Stockton

Fresh Out of Bankruptcy, City Announces Multimillion-Dollar Housing Project

Stockton has apparently learned nothing from its embarrassing financial boondoggle.

|

||| Stockton/flickr

A judge may have approved the bankruptcy reorganization plan for Stockton, California, but he forgot to cut up the city's credit card.

Just a week out of Chapter 9 bankruptcy and the city is already throwing around the kind of money that landed it in financial ruin in the first place.

City officials announced plans this week to fund a $14 million public and private investment in "affordable" housing units and retail stores, with construction possibly beginning as soon as the end of the month. It's unclear how much will actually be privately funded. 

"The reality is, no matter how compelling an item is, we can only afford what we can afford," Stockton city manager Kurt Wilson said last week, shortly after a federal judge approved the bankruptcy plan. Stockton owes $1.6 billion in unfunded pensions, but apparently the city leadership thinks a shiny new housing project counts as something they can afford.

Stockton refused to reform its soaring public pension liabilities last November by envoking the "California Rule," which effectively prevents a pension increase from ever being reduced. Then in December, the city approved a separate public housing project downtown.

Here's how U-T San Diego columnist and Stockton homeowner Steven Greenhut described the city's spending habits in Reason's March 2015 issue:

Stockton's bankruptcy revealed a more fundamental problem. Officials for years had spent money like drunken longshoremen who had wandered away from the city's impressive inland port. They sprung for grandiose downtown redevelopment projects (sports venues, a hotel, entertainment) and lavished public employees with pay packages clocking in at 125 percent of state averages, despite living in a comparatively low-priced town. City workers received what one City Council member called a Lamborghini-style health plan, and police and firefighters could take advantage of a "3 percent at 50" pension formula that allowed them to retire at age 50 with 90 percent or more of their final pay.

It looks like Stockton's drunken longshoremen aren't planning to sober up any time soon.

Advertisement

NEXT: D.C. DOT Could Kill City's Streetcar Project

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Come on, man. They just need this one project to get them by. Just this one and they’ll quit, they swear. The ants are crawling under Stockton’s skin. They’re jonesing bad right now.

    1. Gonna kick tomorrow

      1. Stockton and Kurt Wilson
        They’re busy waiting for their booster
        Who just got back from Sacramento
        He said he didn’t like their paper
        They’re busy waiting for their savior
        Who says he’s just as big as ever
        He says he’s from Sacramento
        He wants to know a way to earn a dollar
        I’m searching for my trainline
        I said they couldn’t hit it sideways
        They couldn’t hit it sideways
        Oh, just like Sister Ray said
        Play on

  2. One question. Where do they think the money for all this is going to come from? Those pensions are going to come due. Where do they think they’ll be able to pay them from?

    1. Sacramento.

      Then Washington.

      1. I.e. “you” and “me”.

        1. I thought people were quoting velvet underground, not the Stones.

  3. Wait, wait! Don’t tell me. The construction companies building these developments are friends of the politicians. What do I win?

    1. I’m your doctor and heeeere’s the bill!

      *hands Lib a tax bill*

      /Devo

    2. I’m guessing they’re not friends, but may actually be the politicians.

    3. Half of what developers do is make friends with local politicians, then visit them regularly. If a developer is any good, he will convince the politicians that a majority of local voters are clamoring for a new housing development.

      1. Everybody wants subsidized housing nearby!

        1. Yeah, low-income housing is great for property values and the crime rate. While you are off at work, the moochers break into your house and steal everything.

  4. “City officials announced plans this week to fund a $14 million public and private investment in “affordable” housing units and retail stores, with construction possibly beginning as soon as the end of the month. It’s unclear how much will actually be privately funded.” I need to get in on this. Whose campaign/PAC/foundation do I need to contribute to?

    1. And is it GREEN?

  5. Why is ANY local government building retail spaces? Why?

    1. Because stimulus obviously. They’re just a few more multimillion dollar projects away from being back in the black.

    2. The multipliers from the government spending will trickle down through the economy, raising the animal spirits causing more spending.

