Temporarily yes but my understanding is that displaced tenants get first choice of the new affordable units in these sorts of situations.
I cannot recall if they get lower rates or are offered the new units at market, the latter of which absolutely would force them out. The sense I get is that it is the minority of rent-controlled apartment tenants whose income have outstripped their monthly rent so most people would not be able to afford a jump in rent from say $900/month to $2000/month, which seems pretty feasible in this market.
The grass is greener where you water it. 🤷🏾♀️
I'm pretty sure it's $25 now. And well worth it.
Lmao, that shit will get stolen or vandalized so fast. Would you leave even $100 on the ground in the garage and expect it to be there when you get back?
My partner lived in luxury apartments in the Marina and, after seeing all of the bikes with missing seats, wheels and sometimes frames in the designated, locked bike parking within the private garage, I only locked my bike up in there once or twice and then never again.
I only lock my ~$600 bike up outside for short periods of time or in front of building/venue security. Otherwise it is indoors with me or in a private yard or building.
Yeah, you only pay processing fees per movie on top of the $30/month. The season pass cost depends on your location, with my area being one of the more expensive ones. I think it's about $20/month on average for most season passes but haven't checked in a while.
If I went to four movies a month and didn't get any food or drink, my spend per movie would be about $9.50 including convenience fees.
Honestly? I generally go alone. I would not describe myself as a cinephile but I originally signed up for the Season Pass because I love movies and the premise of bringing ticket costs down to about $12 a show was the hook. It's also incredibly convenient for me, as I can get to my local Alamo in about twenty minutes via multiple modes of transportation.
As you say, I actually end up spending about $40 per movie because I enjoy the food and getting a beer or cocktail and leave a 20% tip but, for me, that's not that big of a deal as one half of a DINK couple. I'm still working on ordering less when I go to optimize my cost per movie down to the aforementioned $12 or less but the hit to my wallet is relatively insignificant, certainly less the hit to my waistline. I make about $90k pretax but I live in a HCoL so I wouldn't consider myself wealthy by any measure but I also don't have children to worry about so there's much less concern about treating myself.
In general, I prefer to watch movies with other people who respect the experience of others so the no talking and no texting rule at the Alamo is probably the primary reason I still go, even though there are often still audience members who believe their experience is more important than that of everyone near them. Disruptive guests and children are few and far between and management will address serious issues with talkers when they arise, which helps keep the moviegoing experience pleasant overall.
The special programming and repertory shows are also wonderful, giving me the chance to regularly see films in theaters that debuted before I was born. Seeing movies like eXistenZ, Used Cars and Alien on the big screen is a delight.
So it comes down to, yes, pretty much everything you said. Fewer annoying people who think they have anything to offer during a movie and also lack the self-respect, self-control and maturity to sit quietly for two hours, a generally like-minded audience of movie lovers, decently tasty food and drink, and quality programming. In my huge metropolitan area, going to an AMC, Regal or Cinemark usually means going to a touristy part of town I hate and that isn't very convenient to get to so, for me, the Alamo Season Pass made the most sense. It'll make even more sense if I can muster the self-control to just get a water and bring a $5 bill to tip my server.
The fact that you can say this without any cognitive dissonance, which might lead you to look it up and learn it's false, is wild. Bernie's not on the ballot so why are you even going after him?
It's incumbent upon each of us to be educated, skeptical voters. It doesn't really matter in this case because Sanders isn't running for anything besides his current Senate seat but it's wild to me that you didn't blink twice at the idea of Sanders being instrumental to an anti-union capitalist being installed as postmaster general.
You can show up whenever you want and order and eat at the bar. At least you can at the DTLA location so I assume it's similar elsewhere.
Just get or keep your on-campus job. The job market is tight in LA right now and many older, out-of-work folks will be competing with you for low-level jobs.
It means they need an emotional support flag to demonstrate to everyone just how patriotic they are. You can be certain they cherish the rights they believe they have and resent the rights they believe people they don't like have. They don't actually know anything about the law or what rights anyone has but they are certain, to their bones, that their opinions are fact.
Thank you, I'm glad someone else figured it out too! These shitty ads are obviously a cover for Veronica, the dog, to practice human law as a canine. There's no shot the dead-eyed woman in the ads is a lawyer. This situation is just like Ratatouille but with ambulance chasing and a German Shepherd.
Right? My first thought was Zankou because it's a good amount of food and travels well but that's still going to be $15-20/person if folks get combos.
