, I'm not for putting them in jail. Take them to rehabilitative centers or mental institutions, if the cases are that severe (and yes, a police van would have to pick them up). In any case, I think we can both agree that the streets are not the ideal place for these people. As I understand it, the bill makes no provision for where these individuals are to be sent. For example, a homeless person idly begging is radically different than a flash mob. I'm sure a court of law can make a proper distinction as to what the best course of action is.

At the end of the day, these are not "my" poor, and while I'm sure the majority of them were dealt a sorry hand, that's not really my problem and I'm not responsible for them. Still, they have a right to enjoy our public street just like I do. So as long as they don't infringe on my rights; I am fine with whatever they want to do. But, sitting all day on the sidewalk and begging for money is an infringement on my (and your) right to have nice public street (for which we pay taxes and they don't). While you may disagree, from a legal (and I would argue ethical as well) viewpoint, there is nothing wrong with desiring that any homeless, unruly, or non-law abiding individuals be dealt with by by our corrective and/or rehabilitative institutions.

Contrary to what you might think, I have absolutely nothing against poor people or the disadvantaged. They have all the same rights I do. I'm sure that if I assaulted someone on the street, that I would go to jail too. I've lived in cities with many more panhandlers than this, and also lived in cities with essentially zero panhandlers. It's not as much a question of prosperity, as some of you seem to think, but rather a question of culture and rule of law.

And yes, as far as this particular issue goes, pretty much all I care about is the value of my property and my quality of life while enjoying the public spaces around me. Luckily for you, the government does a great job of taxing me and thus making me "care" for the less fortunate! (Your attitude is precisely why we're headed for bankruptcy as a nation). Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I believe in self-reliance, freedom, and libertarianism. Your core beliefs seem to be the antonyms of mine, so I doubt we will ever agree on this issue.

And to be perfectly clear; yes, I was mocking you.

 

1) Lyke omg will ANT love this???keep the bromance in private messages 2) I don't buy it. I think you're just scared of panhandlers, and are hiding how much of a beta male you are by saying you support anything that lets you enjoy public space and augments your property value. Man up.

 
DurbanDiMangus:
1) Lyke omg will ANT love this???keep the bromance in private messages 2) I don't buy it. I think you're just scared of panhandlers, and are hiding how much of a beta male you are by saying you support anything that lets you enjoy public space and augments your property value. Man up.

1) It's well known that ANT is the most vocal libertarian on here, hence the title (he also lives in Philly, and has to pass the beggars on the Market St. bridge every day). 2) If I'm a beta male, then you are gamma haha. I'm not scared of panhandlers dude. I've walked around downtowns of third world shitholes. I've also heard gunshots outside my house. I don't see where you draw that conclusion. Are you suggesting I should welcome panhandlers to my neighborhood with open arms?!?!?! If I were scared of panhandlers, I wouldn't live where I do (I run my own business, I can live wherever I want).

 
alexpasch:
DurbanDiMangus:
1) Lyke omg will ANT love this???keep the bromance in private messages 2) I don't buy it. I think you're just scared of panhandlers, and are hiding how much of a beta male you are by saying you support anything that lets you enjoy public space and augments your property value. Man up.

1) It's well known that ANT is the most vocal libertarian on here, hence the title (he also lives in Philly, and has to pass the beggars on the Market St. bridge every day). 2) If I'm a beta male, then you are gamma haha. I'm not scared of panhandlers dude. I've walked around downtowns of third world shitholes. I've also heard gunshots outside my house. I don't see where you draw that conclusion. Are you suggesting I should welcome panhandlers to my neighborhood with open arms?!?!?! If I were scared of panhandlers, I wouldn't live where I do (I run my own business, I can live wherever I want).

I'm not i was trying to bait you. dude I know you run a super successful L/S fund and are up a bajillion % --no need to remind me everytime homeslice
 

Well played Alex, I love the last paragraph about caring by paying your taxes. Please tell me this was conducted "in public" on the listserv, rather than just between the two of you...

Did anyone else get involved?

- Capt K - "Prestige is like a powerful magnet that warps even your beliefs about what you enjoy. If you want to make ambitious people waste their time on errands, bait the hook with prestige." - Paul Graham
 
CaptK:
Well played Alex, I love the last paragraph about caring by paying your taxes. Please tell me this was conducted "in public" on the listserv, rather than just between the two of you...

Did anyone else get involved?

It's public on the list-serv. I sent my reply and then copy pasted it here, so I won't know of any replies until tomorrow night.

 

Philadelphia is a shit hole because we do not care about homeless people and mobs of kids running wild. Try taking your family to Love Park during the summer. Crack heads and homeless people bathing in the fountain. There are parks, beautiful parks, that have tons of homeless people living in all the time, during the day.

Really sad since Philly has so much history and cool stuff to do. Really is a great city, just gritty because we don't do anything about it.

Take a look at the demographics and you will know the issue.

We need to get drinks Alex. I live like 3 blocks away ha.

 

I got a response from "Christine" and just now sent a reply.

Christine: Actually, Alex, our economy is going to sh*t because of shoot first, gung-ho attitudes such as yours. Also, the belief that all of our taxes go to our direct benefit...ok...

As far as your discussion of civil rights goes, if you had a proper understanding of litigious terms you would know that this has nothing to do with rights.

There is no "right to enjoy". Rights don't buy us a lovely afternoon. Money does, as I'm sure you well know. Taxes are going to pay for this. Not just yours, by the way, but ours too. And Civil right do, in fact, protect the right to panhandle. Numerous cases from various states have deemed the banning of panhandling to be unconstitutional. Dicicco backed down because he didn't want his a** handed to him. I guess your just into that.

Is there really any need to argue for this to apply over here anyway? Sure, news gets around, but they don't put out a newsletter! MANY of these PEOPLE (I know we hate to think of them as that when we really couldn't care less if we "never saw or heard from them again". And yes, I was quoting you), aren't well enough to travel over here, anyway!

Like Earl pointed out, these aren't innate criminals! Nor are they people who were fired from power suit jobs and have taken to beating power suit women and robbing them of their purses. Many are mentally ill, and many I've treated myself in local hospitals. These are people who are losing themselves to exposure and malnutrition. This isn't about willpower or self-reliance. As for freedom, I'm surprised that word crossed your lips.

I don't know what culture you come from, or what ethics you base your chosen morals on, but you do have a societal OBLIGATION to take care of OUR city's poor. If you don't like the burden of showing some Brotherly Love, I suggest you move back to where ever you'll get the least dirt on your shoes.

And as for property value, you should have thought of that before you purchased across the street from a bunch of nudie bars.

I caution you when making assumptions about others' values. You'd do well to surround yourself with good-natured people like Earl and others.

