Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Hondo Bros, list for me the reasons you believe are responsible...
Comments
-
Why the President, haven't you been paying attention Race?RaceBannon said:
So who would be responsible for funding infrastructure and housing and who has made new housing stock prohibitively expensive through regulation? And now - Rent Control!!!!HHusky said:
The quality of life in most places diminishes when they experience rapid population increases with no comparable increase in infrastructure, housing or services. Thus my comment about the wall. It's hard to imagine this comes as news to you, but perhaps you don't get out much.SFGbob said:
So you have no explanation or reason why the quality of life in West Coast cities has diminished. Got it.HHusky said:
We have open borders with the rest of the country. Maybe we need a wall.SFGbob said:
Has the quality of life in west coast cites decreased in the last 10 years O'Keefed? Are the cities cleaner or are they dirtier? Can you list for us the reasons why you believe that might be the case? Are these question too fucking tough for a liberal Kunt to answer?HHusky said:
I guess quality of life is pretty ideal in the rest of the nation's cities. Toledo's calling you, blob.SFGbob said:for the diminishing quality of life issues facing most all of our west coast cities?
And yes Hondo, your claim that it's all a myth designed to make liberal cities look bad and the problems aren't that great will be accepted as an answer. There is no wrong answer.
First of all is it even really a problem?
If yes, what's the reason(s) for it.
Does the increase in human shit and piss in the streets increase or decrease the quality of life in urban areas? -
Bob lies by omission.SFGbob said:
So people are shitting and pissing and doing drugs in the streets more today in SF due to rapid increase in population? Interesting because the population here in SF is only slightly larger than it was in the 1950s and in terms of rapid increase in the cities population growth the growth rates today pale in comparison to what they were in the 1930s 40s and 50s and that's when the city spent next to nothing on services and yet you didn't have people shitting in the streets back then.HHusky said:
The quality of life in most places diminishes when they experience rapid population increases with no comparable increase in infrastructure, housing or services. Thus my comment about the wall. It's hard to imagine this comes as news to you, but perhaps you don't get out much.SFGbob said:
So you have no explanation or reason why the quality of life in West Coast cities has diminished. Got it.HHusky said:
We have open borders with the rest of the country. Maybe we need a wall.SFGbob said:
Has the quality of life in west coast cites decreased in the last 10 years O'Keefed? Are the cities cleaner or are they dirtier? Can you list for us the reasons why you believe that might be the case? Are these question too fucking tough for a liberal Kunt to answer?HHusky said:
I guess quality of life is pretty ideal in the rest of the nation's cities. Toledo's calling you, blob.SFGbob said:for the diminishing quality of life issues facing most all of our west coast cities?
And yes Hondo, your claim that it's all a myth designed to make liberal cities look bad and the problems aren't that great will be accepted as an answer. There is no wrong answer.
First of all is it even really a problem?
If yes, what's the reason(s) for it.
Does the increase in human shit and piss in the streets increase or decrease the quality of life in urban areas?
So, yes this does come as news to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco–Oakland–Berkeley,_CA_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area#Demographics -
They shit on the sidewalks in Oakland, too.2001400ex said:
Bob lies by omission.SFGbob said:
So people are shitting and pissing and doing drugs in the streets more today in SF due to rapid increase in population? Interesting because the population here in SF is only slightly larger than it was in the 1950s and in terms of rapid increase in the cities population growth the growth rates today pale in comparison to what they were in the 1930s 40s and 50s and that's when the city spent next to nothing on services and yet you didn't have people shitting in the streets back then.HHusky said:
The quality of life in most places diminishes when they experience rapid population increases with no comparable increase in infrastructure, housing or services. Thus my comment about the wall. It's hard to imagine this comes as news to you, but perhaps you don't get out much.SFGbob said:
So you have no explanation or reason why the quality of life in West Coast cities has diminished. Got it.HHusky said:
We have open borders with the rest of the country. Maybe we need a wall.SFGbob said:
Has the quality of life in west coast cites decreased in the last 10 years O'Keefed? Are the cities cleaner or are they dirtier? Can you list for us the reasons why you believe that might be the case? Are these question too fucking tough for a liberal Kunt to answer?HHusky said:
I guess quality of life is pretty ideal in the rest of the nation's cities. Toledo's calling you, blob.SFGbob said:for the diminishing quality of life issues facing most all of our west coast cities?