Their best bet is putting together some sort of a la carte situation from a Mediterranean place and praying they order enough food, which is a specific sort of stress I'm not interested in. A picnic where people might go hungry? Oof.
OP, ask your friends besides the birthday person to kick you $10 on Venmo to soften the blow. Your $60 on top of $90 might make this doable.
That's so interesting because I go to the TCL Chinese relatively often and never once stepped foot in the mall it's now attached to because I assumed it was garbage for tourists. I guess that means it's garbage for no one.
Oh, no, not at all. I was saying that public transit is widely perceived as for poor people here, which bums me out coming from the northeast where everyone takes the trains because it's more convenient. Even though LA Metro has made great strides to improve transit routes and timing, folks here still balk at even considering hopping on the train and would rather take their car. Most folks never even learn what public transit they do have access to and just tell others there's nothing by or for them.
I grew up in Boston, what's your point? Car culture absolutely plays a role here. I take it you're saying you have regularly taken the train in NYC over the last five years and thus have a perfect comparison point on how safe you *feel?* Because that's what it comes down to, how safe you feel and not how safe you are. NYC also experienced a spike in crime during the pandemic and have been, like LA, investing in additional security and police presence. Growing up in a city with ubiquitous public transit is one of the things that helped me identify the classism present in discussions of LA transit. Not to mention that folks will often look down on people who don't own a car, whether by choice or inability to afford one, which, hey, smacks of classism!
One of the reasons the Metro is so underserved is that many Angelenos look down on it and don't ride it as much as folks in NYC might. Higher ridership results in increased revenue which can lead to improvements in security and safety. Higher ridership also makes the subway safer because bad actors are more likely to cause trouble with fewer eyes on them.
For some context on NYC's big push to increase riders' sense of safety since the spike in 2020: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/06/nyregion/nyc-subway-crime.html
Here's a salient quote from the NYT article: "Still, some riders are anxious. 'Perception becomes reality for people,' said Lisa Daglian, executive director of the authority’s Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee, a watchdog group. 'If you look at crime reports that numbers are going down, but you hear your neighbors say that they’re afraid to ride, then that becomes your reality.'
It's important to remember that your feelings don't necessarily represent reality or fact.
I didn't say that everyone in LA County must take public transit as it doesn't work for everyone, especially in NIMBY areas like yours that fight any attempts to introduce light rail. I'm not sure I'll ever understand LA drivers getting so worked up about other people simply saying that public transit isn't as bad as naysayers aver. I hope you do some introspection about why my relatively neutral, observational comment got to you.
Don't get upset with someone on the Internet because your neighborhood is fighting against better public transportation for you. I'm not the reason transit in your area sucks. Vote locally for a better situation for you and your neighbors.
Yeah, I think it really does come down to classism, elitism and Angelenos' lack of familiarity with other modes of transportation. Angelenos just aren't very versed in traditional metropolitan city navigation so anything other than driving is perceived as alien or a dire inconvenience to many of us, including walking an extra block or two.
That said, OP's perception of the Metro employee and police presence is accurate but also a more recent development. After poor Mirna Soza was killed, they increased Ambassador and police presence greatly and started doing more regular fare checks and my rides on the train have been much calmer for it.
The reason it feels this way is that the LEOs contracted to patrol the Metro stopped doing so during the pandemic. After Metro raised concerns about things like the police and sheriff's deputies sitting in their cars and not patrolling stations or trains, resulting in strained negotiations for contract renewal, the officers basically went on strike.
This led to a major uptick in folks using the Metro as a moving homeless shelter and, because there are no police present, bad actors have felt empowered to do as they please. It's essentially what happened with dangerous drivers during the pandemic: the police and sheriff's department were told they couldn't or shouldn't pull drivers over for small infractions like out of date tags or tinted windows because they overwhelmingly negatively affected POC (shocking, I know) and their response was to stop policing traffic violations almost entirely. Once drivers realized there were few repercussions for breaking the laws of the road, folks started driving much more wildly.
Anyway, I basically saw zero enforcement or Metro security presence of any kind from mid-2020 until a few months ago, when it appeared as though police officers and Metro ambassadors started showing up more consistently and in much larger numbers. I see small groups of police almost every time I take the train now.
Metro hasn't handled these situations perfectly but a lot of blame lies with law enforcement refusing to do the jobs they are paid to do via our taxes.