As for prosperity, here's to yours,

Christine

Me: Christine,

As a Penn alum (I noticed your email address), I actually put some thought into addressing all your points seriously and intelligently, so my apologies for the length of this email.

I put this in the context of rights, because that was precisely the context in which Earl framed the discussion. If it has nothing to do with rights, then what does it have to do with? The issue has everything to do with the boundary of individuals rights as it pertains to use of the public sidewalk. In fact, your argument for constitutionality is predicated specifically on the right to free speech. If the issue has nothing to do with rights then your rebuttal to my proposition can't regard a specific right.

While ACLU lawyers may claim that it's unconstitutional, sure doesn't seem like it actually is, or else these laws would not be getting passed in various locales across the country (and I am aware of the Supreme Court ruling, are you aware of the technicality the local governments use to get around it? - ie defining the "place and manner"). Also, in case you need reminding, the Constitution is a working document, and is open to interpretation. Again, while panhandling has been decided to be protected free speech, regulations concerning the place and manner of panhandling are not unconstitutional. Let's take the example of those Greensboro Baptist lunatics, whose vitriolic protests during funerals are protected under free speech. That doesn't mean that the locales can't order them to protest a said distance from the funeral. It is quite similar here, the definition of "aggressive" vs. "passive" panhandling is rather vague, and getting a local ordinance removed on unconstitutional grounds would be quite difficult.

And of course our taxes should not just go to our direct benefit, but part of them does go to public goods which we use. I would argue that my recommendation ensures that the public good is put to its highest and best use by allowing everyone to enjoy the street (most see panhandling as a nuisance, so you are harming many for the benefit of one). In addition, if we have to come to a conclusion as to a demarcation of rights regarding the use of a public good, that, because the main financiers of that good are in fact the taxpayers, that the taxpayers should have a final say over any free riders (indeed, when one has skin in the game, they tend to care more and actually make an optimal decision).

Yes, as Earl pointed out, these are not innate criminals, and as I hope I made clear in my response, I'm not espousing that people be sent to jail for idle panhandling. If they need to be sent to some sort of rehabilitative center or shelter, then so be it (this should especially be the case if indeed, many of them are mentally ill as you say). I don't understand your position. It's as if you say these people need help, but at the same time are saying that they should stay ON the streets?!?!?!? I may have what you deem to be an "evil" or selfish economic imperative, but at least my position is consistent; and moreover, if what you say is true regarding these people's mental incapacity, then surely my conclusion that they belong off the streets is amenable to you?

I would like to remind you that I (we) don't have an obligation to take care of our city's poor. It may sound harsh, but it's the truth. You assume that I'm an uncaring or selfish individual just because I feel I should be free to choose whom I can help? That's a very morally arrogant position you're taking. Speaking of homelessness, I've built houses for Habitat for Humanity (in a 3rd world country, where homelessness has different definition than it has here; the people I helped actually lost their homes in a natural disaster - and I still have the t-shirt to prove it, in case you think I'm bluffing I'll be happy to show it to you), have donated to medical charities and to children's cancer hospitals. I believe in "helping those who can help themselves", and are simply down on their luck. In my view, most homeless people do not fit that description. You may disagree and choose to help them out of your own accord, nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.

As far as my upbringing, I'm hispanic and was raised in a left-leaning middle-class household (shocker!). I have come to the conclusion, after much reasoned analysis and study (please tell me how many books you have read on political economy?), that much of the social/economic policies this country has undertaken in the last 50 odd years have been to the great detriment of this society. With the recent economic collapse (and it will get worse, give it a few years), we are just now beginning to see the evidence of the great destruction this has brought upon our society. This has been the fault of both political parties, and I place particular blame on the Republicans, for not cutting spending when times were good (I'm actually quite bi-partisan, I voted for Kerry because I thought Bush was a total idiot, and like Obama over quite a few of the Republican candidates). What this country needs desperately (and whether you like it or not, the market and global economy will force on us) is to drastically cut back on government services. As someone affiliated with the medical profession/hospitals (judging from your email), this should be of particular concern to you, because the government is such a large payor in our healthcare system. I don't know how closely you follow the economy, but our national debt is staggering, and the looming impact on our lives (I assume you're also relatively young since you have a Penn email - I had one too not too long ago, btw) will be very negative. Spending money we don't have because we have an "obligation" to help the less fortunate is precisely the road we have taken to get us into this economic mess. We've literally mortgaged the country on excessive healthcare and military spending; I guarantee you that if more Americans shared my mindset we would be in a much better place. In fact, if you look at a map of the states and plot fiscal surpluses/deficits of each state, you might see a trend that backs my claim. This situation with the sidewalk behavior is a microcosm of that. Our ability to help others is intricately linked to our ability to finance that help. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the local government does what it's supposed to, and moves those homeless people to appropriate rehabilitative locations or shelters. Our property values would go up. If you do the math, it's easy to reach the conclusion that the increase in property values would increase the city's tax base, and thus, increase the city's ability to pay for services that would benefit the homeless. The removal of the homeless is a self-financing proposition. It may be because of selfish motives, but in the end, everybody wins. In fact, quite ironically, Earl in his response specifically says that NYC relocated the homeless as if to prove his point! If anything, it proves MY point!

As for property value, one of the reasons I purchased is specifically because of the nudie bars (ie you want to buy cheap). Sooner or later Cira II will be built, Penn will build it's park complex, and Center City and West Philly will become more intertwined. The city will sooner or later use eminent domain to rezone the nudie bars, and someone will rebuild those blocks. My holding period is quite long, and am quite happy to wait it out. No intention of leaving Philly, I actually like it here a lot and have been here a fairly long time; you don't have to be a big leftist to enjoy this town and if you think you do, then perhaps you're the one that needs to move - may I suggest San Francisco?

Lastly, I wish prosperity upon everyone, that's why I hold the views I do. Individuals acting in their own best interests often leads to the best outcome for the whole. I believe the following video sums it best (very brief, but a classic):

Regards, Alejandro

PS - I took the liberty of cc-ing the list-serv, because I assume others on the list-serv might share your views, and if anything, I feel it benefits the discussion. I have no desire to turn this list-serv into a political discussion forum, so I will cease discussing this topic. I have said what I wanted to say, if people wish to disagree that's fine with me, so long as they respect my right to my opinion.