    3. Because the right businesses won’t voluntarily locate themselves in that community. Businesses sell people what they want, otherwise people won’t buy the stuff, and the business won’t make a profit. But they don’t sell poor people what the government says poor people should buy. Or is it that businesses forgo profit opportunities because they are prejudiced against poor neighborhoods? Or is it that poor people are too stupid to purchase the correct goods? Or is it the corporations foisting cheap stuff on poor people? I guess the story changes depending upon the narrative. Anyway, either way it is up to the government to install those retail spaces and subsidize them, to encourage businesses to sell fresh vegetables and stuff that prejudiced businesses refuse to sell to poor people who are too stupid to buy what they should because they’ve been brainwashed by the corporations. Or something.

      1. You have, in one paragraph, explained everything one needs to know about the necessity of government action. Thank you.

    4. “Why is ANY local government building retail spaces? Why?”

      Because government is what happens when we decide to do things, and here we’ve decided to build retail spaces for ourselves with your, I mean, our money!

  6. You know who else built planned communities, complete with retail space?

    1. Captain Janeway?

    2. Jerry Jones?

    3. Hank Scorpio ?

      1. +1 No one ever chooses France

    4. James Rouse Ants and bees?

      1. I wish I were an Oscar Niemayer
        That is what I truly wish to be
        Cause if I were a Oscar Niemayer
        Everyone would be in love
        Oh everyone would be in love
        Everyone would be in love with me

        ?maladjusted, megalomaniacal architecture student

    5. NOTSEES!

  7. Math has been shown to impact the poor far more severely than the rich. That’s why we need your support for Proposition 37B, which will outlaw it. Please help stop this oppression now. Now one should suffer so in a civilized society.

    1. I blame the spelling error on Reason font changes.

    2. I hear Mooshell has been lobbying Congress to amend the law of gravity in her efforts to cure the epidemic of child obesity.

      1. It’s just a self centered effort to keep her tits off her knees.

      2. Actually, Mooch has been brilliantly driving kids to fast food outlets with her school lunch programs.

        It’s part of the “Sphereluminati” conspiracy for the perfection of Man:
        All people will conform to V=4/3*?*r^3

      3. “The free market is a bathroom scale. We may not like what we see when we step on the bathroom scale, but we can’t pass a law making ourselves weigh 165. Liberals and leftists think we can.” ? P.J. O’Rourke

  8. Isn’t that where Jim Rockford lives?

    1. 29 Cove Road, Malibu.

  9. “The reality is, no matter how compelling an item is, we can only afford what we can afford,” Stockton city manager Kurt Wilson

    Come on, Kurt. “The” reality, indeed!

  10. “We just narrowly escaped financial ruin by claiming bankruptcy. Let’s get right back into the same state as fast as possible!”

  11. In the long term, actually, it’s a great idea.

    Debts that cannot be repaid won’t be repaid.

    Charge up those credit cards, get those freebies before the debt jubilee.

    I love how they think a housing project is a good investment. Because it will provide a stream of income greater than the debt burden :-0

  12. Just an FYI: the entire complex will not be “affordable”. According to state law, cities are encouraged to approve housing projects (both publicly and privately financed) that make some percentage “affordable”. It’s usually around 10%.

    Regardless, it’s silly and, I think, counterproductive. It drives up the market prices of all the remaining 90% of the units (and, indirectly, the “affordable” units) and encourages affordable housing fraud as people try to get the “affordable” units in highly-desirable projects (which doesn’t actually help those truly in need). The businesses in the area will cater to the 90% of the “market rate” people who live there, not the 10% who pay the “affordable” rates, which will only force the “affordable” rate people to spend money traveling to actually affordable areas.

    Anyways, I’m ranting….

    1. Is there market demand for the remaining 90% of less “affordable” housing?

      A Whole Foods is opening up in my neighborhood. Competitive businesses do incredible amounts of proprietary research to determine if a particular area can support a profit margin. Do the socio-economics and demographics support expansion?

      Government works on the Field of Dreams philosophy of economic – If we build it they will come. Yeah, no they won’t, dummies.

      1. Government works on the Field of Dreams philosophy of economic – If we build it they will come.

        You give them too much credit. It’s all about funneling money to connected contractors who will shift some of it back in the form of campaign contributions. Nobody gives a shit if the housing is actually used or profitable or anything like that. It’s all short-term thinking.

        1. ^THIS

          Also realized that those ‘affordable’ homes are subsidized by those same governments, so the developers still make their full profit on those units. They’re actually even better than market rate, because they are a guaranteed sale at resulting full profit, unlike the uncertainty of the market rate units.

