Author: liloqi
There Is a Lot of Negativity Currently
I came across a post from an acquaintance that basically went something like “here’s an example of something good that happened to me, since there is a lot of negativity currently.”
On the one hand, I totally respect the aim of the post, in fact, I’ve been trying to post some more positive or fun things, and have even toyed with the idea of creating a post every week of just good things that I’m excited/happy about, or just things that give me some hope for the future.
But I think I have some issues with the second part of their comment. I do agree that there is a lot of negativity right now. But honestly, that’s ok. There should be a lot of negativity with the current state of things. From their comment, it comes across that we’re all just being negative for the sake of it.
We’ve been bombing boats in the Caribbean and Pacific without due process, sending immigrants to random countries to be jailed, starting wars of questionable nature, threatening to take over random landmasses, removing vast sums of money for scientific research, starting trade wars with close allies, redrawing election maps (at the direction of the president), to keep his party in power, etc., etc…
There is currently plenty for sane, ethical people to be negative about currently. We should be negative about it, and honestly, it feels a little immoral to not be upset about the way things are going.
So sure, celebrate moments of goodness, kindness, and anything that gives hope for a better future. But we should stay upset and angry. It’s not the right move to ignore the atrocities around us.
That Force Pushing Us
There was something that drove humans during the development of the atomic bomb. This sense that we (as Americans) have to push this technology forward, no matter what the outcomes of it are, in part because if we don’t, someone else will. We’re seeing the same thing now, with the development of AI. I am of the opinion that it’s pointless to restrict it too much — if we do so, we’ll just fall behind as others continue to push it forward.
This force is of course always there, but I think we tend to just notice it more when there is a sense of some level of peril. It’s the result of curiosity, discovery, and competition. In a lot of ways, it happens seemingly against our will, even though it’s individuals that are driving it forward, as if we have no other option, than to just go along with it.
I just find this interesting on some level, because it’s something that’s just baked into how us humans work, and therefore, it’s just a property of the universe itself. And I of course don’t mean for this to sound overly “mystical” or anything, it’s just a natural output of the laws of the universe, which is just, interesting.
But to my knowledge, this process doesn’t really have a name. Perhaps it does, but I’m not aware of it. And it seems like something that’s a large enough driver of happenings in the universe that it really should have a name.
More thoughts on the “State Office of Federal Tax Fulfillment”
Previously I started playing with the idea of a “State Office of Federal Tax Fulfillment”. The basic idea is that I would pay my federal taxes, but they would be routed through a state office that holds them temporarily, before forwarding my payment through to the federal government. The purpose is so that if we wanted to, as a state, we could collectively withhold our taxes.
We wouldn’t really even need everyone in the state to do it. It could be a voluntary system, perhaps with a minimum level of adoption before any potential withholding takes place. For instance, here in California, maybe nothing happens unless 16 million people enroll in the system (40% of the state, just to pick a random amount). Once that number is reached, we could collectively vote on whether the 16 million of us want our taxes sent through.
We would of course be assuming some risk, since the federal government could still come after us individually, but in this example, they would have to be coming after 16 million of us.
To extend this idea even further though, what if other states also adopted these measures? We could all work together to withhold our contributions in a unified voice if we desired to do so, increasing the power of the action, and reducing the risk to each individual tax payer.
ChatGPT and AI Luddites
I find some of the resistance to using tools like ChatGPT interesting, and honestly a little sad. Just the idea of closing yourself off to something that could improve your life is an interesting stance to take. For me, it has definitely saved me time, helped me explore things that bounce into my curious mind, and enabled me to take on some projects that I wouldn’t otherwise be able to to do.
Over the past couple of days, I’ve used ChatGPT to play around with prime spirals, just because I find them interesting, used it for domain name ideas, ideas for fonts, and got some pretty helpful insight on the best approaches for a software product I’m working on. I even started having it draft little news items from an imaginary nation where the news is happier than what’s going on in the US currently (reading through those imaginary news clips honestly brings a little smile to my face).
Over the past couple of months, I’ve been using it to help me build a couple of apps, just for personal use and for fun — a city-building game and a drawing app. For work, it does honestly save me quite a few hours every week, especially on some tedious tasks that I would rather not spend time on. I also realize that competitors in my profession are using this technology to be more efficient, and I would be at a major disadvantage if I refused to utilize it as well.
There are of course downsides to this technology, and some pretty big ones at the society level. But it has undoubtedly made the day to day of my life better and more creative. For those that flat-out refuse to use the technology, I feel as though they are only limiting themselves and setting themselves up to be at a major disadvantage.
We Need to Do Better at Prioritizing Important Topics in Primary Education
I was helping with my son’s 6th-grade social studies homework yesterday, where, for this semester, they’re studying India’s history. It’s mildly interesting, but in the back of my mind, I can’t help but think: “Why the hell is he learning this?”
Don’t get me wrong, I think being exposed to a variety of topics and subjects is good on some level, but that “some level”, is probably at most an hour or two for things that aren’t really relevant to his existence, or help him prepare for the future, or maybe most importantly, aren’t really making for a better future for all of us.
I guess I would be fine with this little diversion into history if we weren’t failing in the education game in so many other ways. I’m sure he’ll make it through his primary education without touching on formal logical fallacies, or some basic economics principles, or how the US calculates his taxes. He won’t be exposed to ideas for how to think in ways that perhaps don’t come naturally, or how to push deeper into thoughts, going beyond those initial inhibitions that allow you to arrive in some really interesting places if you can think beyond them.