 

That approach is just stupid and I agree with earl (but in the donation thing, I dont donate to anything. Ever.). At the end of the day, it is not my city, not even my country, but I see that mail exchange as the reflection of what is happening in the US now. The vicious cycle of bad education ==> power capture ==> inequality (due to low social mobility) ==> even worse education is very dangerous, once it starts there is no peaceful way out in the end. I dont wanna say banana republic, but will say that more and more the US starts to have very latin american behaviors. No polemic intended, as I said its not my country, nor my city. http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-2011…

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 

[quote=El_Mono]That approach is just stupid and I agree with earl (but in the donation thing, I dont donate to anything. Ever.). At the end of the day, it is not my city, not even my country, but I see that mail exchange as the reflection of what is happening in the US now. The vicious cycle of bad education ==> power capture ==> inequality (due to low social mobility) ==> even worse education is very dangerous, once it starts there is no peaceful way out in the end. I dont wanna say banana republic, but will say that more and more the US starts to have very latin american behaviors. No polemic intended, as I said its not my country, nor my city. http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-2011…]

Since you agree with Earl, can we ship our homeless over to you?

 

Oh, mokey shit XD. Sigh, do as you please, once again it is not my city/county.

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 

Your apathy is bullshit. If you are living, working and benefiting from this great nation you should give a shit. Last time I checked littering, bothering and harassing citizens because you are homeless isn't your right.

 
ANT:
Your apathy is bullshit. If you are living, working and benefiting from this great nation you should give a shit. Last time I checked littering, bothering and harassing citizens because you are homeless isn't your right.
I am unsure if you are talking about me in regard to apathy. In that is the case, I cant agree more with you, if you are living, working or benefiting from the US you should care. Nevertheless is to be noticed that I do not live, have lived nor intent to live anytime soon in the USA, furthermore I would not like to raise my children there and if I had all the money in the world would not live there either. Now, do not take this out of context, I have been in the US and find it a lovely place full of nice, proud and specially patriotic people. I have never lived in the US because when I was set to attend a university there I decided instead to pursue a masters degree in my beloved Europe. I do not intend to live there because I deem other countries present similar if not better opportunities with fairer immigration policies. Furthermore, thanks to many of my fellow latinos who live there as illegals, being a latin has its status disadvantage. I would not raise my kids there because english is the easiest language ever, better have them learn another language as kids. Finally with all the money in the world I would live in München because I love that city, but there are 20 european cities before an american, and its in Brazil.

That is why I apologize, It does not concern me your domestic policy, however as someone who has lived in different countries I just wanted to make a remark based on my beliefs from those contrasts.

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 

ANT this is hardly the answer right?

Stepping up policing of sidewalks because it's not their right to panhandle is hardly good use of police force in a metropolis with crime, where their expertise would be better served on real cases. I'd rather have them do real police work defending against violent crime, for example, instead of enforcing a sidewalk behavior bill. A solution might be to employ the funds you would have paid patrol units to enforce these homeless-side-walk-protection programs (coughpussiescough) to actually fund a solution that works.

For example, NYC has been exporting homeless people by fronting them cash to buy bus/plane tickets to get them out to any relatives residing out of state who can care for these people, assuming they have family. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/29/new-york-homeless-ticket-vo…)...seems like a good trade. According to San Diego, homeless' free consumption of state-run services (police, care, etc) is costing local gov around $200k a year (per person).

And honestly there could be money to be made here...which could also create jobs in the city of bromance...given the positive effect on property values, there's incentive...it is plausible to envision a private/public partnership whereby local business / corporations get a future stream of tax breaks for fronting some of this homeless-relocation cash today.

 
DurbanDiMangus:
...Stepping up policing of sidewalks because it's not their right to panhandle is hardly good use of police force in a metropolis with crime, where their expertise would be better served on real cases. I'd rather have them do real police work defending against violent crime, for example, instead of enforcing a sidewalk behavior bill. A solution might be to employ the funds you would have paid patrol units to enforce these homeless-side-walk-protection programs (coughpussiescough) to actually fund a solution that works...

Comments like these are simply a cop-out and always leave me baffled.

Guy with weed: "I don't know why that cop was giving me a hard time about a little weed when there are people out there driving recklessly and putting lives in danger!"

Guy driving recklessly: "I don't know why that cop was giving me a hard time about driving 10 mph over the speed limit when there are people out there robbing banks!"

Guy robbing bank: "I don't know why that cop was giving me a hard time about taking money from a greedy bank when there are murders running the streets!"

Get the point?

Unless you let us borrow your fucking Minority Report GPS that was forged from the body panels of Doc Brown's DeLorean, there is no single better place for a cop to be than in the vicinity of a potential crime especially when that crime would involve people. This would not only include the area which the OP is talking about, but would likely include "schizophrenic" homeless people within an arms reach of men, women and children.

Please explain what "real cases" police can work or is your reality reflected below?

Dispatch: "Uh, FP361, this is dispatch, over."

FP361: "Dispatch, this is FP361, go ahead."

Dispatch: "Yeah, FP361, we have reports of shots fired. Possible 2-11 in progress. Requesting immediate response as you are the primary unit in the vicinity, over."

FP361: "Dispatch, this FP361, I'm currently conducting an investigation to determine whether this homeless guy was 'actively' or 'passively' panhandling, I'm unable to respond at this time, over."

Get. Fucking. Real.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
 

Dude, I have been talking about shipping the homeless to Pittsburgh forever. Frankly, I don't care if they magically disappear, they are harassing, littering, and dangerous.

As for waste of resources, all Philadelphia has to do is stop having police in Kensington and other shit holes. Center city generates the revenue and CC is where you want to focus on. Past 34th street and past Girard, Philadelphia becomes Afghanistan.

Increase the cops in CC to keep the tax payers safe. Only makes sense since WE are the ones who support the losers. How about you keep the golden goose safe and un-bothered for once.

 

Also, I am so glad everyone runs to support the homeless, but God forbid a revenue generating, law abiding citizen wants to take their children to a landmark without crackheads pissing and washing in the fountain.

I saw a woman push her butt up against the wall and piss, during broad daylight in center city.

But yeah, the 4% rape I pay to this corrupt pisshole government makes my rights less than some bum who decided to skip school and do drugs.

 

Yeah man. 60 homeless in CC. $10.00 Mega Bus tickets. I will fund it myself.

Everyone always pities the homeless, but no one pitied me while I was killing myself working and going to school. Somehow killing yourself with hard work to achieve something isn't as valuable as making wrong decisions and now having to accept them.

 

haha, what I find funny is that Alex prefaced by saying he lives in a luxury building, only to then explain to Christine that his property across from nudie bars is actually a growth investment XD

More is good, all is better
 

I know the building and it is a luxury building. Philadelphia is retarded and allows a shithole peepshow to operate right across from two very nice apartment buildings. The place just cannot be shut down.

 

That's a subjective opinion. Some people might think that it's the only redeeming thing about that part of the city.

Regardless, I don't think that Bank of America, or Walmart, or Applebee's, or even some bigshot real estate developer should have eminent domain over the nudie bar.

More is good, all is better
 
Argonaut:
That's a subjective opinion. Some people might think that it's the only redeeming thing about that part of the city.

