jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
Re: All things CoronaVirus
Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:46 pm
by ggait
You really think that everybody wears a seatbelt because it's required by law?
Someone seems to think making it mandatory has an effect.
Have you ever seen a commercial or billboard that said "We strongly recommend you click it. But it is your decision to make?" Of course not.
Ever seen a commercial or billboard that says "Click it or ticket?" All the time.
And guess what happens when seat belts are mandatory? People wear them. 91% of people nationally wear seat belts. NH is the only state where seatbelts are not required. 71% seat belt usage in NH.
Come on Joe.
There's really no reason why public health measures are any different than hundreds of other mandatory rules that we are subject to. The goofy thing is how only Covid rules get singled out as oppressive violations of "muh ruy-iots."
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
Seat belts save lives.
Kurt Russell swears by it.
damn. i was gonna make a crack about getting him into a mask study, but that was nuts.
Because of the Science
Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2021 8:29 pm
by runrussellrun
'" .....more varied variant than that...the leprosee variant is next....because of the Science.
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
Seat belts save lives.
Kurt Russell swears by it.
I do like Kurt Russell-what would Wyatt Earp Kurt Russell and Vals Doc H say about seat belts?
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
Seat belts save lives.
Kurt Russell swears by it.
damn. i was gonna make a crack about getting him into a mask study, but that was nuts.
I sat with engineers and watch crash test dummies one summer. I won’t leave the driveway without a seatbelt. It didn’t take much.
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
so are you good with whatever the local b.o.e. says for online learning, shut it down, knowing what you know? at whatever dividing line they see fit to warrant shutting it down?
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
Seat belts save lives.
Kurt Russell swears by it.
damn. i was gonna make a crack about getting him into a mask study, but that was nuts.
I sat with engineers and watch crash test dummies one summer. I won’t leave the driveway without a seatbelt. It didn’t take much.
I have a problem with the administrative state expansion and increasing criminalization of behavior fundamentally so I wear seatbelts, but to make it criminal as they have is my problem. Feels parochial and the only argument for it is social cost, really nothing else. Cheap way for politicians to pass a law and get points for it. No one was really asking for it.
I wouldn't agree that driving is a privilege at this stage. Pretty incongruous with arguing we need infrastructure to suggest it's a privilege in the same breath. In dense, infill cities in a few select areas on the coast you can argue that, noting MTA has been effectively insolvent for years. But when it comes to most other places, including major top ten MSAs, driving is necessary these days. The privilege argument is, at best, anacrhonistic.
To wit, lady who ran a savings bank in Asheville told me a story way back post crisis. The old axiom was homes were the most secure lending collateral because people had to live there, but in times of stress would toss their car keys back. So she sold her indrect auto finance book and held onto the mortgage portfolio. How it shook out was tons threw their house keys back and held onto their cars and made those payments because they had to get to their jobs. Compounded the struggle for that bank and anecdotal, but saw this repeatedly then and subsequent as the moral obligation we used to have with a contract like a loan agreement has gone away. So cars are more than a priviliege because we haven't properly provided the infrastructure to make that case.
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
Seat belts save lives.
Kurt Russell swears by it.
damn. i was gonna make a crack about getting him into a mask study, but that was nuts.
I sat with engineers and watch crash test dummies one summer. I won’t leave the driveway without a seatbelt. It didn’t take much.
I have a problem with the administrative state expansion and increasing criminalization of behavior fundamentally so I wear seatbelts, but to make it criminal as they have is my problem. Feels parochial and the only argument for it is social cost, really nothing else. Cheap way for politicians to pass a law and get points for it. No one was really asking for it.
I wouldn't agree that driving is a privilege at this stage. Pretty incongruous with arguing we need infrastructure to suggest it's a privilege in the same breath. In dense, infill cities in a few select areas on the coast you can argue that, noting MTA has been effectively insolvent for years. But when it comes to most other places, including major top ten MSAs, driving is necessary these days. The privilege argument is, at best, anacrhonistic.
To wit, lady who ran a savings bank in Asheville told me a story way back post crisis. The old axiom was homes were the most secure lending collateral because people had to live there, but in times of stress would toss their car keys back. So she sold her indrect auto finance book and held onto the mortgage portfolio. How it shook out was tons threw their house keys back and held onto their cars and made those payments because they had to get to their jobs. Compounded the struggle for that bank and anecdotal, but saw this repeatedly then and subsequent as the moral obligation we used to have with a contract like a loan agreement has gone away. So cars are more than a priviliege because we haven't properly provided the infrastructure to make that case.
In Manhattan, a car is a privilege….actually a luxury!
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
so are you good with whatever the local b.o.e. says for online learning, shut it down, knowing what you know? at whatever dividing line they see fit to warrant shutting it down?
Connect the dots for me? I think a localized basically completely indoor closed group setting with children is not the same thing unless I’m missing something it seems like you’re calling the two
The same?
Re: All things CoronaVirus
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:25 am
by a fan
JoeMauer89 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:00 pm
Restaurants bars, etc pre vaccine I would put at 75% capacity. With strong encouragement that masks should be worn in very crowded indoor places. Take things outside if you can. Stay home if you are sick. Do not horde supplies from the grocery store. Who is saying anything about doing nothing?
I'm going on what you are telling me, nothing more. I want you to speak for yourself.