    2. Mandated “low-income housing” ties in nicely with this fed program, which is euphemistically called “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing”. I call it Obama’s “Hug a Thug” program:

      –The AFH focuses program participants’ analysis on four primary goals: improving integrated living patterns and overcoming historic patterns of segregation; reducing racial and ethnic concentrations of poverty; reducing disparities by race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or disability in access to community assets such as education, transit access, and employment, as well as exposure to environmental health hazards and other stressors that harm a person’s quality of life; and responding to disproportionate housing needs by protected class.–

      http://www.huduser.org/portal/affht_pt.html

      The entire thing is written in unreadable government-ese, but I can simplify it. Inner city people who have helped turn their neighborhoods into no-go, high-crime cesspools can now be moved out into suburbia and small towns where they can find new victims. Obama’s government is of course happy to foot the bill for their housing, food, etc. so they have plenty of free time to wander their new neighborhoods looking for victims.

  13. Not completely OT: What Portlandia needs is rent control.

    1. Just heard on the local news (NYC) that folks are complaining that there’s “too much building” going on in the city (i.e. too much building for RICH PEOPLE). Their solution? Build less and rents will go down.

      *facepalm*

      1. Not completely OT: What Portlandia needs is rent control.

        Please dear God, no. If Portlandia passes rent control, it’s only a matter of time before it makes it’s way up I-5 here.

  14. SoCons Lament NYC recognition of Muslim holidays

    “Fox News pundit Todd Starnes appeared on the Family Research Council’s “Washington Watch” program yesterday to chat with Tony Perkins about what they perceive as growing anti-Christian persecution in America, including New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s recent announcement that city schools will now close for the Muslim holidays of Eid al-Adha and al-Fitr.

    The two right-wing commentators were outraged, claiming that New York City’s move somehow discriminates against Christians…”But yet when it comes to Christmas and Easter, two very prominent Christian holidays, they’re not on the school calendar, they’re called ‘winter break’ and ‘spring break,'” Perkins said”

    The kicker?

    “Easter always falls on a Sunday, which would explain why it is not on a school vacation calendar, while Christmas does in fact appear on New York City’s list of school holidays… The city’s schools are also closed for Good Friday, along with the Jewish holy days of Yom Kippur, Rosh Hashanah and Passover.”

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/…..3HAmz.dpuf

    1. Pfft. Americans have no idea how to do holidays. In Australia, we got Good Friday AND Easter Monday.

      1. Well, it IS a penal colony. Some extra religion might help rehabilitate youz guyz.

        1. Not so far. You know where the British first sent their convicts?

          1. Ceti Alpha V?

            1. Close: Virginia.

              1. Virgina…

                …IS CETI ALPHA V!!!!

                1. I can confirm this.

              2. Also Georgia.

                1. Yes, GA too, but the majority went to VA mainly because GA was founded some decades after the transportations began.

    2. Why should we recognize Muslim holidays?
      They don’t recognize ours in their countries.

        1. Yeah, ours.
          You see, the entire west is Judeo-Christian/Graeco-Roman in it’s ethical and philosophical underpinnings.
          It’s bad enough we have “sexual minority” parades, but we don’t need some supremacist apartheid religion days, that’s for sure.

          1. West is Western – period.

            “Judeo-Christian” are Middle Eastern religions like the other Abrahamic religion (Islam).

            I suggest that the West is more existentialist than Christian in philosophy. For instance the US Constitution is.

            Conservatives often try to depict the US Constitution as Judeo-Christian in philosophy when it is nothing of the sort.

            1. Islam originated in Saudi Arabia, in 632 AD.
              Christianity in the Roman province of Palestine, inhabited by Jews, in 1AD.
              Judaism in around 200 BC in Canaan, what is now Isreal.

              John Locke was a Christian.
              Thomas Jefferson was raised as a Christian and became a deist, same with Ben Franklin.

              Jews, though second-class citizens for most of European history, were instrumental in helping to stabilize European civilization by paying ransoms for nobles.

              Libertarianism is based upon the bedrock of private property, which is enshrined in the old testament as the 10th commandment, around 1000 BC.