Regardless, I don't think that Bank of America, or Walmart, or Applebee's, or even some bigshot real estate developer should have eminent domain over the nudie bar.

Supreme Court rulings regarding eminent domain would say that they do...(wasn't always the case...lots of important cases in this field - I took real estate law, so I know of the big ones). The city can force them out if it wants to.

 
alexpasch:
Argonaut:
That's a subjective opinion. Some people might think that it's the only redeeming thing about that part of the city.

Regardless, I don't think that Bank of America, or Walmart, or Applebee's, or even some bigshot real estate developer should have eminent domain over the nudie bar.

Supreme Court rulings regarding eminent domain would say that they do...(wasn't always the case...lots of important cases in this field - I took real estate law, so I know of the big ones). The city can force them out if it wants to.

eminent domain is supposed to be about greater public good - parks, utilities, NOT letting a business with more money forcefully overtake another business' livelihood

More is good, all is better
 

Alex,

It is clear that you are a very talented debater, well thought out and intelligent repsonses. I would have liked to see the looks on Earl and Christine's faces when they read that!

P.S. You may have a career in politics.

 
Chicago85:
Alex,

It is clear that you are a very talented debater, well thought out and intelligent repsonses. I would have liked to see the looks on Earl and Christine's faces when they read that!

P.S. You may have a career in politics.

Thanks for the compliment!

If I ever made it into politics I would be a Paul, Christie, etc. type. Not give a shit about "playing the game", would just do what was right, and would make government smaller. I would also be a loose cannon and give some rather memorable quotes hahaha. I think it's relatively unlikely though; but who knows?

And yeah, I would have LOVED to have seen their faces hahaha.

 

the "logic" is by those businesses and the politician scum that is eager to feed on revenues. Except that in most cases the businesses are given "tax breaks" and preferential treatment to do business anywhere, they split as soon as the subsidies end, because if there was a prime business opportunity for them in the area, they wouldn't need incentives from the local municipality, as they would have been competing with other businesses. If the nudie bar's location was a great place for a bank, chase, BoA, and wells fargo wouldn't have the time to go and bitch to the city. They would have made sure to give the existing property owners an offer they cannot refuse and stake a claim in the area they want before the other 2 do. And the worst thing is that the taxpayers' cost of all this "public good" often far outweighs any potential benefit.

More is good, all is better
 
Best Response
Argonaut:
the "logic" is by those businesses and the politician scum that is eager to feed on revenues. Except that in most cases the businesses are given "tax breaks" and preferential treatment to do business anywhere, they split as soon as the subsidies end, because if there was a prime business opportunity for them in the area, they wouldn't need incentives from the local municipality, as they would have been competing with other businesses. If the nudie bar's location was a great place for a bank, chase, BoA, and wells fargo wouldn't have the time to go and bitch to the city. They would have made sure to give the existing property owners an offer they cannot refuse and stake a claim in the area they want before the other 2 do. And the worst thing is that the taxpayers' cost of all this "public good" often far outweighs any potential benefit.

I don't disagree with what you said, but here's some context. The nudie bars aren't the reason the two blocks have not been redeveloped. One block has an owner (a club, but not an adult club) that is holding out and a developer has offered them 3x the value and they refuse to sell. These issues are not usually as black/white as you make them out to be. For example, you could easily extend your argument and say that zoning laws are unconstitutional because they force people to do certain things in certain areas as far as real estate (and not every city has zoning laws, so there's a lot of variation as far as extremes with regard to how cities use eminent domain and real estate law).

 
alexpasch:
I don't disagree with what you said, but here's some context. The nudie bars aren't the reason the two blocks have not been redeveloped. One block has an owner (a club, but not an adult club) that is holding out and a developer has offered them 3x the value and they refuse to sell. These issues are not usually as black/white as you make them out to be.
Isn't that what you are trying to do? Buy a cheap property and sell it a few years down the road when its a lot more desirable? How would you feel if instead of buying you out at the price you deserve to get (because you took a risk investing into that real estate when not many others had, and waited for a few years), some redeveloper comes in and says fuck you alex, your shanty isn't worth what you are asking for it, how about eminent domain. The developer didn't offer them 3 times the value, you KNOW that land is a lot more valuable than the "3 times fair value", and also if the block owner were to move his business somewhere else, what the developer is offering to pay him isn't gonna be enough to do that.
alexpasch:
For example, you could easily extend your argument and say that zoning laws are unconstitutional because they force people to do certain things in certain areas as far as real estate (and not every city has zoning laws, so there's a lot of variation as far as extremes with regard to how cities use eminent domain and real estate law).
I'm cool with zoning laws. I don't think zoning laws should change to aid eminent domain, but if a neighborhood is zoned residential and commercial, and all commercial RE was bought and converted to residential use (i.e. the whole neighborhood is now residential), then there's nothing wrong with the neighbors getting together and voting to change zoning to residential only at the planning and zoning meeting. For them that ensures that when their next door neighbor sells the house, the neighborhood life is not gonna be disrupted by some truck service company opening shop on the lot.
More is good, all is better
 

alex, I was with you all the way until you said that you like Obama over some Republican candidates. I think I would take a fallen angel over Obama. I can't think of a single Republican, from Dan Quayle to Charles Montgomery Burns, who I wouldn't take over Obama. I truly hope you didn't mean that seriously.

Array
 
Virginia Tech 4ever:
alex, I was with you all the way until you said that you like Obama over some Republican candidates. I think I would take a fallen angel over Obama. I can't think of a single Republican, from Dan Quayle to Charles Montgomery Burns, who I wouldn't take over Obama. I truly hope you didn't mean that seriously.

You're really that partisan, eh? Being a good president is about more than just your political views. For example, Bush's political views, particularly on the economy (which is pretty much all I care about), are much more in line with mine than Obama's, but I would never vote for Bush. I don't believe in voting for idiots like him (or Palin), those that wish to control people socially (I don't like overly religious people, but if they understand separation of church and state, I can vote for them as long as they show intellect elsewhere) or those that strike me as of very questionable character (i.e. career politicians in it just for the power and flip flop with no conviction - Romney). The candidates whose opinions align most with mine are (as far as I can tell) Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. Other candidates I like and would almost certainly vote for (or so far like, I haven't done that much in-depth research yet since it's early in the race): Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain. No strong opinion so far on Bachmann, Huntsman, or Perry (my guess is I end up liking one or two out of these three enough to vote for them over Obama). Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney, I probably wouldn't vote for unless I thought both the House and Senate were going to be Dem. So it's something like one third or 40% of the Republican candidates I wouldn't vote for in the general election. I care about cutting spending more than anything. That's Congress's job much more than it is the President's (see how much power the Republicans are wielding on that issue now that they control the House?). For example, Clinton was forced to cut spending. If Congress is Republican, and on top of that you have a power hungry, moronic, or religious zealot as President, then you lose your checks and balances and you end up with other shitty problems, as can be clearly seen by what happened with Bush (I'm a Libertarian, not really a Republican - this is why they say Gary Johnson, as an example, has problems with the Republican "base", it's because he's really a Libertarian running as a Republican).