So as your State's governor from Jan 2020-Jan 2021, here's your restrictions:
-75% capacity for restaurants and bars. (I'm assuming you also include stadiums and concert venues with this capacity)
-masks in K-12
Is that it? Anything else?
Re: All things CoronaVirus
Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2021 5:21 am
by DocBarrister
(CNN)If NBA players are not vaccinated, they shouldn't be on the team, basketball Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar told Rolling Stone.
"The NBA should insist that all players and staff are vaccinated or remove them from the team," said Abdul-Jabbar.
"There is no room for players who are willing to risk the health and lives of their teammates, the staff and the fans simply because they are unable to grasp the seriousness of the situation or do the necessary research."
Abdul-Jabbar elaborated on that point during an interview on Don Lemon Tonight Monday, saying, "I don't think that they are behaving like good teammates or good citizens. This is a war that we're involved in. And masks and vaccines -- they are the weapons that we use to fight this war."
Abdul-Jabbar has been a vocal advocate for getting the Covid-19 vaccine. The NBA great received his vaccine on camera and appeared in an NBA public service announcement encouraging others to get vaccinated.
jhu72 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:45 pm
Even the seat belt and helmet requirements have a societal component to them. Society pays for those not complying in potential unpaid medical bills and resource utilization.
correct, thus justifying the legal mandate.
There is, however, a bit of a slippery slope as to how much cost one's individual choices cost the rest of the public before we decide it's worth restricting those individual choices. And, of course, who actually makes these decisions of what's to the benefit of the public.
Behavioral science tells us that humans have a very difficult time assessing and valuing the costs of our actions, both in the future, and on others. For our own part, we all the time sacrifice long term benefit for short term gratification of impulses. And we regularly 'pollute' if no rule requiring otherwise.
So, as a society we work through government to help mediate these tradeoffs better. Of course, government doesn't get it right all the time either, being made up of humans making various such tradeoff decisions with the same sorts of behavioral handicaps of simply being human.
But Covid is a no-brainer.
Clear and large costs to others.
I don’t like the social cost argument unless you can draw a pretty straight line. To me Covid is obvious. Seat belts less so. I’m fact I ended up writing a strong argument against them as it modifies behavior such that other reckless activities such as speeding and assuming others behavior because of seatbelts (think Monte Carlo simulation/game theory)could be more expensive to society.
The global medical cost argument to ACA has always bothered me as the primary driving reason to justify it. Felt lazy and specious compared with making a better argument that we just need damn reform and better safety nets for more. Always the short cut that comes with costs, frictions and rent seeking activities at the expense of all over the more transparent and fair policy.
And someone will knee jerk respond “but they blocked everything so it was all fair to get it done”. Subsequently ignore when they and their cause gets bent over by the other side with the same tactics and laziness and now we’ve got two bad policies that cost us all a lot more.
Seat belts save lives.
Kurt Russell swears by it.
damn. i was gonna make a crack about getting him into a mask study, but that was nuts.
I sat with engineers and watch crash test dummies one summer. I won’t leave the driveway without a seatbelt. It didn’t take much.
I have a problem with the administrative state expansion and increasing criminalization of behavior fundamentally so I wear seatbelts, but to make it criminal as they have is my problem. Feels parochial and the only argument for it is social cost, really nothing else. Cheap way for politicians to pass a law and get points for it. No one was really asking for it.
I wouldn't agree that driving is a privilege at this stage. Pretty incongruous with arguing we need infrastructure to suggest it's a privilege in the same breath. In dense, infill cities in a few select areas on the coast you can argue that, noting MTA has been effectively insolvent for years. But when it comes to most other places, including major top ten MSAs, driving is necessary these days. The privilege argument is, at best, anacrhonistic.
To wit, lady who ran a savings bank in Asheville told me a story way back post crisis. The old axiom was homes were the most secure lending collateral because people had to live there, but in times of stress would toss their car keys back. So she sold her indrect auto finance book and held onto the mortgage portfolio. How it shook out was tons threw their house keys back and held onto their cars and made those payments because they had to get to their jobs. Compounded the struggle for that bank and anecdotal, but saw this repeatedly then and subsequent as the moral obligation we used to have with a contract like a loan agreement has gone away. So cars are more than a priviliege because we haven't properly provided the infrastructure to make that case.
In Manhattan, a car is a privilege….actually a luxury!
Boogie Down Productionnnns!
Zipcar! And you had a thriving taxi/black car system long before Uber showed up. And the train system is the best of any major metro I’ve seen or experienced, unless you’re trying to cross water after midnight. DC solid, Atlanta - they have public transport beyond the 1mi above ground Kasim Reed blew $1bn of shovel ready ARRA money on? It’s a T that works for two spots-Hartsfield and Benz/State Farm arenas. BART is actually pretty solid for coverage but operationally garbage (punctuality, broke down trains). Have used LA and Chi but not really enough to opine. Septa has stations where the ground is akin to Howe or Luray Caverns.
What are parking spaces in co-ops going for these days? $300-$500k?
But it’s a necessity for the working class folks pushed out to Dutchess/Putnam/Rockland Co, maybe not Bergen but surely Sussex and Orange Co, the latter of which don’t do the key under the tire cover thing everyone knows that game. In fact just don’t have rims or hood ornaments in Orange Co.