Traffic stops: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-11-14/minor-traffic-stops-plummet-in-months-after-lapd-policy-change
Metro contract issues: https://laist.com/news/transportation/metro-board-extends-police-contract-with-la-explores-option-for-in-house-police-force
If you're a pedestrian, cyclist, on a scooter, or using basically any mode of transportation other than a car, you have to proceed as if you're invisible. That's the only way to be safe around LA drivers: imagine they can't see you. Even if you make direct eye contact with a driver, do not assume they have recognized you as a living being unless they obviously are waving you to cross ahead of them.
The reality is, as someone else said, many drivers simply don't care and are impatient enough to play what I call Rushing Roulette, risking their lives and ours. Be safe out there.
Some folks are trying to make "Search Action Game" happen. I like it because it might actually make sense to someone not familiar with games but good luck getting most people who use the term "Metroidvania" to switch.
It's pretty straightforward. We're currently housing people at record rates but more are losing their housing at a faster rate than these programs can keep up with. It's not a very complicated premise. If you cut the funding we do have, many of the 33,000 people we have provided assistance to will be back on the street along with the ever-increasing numbers of newly homeless. That's the reality you're stumping for: a situation that is tangibly worse than the path we're currently on even if the quarter-cent tax was implemented in perpetuity. It's basic math.
And when you say this point is moot because the situation is already bad, I have no choice but to disagree because we are so far from the worst case scenario right now and anyone can see that. It can and will get worse without the current sales tax funding, which dries up in 2027 if the new measure doesn't pass in November. The new measure earmarks funds to address housing insecurity and identify residents in danger of losing their homes in addition to providing legal support to residents during eviction proceedings. With the rising CoL, more and more people are experiencing housing insecurity every day and the proposed policy has preventative measures built in to stem the flow of Angelenos onto the streets. This is what I mean by having to explain policies to you, as you would know some of these things if you engaged with the actual documents or even read an entire article about it, taking in both the Pro and Anti stances offered. You didn't literally ask for policy breakdowns but your utter lack of knowledge forces the person you're arguing with to do your research for you and bring you the information you should already have as an educated voter.
Finally, there's no need for you to flat out lie about voting for this if you had a good reason. You've already demonstrated your disdain for the homeless and your belief that none of them can ever contribute to society or even hold onto stable housing so you don't have to pretend to be a pragmatic, empathetic person. Just own it.
That would be insanely bad PR on a number of axes so I doubt they'll go that route. Sending a message that students can't defend themselves when they feel threatened by others in the community would almost certainly be an international headline and SC loves that good, good international grad student cashflow.
Well, you've repeatedly made it clear you don't understand these concepts so apologies for taking what you present as your knowledge base at face value. Should you demonstrate any understanding of how these things work, I'll be more than happy to reassess. It's easy to say you are involved in a field but you've shown no knowledge or understanding of the topics at hand. For context, I have well over $20m worth of built projects out in the world just in the last few years and I work on the design side, so you would have to actually demonstrate understanding of what we're talking about for me to take you seriously.
You also seem not to understand that government investments have the responsibility of spending money and getting a return on that investment over time. It's fairly straightforward and playing dumb about having to spend money as an investment in our future makes zero sense. Social programs often yield a very solid return on investment down the line.
Personal finances are incredibly different than government investment in social programs and all you've done by making a comparison between the two is demonstrate yet another thing you don't understand on a conceptual level. C'mon. The better comparison would be between the 35% I'm saving with an expected higher ROI down the line though the arrow to get to those returns is different. My financial plan is partially based on money I do not currently have but will receive/earn turning into more money in the future based on my investment strategies. I can plan and invest based on projected income, as governmental bodies do with taxes. Do you also argue against investment in childrens' services? Anyway, I'm not here to give you a civics lesson; it's your responsibility to be an educated voter and learn about the policies relevant to you and their effects, not to react emotionally and put us in a worse position than we're already in.
Do these homelessness initiatives need serious work and more accountability? Yes. Does it make sense to kneecap them and/or reverse the investment, leaving nothing in the way of the rapidly increasing homelessness crisis? Not even a little. Letting "perfect" be the enemy of "good" is a foolish and shortsighted way to proceed and I, for one, am against further regression that will only exacerbate the problem.
I think you've somehow misunderstood their point despite its brevity.
During the height of the pandemic, remote work gave domestic employees a lot more freedom and bargaining power relative to prospective employers because employees were not constrained by their location. Now that remote work is here to stay in a much broader fashion, businesses are hiring internationally which has greatly reduced the leverage domestic workers in tech had previously.
The person above is saying the tables have now turned and employers are using remote work to lay off workers, reduce pay domestically and hire internationally.
Laid off from the tech industry, put in 250 applications and no responses - what is going on?
Layoffs