Also, part of why I say the above is because it's likely at least one chamber of Congress will be Republican. If I were certain that both would be Democrat, then I would probably vote against Obama almost regardless of the Republican candidate if for no other reason that I like it when bipartisanship has to occur in order for things to get done.

 
alexpasch:
Virginia Tech 4ever:
alex, I was with you all the way until you said that you like Obama over some Republican candidates. I think I would take a fallen angel over Obama. I can't think of a single Republican, from Dan Quayle to Charles Montgomery Burns, who I wouldn't take over Obama. I truly hope you didn't mean that seriously.

You're really that partisan, eh? Being a good president is about more than just your political views. For example, Bush's political views, particularly on the economy (which is pretty much all I care about), are much more in line with mine than Obama's, but I would never vote for Bush. I don't believe in voting for idiots like him (or Palin), those that wish to control people socially (I don't like overly religious people, but if they understand separation of church and state, I can vote for them as long as they show intellect elsewhere) or those that strike me as of very questionable character (i.e. career politicians in it just for the power and flip flop with no conviction - Romney). The candidates whose opinions align most with mine are (as far as I can tell) Gary Johnson and Ron Paul. Other candidates I like and would almost certainly vote for (or so far like, I haven't done that much in-depth research yet since it's early in the race): Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain. No strong opinion so far on Bachmann, Huntsman, or Perry (my guess is I end up liking one or two out of these three enough to vote for them over Obama). Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney, I probably wouldn't vote for unless I thought both the House and Senate were going to be Dem. So it's something like one third or 40% of the Republican candidates I wouldn't vote for in the general election. I care about cutting spending more than anything. That's Congress's job much more than it is the President's (see how much power the Republicans are wielding on that issue now that they control the House?). For example, Clinton was forced to cut spending. If Congress is Republican, and on top of that you have a power hungry, moronic, or religious zealot as President, then you lose your checks and balances and you end up with other shitty problems, as can be clearly seen by what happened with Bush (I'm a Libertarian, not really a Republican - this is why they say Gary Johnson, as an example, has problems with the Republican "base", it's because he's really a Libertarian running as a Republican).

Also, part of why I say the above is because it's likely at least one chamber of Congress will be Republican. If I were certain that both would be Democrat, then I would probably vote against Obama almost regardless of the Republican candidate if for no other reason that I like it when bipartisanship has to occur in order for things to get done.

Actually, I'm not being partisan at all--I didn't say I'd just take any Republican over Obama; I also said I'd take any demon from Hell over Obama. The fact that a person clearly as sane and rational as you could even consider casting a ballot for Obama given 1) the historic debt he's run up in 2 years, 2) ObamaCare, 3) Dodd-Frank, and 4) his refusal to approach entitlement reform makes me ache for my country's future. This is literally the worst president in a generation. He's so bad that he makes Bush look almost competent.

Array
 
Virginia Tech 4ever:
alex, I was with you all the way until you said that you like Obama over some Republican candidates. I think I would take a fallen angel over Obama. I can't think of a single Republican, from Dan Quayle to Charles Montgomery Burns, who I wouldn't take over Obama. I truly hope you didn't mean that seriously.

Raineer Wolfcastle/Count Chocula>Obama/Biden Part Deux

 

Actually I think the difference is pretty black and white. The highway benefits all and is accessible to all. Even the people who choose not to take it benefit, as it relieves the traffic and the wear on the route they do take. The benefit to the public is direct and easy to see.

Who benefits from building a bank of America? The builder, the bank of America, and maybe some BoA customers. The benefit to public through increased taxes bullshit is some exotic derivative that does not even begin to approach the magnitude of the benefit to BoA and the builder.

Moreover, what is the social impact of gentrifying an area by displacing the people? How does it affect their ability to build wealth through owning a home and maintain a job with a reasonable commute? How does it affect the crime rates in a society when a group of people is forcefully displaced into a lower standard of living than the had, so that another group could attain a higher standard of living than they had, with no other gain or expenditure on either side to justify such shifting ?

That's some fucking police state bullshit, trampling the American dream

More is good, all is better
 
Argonaut:
Actually I think the difference is pretty black and white. The highway benefits all and is accessible to all. Even the people who choose not to take it benefit, as it relieves the traffic and the wear on the route they do take. The benefit to the public is direct and easy to see.

Who benefits from building a bank of America? The builder, the bank of America, and maybe some BoA customers. The benefit to public through increased taxes bullshit is some exotic derivative that does not even begin to approach the magnitude of the benefit to BoA and the builder.

Moreover, what is the social impact of gentrifying an area by displacing the people? How does it affect their ability to build wealth through owning a home and maintain a job with a reasonable commute? How does it affect the crime rates in a society when a group of people is forcefully displaced into a lower standard of living than the had, so that another group could attain a higher standard of living than they had, with no other gain or expenditure on either side to justify such shifting ?

That's some fucking police state bullshit, trampling the American dream

Umm...why is the traffic relief not an exotic derivative but the higher property value is? That makes no sense.

Do you think the government is "picking" BoA (or whoever)? They are the highest bidder for the land and as such in theory the ones that can make the most profit (and if you can make the most profit, you are providing the most benefit to society, in theory). The existence of the externality is direct and easy to see. If it were not direct and easy to see, then nearby residents or the city itself would not be pushing for the change. In these instances, usually a few parties get a large benefit (developer, BoA), a lot of parties get a small benefit, and a few parties get no benefit (in theory, those which suffer a taking are made whole via remuneration). Why are you saying that's bad? Because a few parties get a larger benefit than others? Is Facebook bad because we all get a small benefit but Zuckerberg and a select few get a huge benefit? I believe that's the fallacy in your way of looking at this. In theory, no one is worse off (you can argue over the appropriate remuneration, but that's a practical concern, not a theoretical one).

The social impact of gentrifying an area by displacing people is that certain spaces have a "highest and best use" and that evolves over time. If done right, government intervention can actually make the market more efficient in these instances (keep in mind who is saying this, so I've done some research into this).

When property is seized via eminent domain, the owners receive fair market value. Their wealth is, in theory at least, unaffected. Yes, the commute difference does not qualify as a "taking" and is not remunerated, but at the same time, in these developer-led transactions, they often get more than what they would if they sold individually (because of the externality associated with getting several properties all at once - whole greater than the sum of the parts).