              1. Edit:

                Judaism in around 2000 BC in Canaan, what is now Isreal.

              2. John Locke was a Christian.

                Yeah, the same Locke, while contributing to early liberal thought, whose conception of property was flawed, full of exceptions and inconsistencies primarily having to do with his religious views. According to him, atheists didn’t have rights.

                Thomas Jefferson was raised as a Christian and became a deist,

                hmm… I wonder why:

                Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.

                Libertarianism is based upon the bedrock of private property, which is enshrined in the old testament as the 10th commandment, around 1000 BC.

                Except for the countless times when religion trumps private property.

                Libertarianism, or more specifically, a universally true conception of freedom and singular right, is based on the first-principle self-ownership from which property–a method for all parties to preserve self-ownership in the face of scarce and rivalrous resources–and the NAP derives.

                1. Did I say that Christianity is all fluffy bunnies?

                  No Christianity = no Founders (almost all were raised as Christians)
                  Actually, no Christianity would effectively equal Islam taking Europe.

                  If it were not for Christianity and Judaism, western European civilization would never have made it off the ground to get to the Enlightenment in the first place.
                  Read some history.

              3. Libertarianism is based upon the bedrock of private property, which is enshrined in the old testament as the 10th commandment, around 1000 BC.

                The 10th Amendment is about covetousness and envy, not specifically about private property. Moreover, Jesus Christ was pretty clear that if you wanted to follow him properly you had to leave your family and divest yourself of personal possessions.

                I hardly think demanding people relinquish private property is a libertarian ideal. I guess they’re doing it voluntarily, but it’s still awfully difficult to run a capitalist society when people are always giving their capital away.

          2. Show me on the doll where the sexual minority parade touched you.

            1. They touched my on my cake.

          3. Sorry, pal, I’m an American and I do not subscribe to your mythology. I support your right to believe what you wish, but I extend that courtesy to ALL mythologies.

            Please refrain from speaking on my behalf.

            1. Even the NAZI mythology, it seems.

              Pure moral relativism.

              1. Why shouldn’t Nazis be allowed to hold their beliefs?

                1. As long as they don’t impose them on others by having NAZI holidays recognized by the rest of us, I don’t really care what they believe.
                  Francisco was using the classic deflection argument, I denigrate an action performed by those whose beliefs I don’t like, Francisco sets up straw-man implying I deny their rights to believe.

                  1. So you are the only group who can “impose” your holidays on others?

                    You don’t have to recognize shit. You don’t have to like shit. All you need to do is allow it to happen.

              2. Provided the NAZIs don’t infringe upon the rights of others, YES, even the NAZIs.

                Hardly relativism.

                Principle.

                1. Trying to get a city to recognize NAZI holidays is infringing on the rights of others.

                  1. Saying it’s not a big deal for Muslims to get holidays off is not moral relativism.

                    1. That’s the employer’s choice, no-one else’s.

                  2. Trying to get a city to recognize NAZI holidays is infringing on the rights of others.

                    Not sure you want to go there friend. Because if it is, so is allowing a city to recognize Christian holidays.

                    You’ve got two choices, wrt government recognition. You can recognize all of them, or none of them. As I enjoy the tapestries associated with your mythology, I suggest you not spoil it for everyone by insisting yours be the only one recognized.

                    1. I will fight to prevent violent and supremacist mythologies from being allowed representation in public spaces.

                      Once again, you go with moral and cultural relativism.
                      All mythologies are not equal, as you would seem to equate a bunch of NAZI’s having a NAZI parade to celebrate Hitler’s birthday with a bunch of families with their kids having a Santa-Clause parade to celebrate Christmas.

                      Are you insane?

                    2. All mythologies are not equal

                      Sure they are. They are either violating the rights of others, or they are not. If they are, you may take action to stop them. If they are not, you may not.

                    3. So, it seems you are insane.

                      Incitement to murder is free speech, etc.

                    4. You really can’t read can you?

                      They are either violating the rights of others, or they are not. If they are, you may take action to stop them. If they are not, you may not.

            2. It’s not a matter of “subscribing to a mythology”
              You wouldn’t be free to be an American were it not for the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of the west, indeed America wouldn’t even exist.
              You are like a fish saying water isn’t really wet; the entire culture you grew up in is steeped in Renaissance and Enlightenment thinking, which was in turn heavily influenced by the Judeo-Christian ethos.

