By now you probably know that Craigslist sucks as a way to sell stuff.
Uh, no it doesn't. I never got a single spam, and I've sold about 10 things (mostly electronic) over the last year. Not one of hte people flaked on me or tried to haggle once I met them. Yeah, they haggled before (on the phone or via email), but once I met them, everyone was nice and kept to the agreed upon price.
I've had enough flakers and hagglers that I now post warnings in all ads:
1 - I refuse to hold anything (first person to show up with cash takes it)
2 - no haggling on the spot; I'll turn you down on principle
It's a fucking hassle. I buy a new macbook every 12-18 months and craigslist the old one (and the same with phones). I take good care of my hardware and carefully point out any scratches or nicks in the craigslist listing. People still try to knock you down 10% or 20% when they come.
Well, she'd like to give us all a pretty liberal helping of surveillance...
"I will not vote for her again. Anyone but her."
This is an odd time to have reached that point; I don't see anything objectionable about her complaint here, or even its relationship with what her earlier positions (which I oppose).
More than that. Rents for apartments have doubled in the last year in Oakland, says my friend who owns a lot of diverse properties in the East Bay, so you know it's much worse in SF.
not necessarily; the relative desirability of oakland might have increased faster than the relative desirability of san francisco, compared to their respective 2008 values
My 2008 Toyota Highlander has had like 3-4 recalls that I had to go into the dealer for. The last of which was software. And, I'm not counting the one where I pulled in for a service and the dude said "whoa, your tires are falling apart" and I got 5 brand new tires. I had 15k miles on the originals.
This is the wrong fight. Protester vs. Googler is a distraction. There are other, root causes of the problem that make the protesters angry, and doing this might relieve some frustration for them, but it does no good, and arguably does harm to their cause and gets us no closer to real solutions.
Back in the 70's, Berkeley, a close neighbor, decided that rent control was the answer. It turns out that it helped, but it had too many unintended consequences (people living in $200 nice apartments for decades when they made really good money, thus completely defeating the purpose of rent control).
So, rent control didn't work, at least not in the way it was done in Berkeley. Did it work in SF? Doesn't seem to have. NYC? I hear nightmare stores of their issues.
It's the dialog of the greater problems we need to have, not these stupid little fights.
Abolishing rent control might be the big-picture answer, but in the micro- scheme, the protestors will never rally for that.
They really don't have a winning play that I can think of; the spat is basically just them lashing out at the only thing they can think to lash out at. They are in the unenviable position of living at low cost in low density housing in a locality that is shooting up in value, and all they can do is attempt to forestall the inevitable.
More rent control doesn't help them. Rent control for everybody means the wealthy pay less on rent too. Rent control for only the poor doesn't work, and Section 8 is too unpopular for them to roll out a widespread program like that for everybody who doesn't work for Google.