I don't see how you can say that the standard of living is lowered. Again, when a taking occurs, the remuneration is equal to the value of what was taken. They can then take that money and purchase property elsewhere (in theory with no better or worse crime rate as well). The argument of whether remuneration is adequate is totally different from the argument of whether the government should indeed invoke eminent domain and force people out (theory versus practice/execution). For example, if remuneration were shown to be consistently too low, then you could just adjust it upwards; doesn't mean you have to throw out eminent domain for situations such as these.

 

^^^And your counterargument will be that the current owner believes the land will have more value later and they should have the right to sell when they want to. This is true, but the problem is that most often in these cases, that is not the reason why the current owner does not want to move. More often than not, it's for sentimental reasons. I would rather run my economy on logic rather than sentiment, but that's a value judgment more than anything. And the logic still stands that if you can do it for a highway, why can't you do it for something that also has similar positive benefits on average?

Again, I'm not vehemently disagreeing with you as I share a lot of your concerns and can see both sides of the argument, but what I will vehemently disagree with you on though, is that this issue is black and white. Read some of the Supreme Court opinions on the most important cases regarding eminent domain (I did in my RE law class), you'll see that this is one of the least black and white issues in the law. It's incredibly complicated and there's more shades of grey than in a 1950s television broadcast lol.

 

Well, constitution protects pursuit of happiness. If owning a home vs. owning a house is not pursuit of happiness, I don't know what is. Bank of America can move down the block, and I personally don't believe in grazing down the entire blocks and erecting cookie cutter condos. That's what suburbs are for. A city should show its life. Preserve its historic buildings. Have varied architecture, reflecting its decades. Tearing down an architectural Victorian house to build some concrete slab monstrosity or some stoner minimalistic glass box is a crime and should be punished.

I am not denying that supreme court made those decisions, I am saying that they are unfair and unconstitutional.

More is good, all is better
 
Argonaut:
Well, constitution protects pursuit of happiness. If owning a home vs. owning a house is not pursuit of happiness, I don't know what is. Bank of America can move down the block, and I personally don't believe in grazing down the entire blocks and erecting cookie cutter condos. That's what suburbs are for. A city should show its life. Preserve its historic buildings. Have varied architecture, reflecting its decades. Tearing down an architectural Victorian house to build some concrete slab monstrosity or some stoner minimalistic glass box is a crime and should be punished.

I am not denying that supreme court made those decisions, I am saying that they are unfair and unconstitutional.

I did not say anything about cookie cutter condos, destroying historic buildings, making people unhappy, architecture, etc.

All the things you're raising are, at best, only tangentially related to eminent domain. You're attacking a straw man (nice try though). Nothing you said actually refutes my position.

FYI, under your pursuit of happiness criteria, then the highway example (which you were ok with) is also barred from eminent domain. Your argument is flawed.

Lastly, you can say you think they are unfair (since this is a personal opinion), but you can't say they're unconstitutional (since this is just not true). You can't say something is unconstitutional when the Supreme Court has declared it constitutional via their decisions.

 

The takings clause says "public use", and not "public purpose" or "public benefit". Highway is, without doubt, public use. Bank of America - no.

The decision by the supreme court was by no means unanimous.

Judge Sandra Day O'Connor had the same objection I do.

More is good, all is better
 

alex, I'm going to have to disagree with you on ObamaCare. I could literally write a 10,000 word essay on the damage that it has and will cause. I'd be happy to provide you with a 1/5th summary of it if you'd like. I'm confident that any rational person who actually studies the ObamaCare bill would find that it is literally one of the worst pieces of legislation ever made in American history. RomneyCare and ObamaCare have nothing really in common other than the individual mandate, which is constitutional at the state level.

In terms of spending, umm, no--there's not a single Republican on the national stage that would have SPENT $1 trillion in a Keynesian stimulus package that was sold as temporary only to have it written into the permanent budget. Once again, I'm confident that no rational person who looks at the facts of the stimulus bill would ever ascribe it to a Republican, even a Republican prone to deficit spending. The bill was jam packed with pork--not military spending--but straight-up pork, which was made permanent in the budget baseline.

In terms of entitlements, yes, Congress has to re-write entitlements but Obama, from day one, has demagogued the issue. Again, I think you're a rational guy who just hasn't followed the news that closely. Remember back in March? Obama gave a nationally televised address in which he invited Paul Ryan to attend, only to eviscerate Paul Ryan verbally, lying and demagoguing the issue of entitlement reform. Without executive leadership (or at the very least without eliminating executive demagoguery), entitlement reform is impossible.

alex, your problem is the issue a lot of Americans have: you're a rational, intelligent patriot who has basically been too busy to follow and learn the issues with any type of intellectual depth. I think if you understood nothing else except ObamaCare you would find it impossible to support Obama in 2012. I don't care if Obama cured cancer with his eyes, if you understood ObamaCare you'd never give this so-called president a second thought in November 2012. And again I'm happy to provide a detailed summary of the garbage that will be forever known as ObamaCare.

Array
 
Virginia Tech 4ever:
alex, I'm going to have to disagree with you on ObamaCare. I could literally write a 10,000 word essay on the damage that it has and will cause. I'd be happy to provide you with a 1/5th summary of it if you'd like. I'm confident that any rational person who actually studies the ObamaCare bill would find that it is literally one of the worst pieces of legislation ever made in American history. RomneyCare and ObamaCare have nothing really in common other than the individual mandate, which is constitutional at the state level.

In terms of spending, umm, no--there's not a single Republican on the national stage that would have SPENT $1 trillion in a Keynesian stimulus package that was sold as temporary only to have it written into the permanent budget. Once again, I'm confident that no rational person who looks at the facts of the stimulus bill would ever ascribe it to a Republican, even a Republican prone to deficit spending. The bill was jam packed with pork--not military spending--but straight-up pork, which was made permanent in the budget baseline.

In terms of entitlements, yes, Congress has to re-write entitlements but Obama, from day one, has demagogued the issue. Again, I think you're a rational guy who just hasn't followed the news that closely. Remember back in March? Obama gave a nationally televised address in which he invited Paul Ryan to attend, only to eviscerate Paul Ryan verbally, lying and demagoguing the issue of entitlement reform. Without executive leadership (or at the very least without eliminating executive demagoguery), entitlement reform is impossible.

alex, your problem is the issue a lot of Americans have: you're a rational, intelligent patriot who has basically been too busy to follow and learn the issues with any type of intellectual depth. I think if you understood nothing else except ObamaCare you would find it impossible to support Obama in 2012. I don't care if Obama cured cancer with his eyes, if you understood ObamaCare you'd never give this so-called president a second thought in November 2012. And again I'm happy to provide a detailed summary of the garbage that will be forever known as ObamaCare.