              Like it or not, the facts speak for themselves, and the western European culture, for all it’s flaws, became the most free and most advanced culture known.

              1. You wouldn’t be free to be an American were it not for the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of the west, indeed America wouldn’t even exist.

                False. I wouldn’t be free to be an American if it weren’t for the Enlightenment underpinnings of the west, an Enlightenment whose adherents were frequently hostile to a Christian church that often held back their work.

                The fact that the West was Christian is not the reason the West developed freedom and Democracy. It doesn’t follow that because the West was Christian and developed liberal freedoms those liberal freedoms must have been caused by Christianity.

                1. Umm, yeah, I generally agree with Irish here. Some outliers: Locke (and, yes, see np’s critique of Locke above) developed his ideas within a universe which included some kind of external deity from which rights proceeded. Now, most libertarians today do not argue that rights proceed from a benevolent creator BUT that was the foundation of Locke’s ideas and, indeed, of Jefferson and others (not the Christian god, but some kind of deity).

                  And, depending on how far back you want to go, Erasmus promoted a degree of freedom of religion based on his religious beliefs. No one really creates a philosophy ex nihilo they’re always building on some preceding ideas.

                  1. The claim that this developed from Christianity and that we therefore ‘owe’ our freedoms to Christianity also ignores South Korea and Japan which are free nations that have never been Christian and ignores people like Lao Tzu, who expressed many proto-libertarian ideas in a non-Christian context.

                    Liberal democracy developed first in the part of the world that was Christian. That doesn’t mean it was caused by that Christianity and there’s no evidence it was.

                    1. Agree there. Although the “western tradition” (which is a problematic term) developed liberal democracy, etc. from within its own culture.

                      What I do think is interesting about the religion question is that, at least in the English-speaking countries, religious dissenters (e.g. Quakers, Baptists) often embraced and supported ideas such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech because it gave them protection against state establishments.

                      I was just reading something today where the author argued that the extension of religious freedom in British colonies such as Quebec, Grenada, and Malta was extended by the political establishment in order to stabilize those colonies after conquest/acquisition. Often that toleration flew in the face of demands from British Protestants to repress Catholics.

                    2. Japan and South Korea were liberated by the west.

                      “Liberal democracy developed first in the part of the world that was Christian. That doesn’t mean it was caused by that Christianity and there’s no evidence it was.”
                      What is it with “liberal democracy”?
                      There were societies that were more free than ours that were not Christian.
                      Christianity (not the Church) set the stage for the Enlightenment.

                      The whole idea of limiting government power (Magna Carta, 1215) was developed by Christians, no-one else.

                2. I didn’t say it did.
                  The Enlightenment that was brought about by…Christians!
                  I did say that the Renaissance and Enlightenment happened in Christian nations, and no-where else, and that western thought is heavily influenced by Judao-Christian ethos.

                  The salient difference between the Christian God, and the Jewish or Muslim God is that the Christian God is NOT omnipotent. He cannot make a circle in Euclidean space with a ratio of circumference:diameter that is not Pi, for example, where the Jewish and Islamic Gods can.
                  The very idea of a rational universe was helped along by Christian thinkers.

                  I have no idea why you conflate freedom and Democracy.
                  The most free societies were not democracies, they were anarchies, like Iceland from 900-1200 AD, or pre 1500 AD Ireland.

                  1. The American revolution would not have been possible without Tom Paine, the most radical founder who had encountered the most hardship, believed:

                    I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

                    I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

                    But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

                    I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

                    All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

                    1. Well, that’s just common sense.

                    2. What you did there…I see it.

                    3. Hell if anything, Masonic beliefs were more related the Enlightenment than Christian (i.e. Church or Biblical teachings). The Enlightenment was new, very radical departure from traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.

                      If you believe they have the same basis, then why did the Protestant Great Awakening (1st and 2nd and 3rd movements) in America were a Christian response opposing the founders’ Enlightenment philosophy?

                      This the movement where paper editors encouraged people to literally spit on Paine. Where Jefferson’s critics used the argument that he was a heretic, that he worshiped the Goddess of Reason.

                      The salient difference between the Christian God, and the Jewish or Muslim God is that the Christian God is NOT omnipotent.