And yes Hondo, your claim that it's all a myth designed to make liberal cities look bad and the problems aren't that great will be accepted as an answer. There is no wrong answer.
First of all is it even really a problem?
If yes, what's the reason(s) for it.
Does the increase in human shit and piss in the streets increase or decrease the quality of life in urban areas?
So, yes this does come as news to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco–Oakland–Berkeley,_CA_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area#Demographics
-
Yes, yes. Going there for 20 years and took the "train" into SF once. Obviously you're an expert on urban affairs.2001400ex said:
Again you can't read. I said I've been going there for 20 years and still go to San Diego. Idiot.SFGbob said:Hondo the expert on west coast urban living who rode the "train" to downtown SF once and who used to visit San Diego 20 years ago, declares there is no diminished quality of life in West Coast cities today because Race never saw this guy shitting in the streets.
-
State clearly what my "lie" is you worthless piece of shit. The city of San Francisco's population in 1950 was 775K it then declined for 30 years and then didn't reach that number again until 2000. It's a little over 100K from that 1950 number today.2001400ex said:
Bob lies by omission.SFGbob said:
So people are shitting and pissing and doing drugs in the streets more today in SF due to rapid increase in population? Interesting because the population here in SF is only slightly larger than it was in the 1950s and in terms of rapid increase in the cities population growth the growth rates today pale in comparison to what they were in the 1930s 40s and 50s and that's when the city spent next to nothing on services and yet you didn't have people shitting in the streets back then.HHusky said:
The quality of life in most places diminishes when they experience rapid population increases with no comparable increase in infrastructure, housing or services. Thus my comment about the wall. It's hard to imagine this comes as news to you, but perhaps you don't get out much.SFGbob said:
So you have no explanation or reason why the quality of life in West Coast cities has diminished. Got it.HHusky said:
We have open borders with the rest of the country. Maybe we need a wall.SFGbob said:
Has the quality of life in west coast cites decreased in the last 10 years O'Keefed? Are the cities cleaner or are they dirtier? Can you list for us the reasons why you believe that might be the case? Are these question too fucking tough for a liberal Kunt to answer?HHusky said:
I guess quality of life is pretty ideal in the rest of the nation's cities. Toledo's calling you, blob.SFGbob said:for the diminishing quality of life issues facing most all of our west coast cities?
And yes Hondo, your claim that it's all a myth designed to make liberal cities look bad and the problems aren't that great will be accepted as an answer. There is no wrong answer.
First of all is it even really a problem?
If yes, what's the reason(s) for it.
Does the increase in human shit and piss in the streets increase or decrease the quality of life in urban areas?
So, yes this does come as news to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco–Oakland–Berkeley,_CA_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area#Demographics
Go fuck yourself Hondo.
-
Good Lord indeed. Your knowledge of supply and demand in housing is pitiful. Adding massive regulation from initial land buy through completion of the stock has no effect on price.HHusky said:Good God, Race! This is just retarded. Regulation has very little to do with what happens to housing prices when hundreds of thousands more people move to a city. I thought you were the gals who worshipped markets.