I have studied ObamaCare. I don't like the law. But there was a ton of demagoguery from the Republicans that actually prevented a better bill from being passed. I worked in PE in a healthcare-services-focused firm, I know what's going on with healthcare.

Didn't Bush pass like $700B in 2008? There's one Republican. Trust me, Romney, at the very least, would have pushed through similar spending. Politicians have a long track record of doing whatever will get them reelected. Notice how some of them have retrenched on the Ryan plan since that loss in upstate NY (Pawlenty is a surprising example). You're giving these guys more credit than they deserve based on their past actions (i.e. at least half of them voted for or supported spending increases last decade). I like Johnson and Paul the most because they have very clear records that they will cut spending drastically no matter what.

You will see demagoguery on the Republican side as well. Look at how they refused to let the Bush tax cuts expire. You may be anti spending, and argue that it's mostly a spending issue, but letting those cuts expire would've given you a powerful bargaining chip against the Dems. Instead, now they have the bargaining chip. In fact, if my only option were to raise taxes, well then I guess that's what you'd have to do, right? The Republicans said "oh, but you can't raise taxes in a recession, especially on small business owners, the job providers!". Now the Democrats can say "oh, well we can't cut spending in a recession, especially because during a recession the poor have nothing to fall back on...and look at you guys...keeping tax cuts for the wealthy and not helping the budget that way!". The Republicans arguments were partisan and counter to reaching an agreement on fixing the budget. That was not a time to fight, it was a time to give the Democrats something they really wanted and get something back in return.

I don't see how you can say one side is a demagogue and the other one isn't. Have you ever heard of Fox News? Do you know how many factually incorrect statements are passed off as fact on that channel? The level of hyperbole and sensationalism and demagoguery on that channel is ridiculous (and MSNBC is just as bad, just on the other side of the spectrum). I have stopped watching both of those channels because they are nothing but partisan spinshops.

For example, since you are so focused on ObamaCare. During the debate, one of the great bits of demagoguery from the Republicans was that ObamaCare would cut benefits to Medicare recipients and that this was to be avoided at all costs. Isn't that exactly what we need to do to cut spending (in fact it's a big part of the Paul Ryan plan)? How can you chastise Democrats for wanting to do that? Why? Because they wanted to be demagogues and avoid passing the bill even if they had to make one of the GOOD parts look bad. That to me signals a lack of desire to truly cut spending. Same thing for "death panels". The government pays for senior citizens healthcare. For example, we can pull the plug on grandma, or we can spend $300K to keep her alive for 3 more months at a low quality of life. Does that sound reasonable to you? But no, let's call it a "death panel" and scare the shit out of everybody (insurance companies have "death panels" too, fyi). I was very disturbed by what the Republicans pointed out as the main problems with ObamaCare. They missed the true flaws completely, and almost never discussed them (probably because it's beyond most of their heads - most of these people are pretty fucking stupid). I was not impressed, to say the least. Now, the Republicans are saying let's cut Medicare, and just lost a race in NYC and are now thinking of scaling back their plans. Politicians, by and large, are spineless demagogues who will put themselves ahead of the American people.

I think the funny part of your comment is the cognitive dissonance your post exhibits (look it up if you don't know what it is, psych concept). Something like "Alex is really smart and I tend to agree with him, but I don't here. I'm also really smart, so what's going on? Well, Alex must just not have done his homework on this one, or he's being irrational" must have gone on in your head, at least on a subliminal level. I can assure you that I have done my homework when it comes to political issues.

 

^Btw, if it wasn't clear above. The main issue with healthcare in this country is that government subsidizes it and the free market doesn't work there. Because of this, prices just keep going up (college tuition is another great example). The Republicans main retorts to ObamaCare concerned areas that, without a doubt, would have actually REDUCED government subsidies to healthcare. Does ObamaCare make healthcare even less of a free market? Yes, that's why it's a bad law. But the Republicans provide me with any evidence that they can do better? No, not at all. Forcing people to buy insurance is a good thing, because it means the government has to subsidize free riders a lot less. Forcing cuts in Medicare spending and death panels are good things, too. That these were the main things the Republicans picked on makes absolutely no sense. It's an extremely sad issue, because healthcare is actually not a difficult thing to fix at all. What is most reasonable is to have a largely free market healthcare system were people are forced to buy insurance (without a government subsidy) but insurance companies are free to compete with minimal regulation but that still provides basic, minimalist care to the less fortunate. Have the insurance companies compete and provide your free market function, individuals can decide who they want to go with (and the insurance should be sold directly to the individual, not the employer). I actually want to see a fucking commercial on TV telling me why I should get Aetna instead of Blue Cross or Wellpoint. That's how a free market is supposed to work. Remove the government subsidies but have a very basic safety net (i.e. no more $500K heart transplants for 70 year olds with terminal cancer - and yes, Medicare would pay for something like that). This country has screwed up healthcare so badly that it just boggles the mind. I could fix all the healthcare problems with something like a 10 page bill, lol.

 
Argonaut:
Start writing to your congressman and get the people on your cause. you don't need to be the president to make things happen ya know :)

I do plan to get at least minimally involved in politics once I actually have the personal funds to influence politicians. Unfortunately that's how the system works. No point in writing letters in the meantime (they don't read them, trust me).

 

Hush LevFiend. Obama is bringing about change. Doesn't matter how inexperienced he is, this is all about CHANGE.

That change being war in Libya, anti Israel sentiment, antagonistic policy toward China and Russia, etc.

I strongly dislike Obama. You know what I dislike more than Obama? The America voting public. Obama has a 48% approval rating. You know what that tells me? The people who vote are moody, fickle people who have no clue what they are doing. Obama is exactly how I thought he would be. That is why I didn't vote for him. All those morons who pulled the lever for Obama and now are "disappointed" in him make me want to puke. Stand by your man.

Lesson of the day people. Get money and forget about politics. It is a game of distraction.

 

ANT, how dare you question the man that singlehandedly hunted down Osama and brought him to justice. God damn Commie.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer "Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee
 

Hahah, I know right.

I really dislike wishy washy people. I still support Bush and whether I am right or wrong, at least I stick by my decisions.

South Park really illustrated the Obama phenomena. People got caught up in this change bullshit and now they turned on their man. Complete bullshit. Obama is the golden boy and acting exactly like this. How people have turned on him so fast is beyond me. I also love how American's elect people with the goal of solving their program. How is Obama going to change the fact that you failed to get an education or decided to max out your home equity and buy a range rover.

People are so dumb. Everyone quotes how the majority of wealthy is controlled by a small % of people. No shit. The majority of people are dumb as shit. You could take all the wealth from the wealthy and give it to the majority of people and in a year they will be broke as shit and complaining about some other issue.