                      WTF are you talking about. The Christian God and Jewish God and Muslim God are THE SAME, that’s why all 3 are part of the same Abrahamic faith. And you would find many Christians who completely disagree with your interpretation of God.

                    4. “Hell if anything, Masonic beliefs were more related the Enlightenment than Christian (i.e. Church or Biblical teachings). The Enlightenment was new, very radical departure from traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.”

                      Go get yourself a Masonic Bible, and read it.

                      “WTF are you talking about. The Christian God and Jewish God and Muslim God are THE SAME, that’s why all 3 are part of the same Abrahamic faith. And you would find many Christians who completely disagree with your interpretation of God.”

                      You don’t have a fucking clue what you’re talking about.
                      Read some theological texts from each religion, before you make such asinine assertions.

                    5. Yes, well, only one brand of them is currently getting converts at gunpoint.

                      At any rate, the fact is, only Judao-Christian civilizations came up with limited government, the Enlightenment, and so on.

                      Another fact is that these same civilizations destroyed two of the most free societies ever to bless the face of the Earth.

                      I don’t know what it is with you fuckers, when anyone says anything positive about Christianity, you all go on some kind of hate-fest to try to divest yourselves and your views from Christianity.
                      It is indicative of a pathology.

                    6. I don’t know what it is with you fuckers, when anyone says anything positive about Christianity, you all go on some kind of hate-fest to try to divest yourselves and your views from Christianity.
                      It is indicative of a pathology.

                      I believe this entire discussion started with you having issues with other religions being tolerated in YOUR country.

                      Why should we recognize Muslim holidays?
                      They don’t recognize ours in their countries.

                      Very Christian…do unto others and all that.

                      You weren’t being attacked for your beliefs, you were being attacked for your disparagement/diminishment of the beliefs of others.

                    7. Yes.
                      I also tend to disparage/diminish NAZI’s who think Jews and gays should be murdered.

                      I seem to remember you disparaging/diminishing the beliefs of folk who don’t support SSM, and calling them bigots, yet you defend the beliefs those who like to kill gays and Jews.

                    8. I also tend to disparage/diminish NAZI’s who think Jews and gays should be murdered.

                      As do I. Disparage and diminish all you like. It’s your prerogative. What you can’t do is use force to inhibit the practice of their beliefs prior to them initiating force upon another.

                      I seem to remember you disparaging/diminishing the beliefs of folk who don’t support SSM, and calling them bigots

                      No, Eddie’s desire is to use force, by his own admission, to discriminate against those engaged in peaceful actions. Much as you do when you want your religious beliefs recognized by the state but the beliefs of other not to.

                      yet you defend the beliefs those who like to kill gays and Jews.

                      I do not defend the beliefs of those who want to kill gays and jews. That’s sick.

                      I defend their right to believe whatever they want so long as they do not initiate aggression.

                      What part of this is so difficult for you? I don’t like people who burn the flag. I do however defend their right to burn the flag.

                    9. I can inhibit incitement to murder, rape, extort, etc, all I like.

                      You know nothing of my religious beliefs.

                      Incitement to murder IS aggression, and Islam is incitement to murder and extort, and as such, any public support of Islam is a form of aggression, just as any public support of NAZI’s is a form of aggression.

                      Eddies post said “The state should recognize what he likes, but not other stuff that he doesn’t like”. Yeah, that’s how the state works, and it’s sick.
                      To work to get the state to do anything other than repeal existing legislation is to collaborate with killers and extortionists.

                    10. Incitement to murder IS aggression

                      Fair enough. But simply being a Nazi or a Muslim is NOT Incitement.

                      Islam is incitement to murder and extort, and as such, any public support of Islam is a form of aggression,

                      With that, we are done. If you believe that, you are one sick fuck, and not worthy of my attention.

                    11. Go to any place run by Sharia, and spout your SSM nonsense there.
                      Sharia is integral to Islam, as is taqiyya, jizya and dhimmitude, just as killing Jews and gays is integral to NAZIism. To publicly support NAZIism is incitement to kill Jews.

                      You’re the sick fuck here, fella.

                    12. Nowhere does FdA support “NAZlism”. He, like all libertarians, supports the rights of people to have and express any view they want as long it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of others. The only sick fuck here is you. You want to impose your beliefs upon everyone at the point of a gun.