Again, I think it’s good to touch on random topics, like the history of India. Perhaps it will speak to some students, and spur some fascination or passion that will serve them well through life. But we can undoubtedly do a better job of prioritizing some things that will have a higher chance of creating better people, and a better country. And we desperately need to do so.
Property Taxes Should Be Progressive
Here in San Diego, housing long ago crossed into the “insanely expensive” category. As much as it’s not good for many, it seems as though we could do more to provide a public benefit from all of that.
In a brief search of how property taxes are calculated, it doesn’t seem as though they are ever progressively taxed. No matter the assessed value of a property, the rate is always the same percentage. The person living in the $600k apartment at the bottom of the building is paying the same 8% (or whatever it is) as the $10.2 million penthouse at the top of the building.
Because of this, I’m sure as a city, and a society in general, we’re leaving a ton of money on the table that could go to fund better schools, education, transit lines, parks, or other things to reduce housing costs (like my super-controversial plan to publicly subsidize parking garages!).
City Pride and Investment
I don’t think any of us are as proud of our cities as we should be. Of course we all probably have some level of pride, especially in our city’s status on the national stage, such as our economic status or cultural influence. And sports teams are an obvious source of pride for many, but I feel as though there is opportunity for more that we could all be proud of.
It seems like pride in one’s city could potentially translate in people’s willingness to provide additional investment to their cities. If a city is widely recognized for its great parks, and those parks are a source of pride in that city, perhaps it follows that the citizens are then more likely to invest in those parks, and new parks.
If there is any truth to that, perhaps there are ways to make people more proud of those things that make a city great, which could spur a feedback loop of investment and pride in things that matter.
Better Representative Democracy
The whole gerrymandering thing is an unnecessary issue that arises from an archaic and ill-conceived idea. Drawing lines on maps for most purposes seems to lead to issues, and especially when determining representation for individual citizens.
In my utopian nation, we still have representatives, but there are two key differences:
- You can choose one of the five closest representatives to you. This means that you can most likely find one that aligns at least remotely close to your views.
- Each representative’s power when voting is directly tied to the amount of people they represent, ensuring that everyone’s voice is equal.
There are likely some issues with this, and opportunity for further refinement (perhaps limiting the total number of people each representative can represent would be good), but these two ideas, if applied to the current US system, would create a far fairer situation.
Policy as a Filter
I once had the brilliant idea of imposing a California state tax whose sole purpose would be to use the funds to help bring smart, promising young individuals from red states to California. It could be used as part of their college tuition, moving costs, or whatever else was needed to get smart people here who would help to make our state better.
The secondary benefit of my tax was that it would increase state taxes, which would help to drive away more tax-hating individuals who are in general more than likely, just a draw on the state’s resources, and whose principles inhibit our ability to push harder into science, technology, education, equity, and better governance.
I of course recognize that there are conservatives that add value to the state, and especially some conservative businesses that provide jobs and tax revenue. But there is a larger discussion that should be had on how much of that is needed, balancing private wealth generation and its actual cost to the public. Perhaps it’s a good thing to court those businesses, perhaps not.
But the idea of using policy to attract those you want, and filter out those you don’t isn’t something I see discussed very often, although it already plays a significant role in shaping individual states. There are some interesting discussions that could be had around this topic, and what types of policies we should have, not only to shape policy within the state, but also in terms of attracting the type of talent that we want and need to progress.
The Office of Community Housing
The Office of Community Housing is a city-run division that works to coordinate individual citizens looking to contribute their own funds towards multiunit real estate developments for the sake of satisfying their own need for housing.
Interested parties will work with a small team from the office, who gather requirements, develop the project costs, and coordinate bids from qualified architects, engineers, and construction companies.
Office Goals
The primary goal for the Office of Community Housing is to ensure affordable and responsible housing for our residents. We do this by distributing the project cost to all future residents. Because these aren’t traditional development projects, with marketing costs and developer profits involved, unit costs stay well below commercial development prices.
Project Scale
The office will handle development projects with a minimum of three units. Our largest projects to date include the 17-story Cheshire Condominiums and the 23-story Walker Tower.
Unit Pricing
Future residents’ units are priced according to comparable units in existing residential buildings. This factors in unit sizes, amenities, cardinal direction, views, what level the unit is on, and other factors. Each unit is then priced to represent a proportion of total project cost with these factors in mind. The project coordinators then help to match potential future tenants to specific units.
Reselling Units
Resell prices on units are restricted. For the first five years of the building’s life, all units are priced based on the above Unit Price Section, plus market appreciation. After five years, the tenant begins building ownership in the unit, which, after thirty years, they will be full owners of their unit. If they sell during that time, they’ll receive the market appreciation amount, multiplied by the amount of ownership they have at the time of sale. The remainder of any profit gets inserted into the city’s low-income housing funds program.
Purchasing Units
Oftentimes there are many interested parties when an existing unit goes up for sale, since the prices on Office of Community Housing projects are drastically lower than market rate units. Usually a lottery system is required, since the unit price is fixed.
A Strong History, a Bright Future
Over our 15 year history, the Office of Community Housing has made it possible for thousands of citizens to become home owners. The department will continue to grow and adapt as needed to continue to be a powerful factor in the livability of our city.