Libya is really egg on Obama's face. He condemns Bush and then does the same damn thing.

 

Despite that, I still think Bush did a pretty bad job, even if Obama is worse.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer "Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee
 

One thing I like about Obama, is that one day he goes around kissing ass and throwing peace signs, even gets a freaking Nobel peace prize, then bam - starts throwing his weight around and threatening governments. Dudes in the middle east are probably scratching their heads right now - like WTF? How should this be interpreted?

So Obama's bipolar foreign policy is def keeping them fuckers on their toes XD

More is good, all is better
 

The flash mobs and kids causing trouble on the streets of Philly are definitely a problem, esp during the summer when school is out. People get harassed, beat up and threatened in the major parks, subway concourses and sidewalks all the time. There was even shooting in front an H and M which is located in a very busy area of the city. The city is definitely a shithole. The other week I witnessed a lady getting grouped on the subway.

BTW I live in the Osteria building north of City Hall.

 
jaydee1101:
The flash mobs and kids causing trouble on the streets of Philly are definitely a problem, esp during the summer when school is out. People get harassed, beat up and threatened in the major parks, subway concourses and sidewalks all the time. There was even shooting in front an H and M which is located in a very busy area of the city. The city is definitely a shithole. The other week I witnessed a lady getting grouped on the subway.

BTW I live in the Osteria building north of City Hall.

I drove through North Philly to the suburbs and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and a third-world, war-torn shithole. Trash littered the sidewalks. It was disgusting how far people go to disregard their own community. Let's hope Center City doesn't go that far down the gutter. I like the city, but I like NYC better.

 

Center City is relatively nice, but the city is fighting a losing battle. The schools are shit and the suburbs are just too nice to stay in the city for long.

The best way to fix Philadelphia is to enact draconian criminal penalties and simply throw the trash in jail.

Look at the demographics oh Philadelphia. All you need to know.

 
ANT:
Center City is relatively nice, but the city is fighting a losing battle. The schools are shit and the suburbs are just too nice to stay in the city for long.

The best way to fix Philadelphia is to enact draconian criminal penalties and simply throw the trash in jail.

Look at the demographics oh Philadelphia. All you need to know.

Yup, take a page out of the ol' Singapore playbook. There's no willingness among the people to actually enact such legislation. Philly is a simple city to understand. Very nice urban center. Then a ring of shit around it. Then an outer ring of really nice suburbs. Similar pattern to NYC, just on a smaller scale because it's a smaller city.

 

I got stopped 3 times by bums with stories on Saturday, walking around BTW. The biggest issue with Philly is all the working professionals live outside the city and cannot vote. So you have a minority shouldering all the costs, while being held hostage by a freeloading majority.

Really sad that the very people who depend on the sweat and labor of others ruin it and make this city unfriendly to those whom they depend on.

 

Well, yea, but at the same time there are people that want to own land and not live in a box their whole lives. Most people don't think of it like, "hey I'm screwing these guys over." It's more of a, "hey, I can have a large house, a garage, and an acre of land or two for the same price as a luxury 3 br 3 ba apartment. And lower taxes? Hell yea!"

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer "Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee
 

You shouldn't feel the need to apologize for not wanting to live in the US, it's personal preference, and as a US citizen I feel there are a good number of places in the world that are better options. However, I do feel the need to point out that English is a very hard language to learn to fluency because there are so many more rules, irregular verbs, etc.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer "Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee
 
D M:
You shouldn't feel the need to apologize for not wanting to live in the US, it's personal preference, and as a US citizen I feel there are a good number of places in the world that are better options. However, I do feel the need to point out that English is a very hard language to learn to fluency because there are so many more rules, irregular verbs, etc.
I am not apologizing for not wanting to live there, but for involving in a Philadelphia argument. Regarding the language, I have a hard time thinking of an easier language to learn than english, no femenin/masculin/neutro, no declinations, no extra characters and a ton of material available in that language for all tastes to practice.
Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 
ANT:
Sweet, stay the fuck out. English is one of the hardest languages btw. Also happens to be the business language of the world.

How is English one of the hardest languages.

More is good, all is better
 

Quod ratione et doloribus pariatur. Blanditiis vel explicabo aliquam minima optio quia et. Vel asperiores sit minus delectus in.

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 

Est fuga ut voluptatem voluptates. Natus voluptatum blanditiis ab itaque quae nemo ut libero. Iusto ad deserunt magni velit eum sit repudiandae.

Dolores ut voluptas aut incidunt porro nam. Voluptatem esse qui praesentium. Et sit eos minima. Et quisquam exercitationem consequuntur omnis qui. Quod numquam ab incidunt consequatur pariatur.

Quam ab veritatis suscipit ipsum ratione ad mollitia. Eaque est itaque quos possimus ea laborum voluptatem. Dolorem repellendus corporis possimus excepturi omnis et.

Et molestiae odio id facere. Culpa numquam voluptas ab ut modi omnis. Consequatur et explicabo ut nihil quia. Non odio voluptatem itaque doloribus.

"You stop being an asshole when it sucks to be you." -IlliniProgrammer "Your grammar made me wish I'd been aborted." -happypantsmcgee
 

Deserunt qui et molestiae itaque. At id aut et perspiciatis repellat facilis autem. Qui illo deserunt reprehenderit consequatur et.

Sed quas eum laboriosam. Nobis consequuntur culpa cum consequatur sapiente porro rerum. Est at aut odio omnis est. Corrupti sequi aut ullam harum rem perferendis nemo.

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!
 

Natus ut voluptas tempore asperiores laboriosam. Quam laborum qui quos provident blanditiis. Placeat a et dolorem optio culpa. Amet nihil officiis eos vel eligendi.

Porro dolore dolores et quibusdam vel quis. Sunt dolore molestiae est delectus et aut quis velit. Minus iusto reprehenderit ut vel et vero. Molestiae ea voluptate earum consequuntur.

Explicabo nihil beatae maiores similique nostrum suscipit voluptate. Omnis laudantium et praesentium expedita. Quia quia ut molestiae aperiam. Saepe molestias enim libero fuga vero. Excepturi et qui iure maxime. Sequi sunt eum expedita iusto autem aut in. Quia et deleniti explicabo aut nobis omnis provident.

Quis aperiam est aut eveniet voluptas est qui. Vel exercitationem dignissimos ut ut perspiciatis totam est. Ea et eos eaque in fugiat necessitatibus doloribus.

Valor is of no service, chance rules all, and the bravest often fall by the hands of cowards. - Tacitus Dr. Nick Riviera: Hey, don't worry. You don't have to make up stories here. Save that for court!

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (85) $262
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (65) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (198) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
3
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
4
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
5
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
6
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
98.9
7
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
8
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
9
pudding's picture
pudding
98.8
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”