If hundreds of thousands of people move to a city it would seem that the city leaders would do all they can to add housing stock not discourage it. Guess what they choose
-
Yes, if you just gave the people shitting and pissing in the streets homes, you'd "solve" the homeless problem.MikeDamone said:
Homelessness isn’t caused by lack or housing or housing prices. You know who isn’t homeless? Immigrants, legal or illegal. HTH -
Pull up the link Bob. Using the city limits of San Fran is fucktarded.SFGbob said:
State clearly what my "lie" is you worthless piece of shit. The city of San Francisco's population in 1950 was 775K it then declined for 30 years and then didn't reach that number again until 2000. It's a little over 100K from that 1950 number today.2001400ex said:
Bob lies by omission.SFGbob said:
So people are shitting and pissing and doing drugs in the streets more today in SF due to rapid increase in population? Interesting because the population here in SF is only slightly larger than it was in the 1950s and in terms of rapid increase in the cities population growth the growth rates today pale in comparison to what they were in the 1930s 40s and 50s and that's when the city spent next to nothing on services and yet you didn't have people shitting in the streets back then.HHusky said:
The quality of life in most places diminishes when they experience rapid population increases with no comparable increase in infrastructure, housing or services. Thus my comment about the wall. It's hard to imagine this comes as news to you, but perhaps you don't get out much.SFGbob said:
So you have no explanation or reason why the quality of life in West Coast cities has diminished. Got it.HHusky said:
We have open borders with the rest of the country. Maybe we need a wall.SFGbob said:
Has the quality of life in west coast cites decreased in the last 10 years O'Keefed? Are the cities cleaner or are they dirtier? Can you list for us the reasons why you believe that might be the case? Are these question too fucking tough for a liberal Kunt to answer?HHusky said:
I guess quality of life is pretty ideal in the rest of the nation's cities. Toledo's calling you, blob.SFGbob said:for the diminishing quality of life issues facing most all of our west coast cities?
And yes Hondo, your claim that it's all a myth designed to make liberal cities look bad and the problems aren't that great will be accepted as an answer. There is no wrong answer.
First of all is it even really a problem?
If yes, what's the reason(s) for it.
Does the increase in human shit and piss in the streets increase or decrease the quality of life in urban areas?
So, yes this does come as news to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco–Oakland–Berkeley,_CA_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area#Demographics
Go fuck yourself Hondo. -
Yeah because when you're talking about the homeless population in San Francisco it's "fucktarded" to talk about the population of San Francisco.2001400ex said:
Pull up the link Bob. Using the city limits of San Fran is fucktarded.SFGbob said:
State clearly what my "lie" is you worthless piece of shit. The city of San Francisco's population in 1950 was 775K it then declined for 30 years and then didn't reach that number again until 2000. It's a little over 100K from that 1950 number today.2001400ex said:
Bob lies by omission.SFGbob said:
So people are shitting and pissing and doing drugs in the streets more today in SF due to rapid increase in population? Interesting because the population here in SF is only slightly larger than it was in the 1950s and in terms of rapid increase in the cities population growth the growth rates today pale in comparison to what they were in the 1930s 40s and 50s and that's when the city spent next to nothing on services and yet you didn't have people shitting in the streets back then.HHusky said:
The quality of life in most places diminishes when they experience rapid population increases with no comparable increase in infrastructure, housing or services. Thus my comment about the wall. It's hard to imagine this comes as news to you, but perhaps you don't get out much.SFGbob said:
So you have no explanation or reason why the quality of life in West Coast cities has diminished. Got it.HHusky said:
We have open borders with the rest of the country. Maybe we need a wall.SFGbob said:
Has the quality of life in west coast cites decreased in the last 10 years O'Keefed? Are the cities cleaner or are they dirtier? Can you list for us the reasons why you believe that might be the case? Are these question too fucking tough for a liberal Kunt to answer?HHusky said:
I guess quality of life is pretty ideal in the rest of the nation's cities. Toledo's calling you, blob.SFGbob said:for the diminishing quality of life issues facing most all of our west coast cities?
And yes Hondo, your claim that it's all a myth designed to make liberal cities look bad and the problems aren't that great will be accepted as an answer. There is no wrong answer.
First of all is it even really a problem?
If yes, what's the reason(s) for it.
Does the increase in human shit and piss in the streets increase or decrease the quality of life in urban areas?
So, yes this does come as news to me.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco–Oakland–Berkeley,_CA_Metropolitan_Statistical_Area#Demographics
Go fuck yourself Hondo.
So my "lie" is that you're a fucking moron. -
So Hondo, are you under some impression that because the population in Fremont has increased that has something to do with the homeless population in San Francisco? Explain the Kunt logic on that one Hondo.