                      Fuck off slaver.

                    13. Supporting Islam = supporting NAZI’s.
                      Expressing the belief “I think Jews and gays and apostates should be killed, and you should too, for reasons x, y and z” is incitement to murder, and wrapping that incitement up in religious fervor only makes it worse, and any Jew, gay or apostate is within his rights to physically attack someone saying that, in self defense, just like an undercover agent in a human-trafficking ring could shoot someone who threatens to expose him, in self defense.

                      He is no libertarian, as he is happy to collaborate with/support the state to pass new legislation, as opposed to repealing existing legislation.

                      You people really need to get your heads out of your assholes and see the real world for what it is.

      1. We can’t have unilateral holiday celebration!

    3. Bo, have you looked at the NY school calendar? I have. Christmas is not on it. The only holidly with a religious name is Rosh Hashanah.

  15. SoCon: Homosexuality worse than murder and genocide

    “Lively told Fischer that America is about to cross ‘a line with God that hasn’t occurred in the entire history of the world since Noah’s flood,’ which he once again asserted was brought about by the celebration of ‘homosexual marriage.’

    ‘The final straw for God was when they started celebrating and engaging in homosexual and bestial marriages,’ he said.

    Lively went on to declare that homosexuality is ‘the most egregious form of rebellion against God’ and is a sin that is ‘worse than murder and worse then genocide.’

    ‘It’s not just another sin,’ he continued. ‘It’s really a harbinger of the judgment of God … The celebration by the society [of homosexuality] is a harbinger of the wrath of God.’

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/…..3IOWr.dpuf

    1. rightwingwatch.org ?

      And you don’t have a SoConz are the evil of the world fixation?

  16. Then in December, the city approved a separate public housing project downtown.

    Cool – instant slums. What could possibly go wrong?

  17. “Business community [in Charlotte, NC] split after LGBT ordinance fails…

    “Voting down the nondiscrimination proposal conflicts with the fact that same-sex marriage became legal in North Carolina in October, [economist Lee] Badgett said.

    “Now, same-sex couples in Charlotte can marry in the state, but if their employer finds out and doesn’t like it, the employee could be fired. That, Badgett said, could dissuade homosexual and heterosexual workers alike, as well as companies, from wanting to do business in the area.”…

    “Mark Tally, vice president of Shrub Doctor, said his business isn’t affected by a nondiscrimination proposal and that he would never deny someone service or a job based on sexual orientation. He said he signed the letter to protect businesses in the wedding industry, such as florists who want to act according their religious beliefs.

    “”People I know in these industries that could lose their businesses from it or have to go to court could end up spending $100,000 to defend themselves, and they’re barely making a living now. I just think it’s dangerous territory to cross,” Tally said.”

    http://www.thestate.com/2015/0…..rylink=cpy

    1. So the article totally discredits your entire premise.

      1. Say, what?

        1. What do you mean, “say what”, you disgusting little bigot? Your position has CLEARLY been that recognition of SSM would lead to gays becoming a protected class. That didn’t happen. The measure was defeated.

          Fuck off you mendacious little cunt.

          1. “And the worst thing about these SoCons is that they’re so *hateful!*”

            1. There is nothing wrong with being hateful Eddie…when it’s deserved. Yes, I hate bigots. You earned it.

              1. I think the gay-rights crowd could operate a chain of drive-in movie businesses – all they have to do is join their powers of projection.

              2. SSM is just more government coercion.

                The Gaystapo is using state force to get ME to recognize their “marriages”, thus the cake lawsuits, Communist-style Al Sharptonesque denunciations to get CEO’s fired, or to get TV personalities dropped by networks, etc.

                1. The Gaystapo is using state force to get ME to recognize their “marriages”

                  So you’re opposed to all government recognition of marriage, correct? Because I am. If you’re not opposed to all government recognition of marriage, then why should I be forced to recognize your marriage when you’re unwilling to recognize that of gays?

                  I’d also point out that making something legal doesn’t force you to recognize it. It’s legal to worship Allah, but I am not required to pretend your stupid religious beliefs have any merit. If you don’t think gay people are ‘really married’ then no one is forcing you to pretend otherwise.

                  1. “If you don’t think gay people are ‘really married’ then no one is forcing you to pretend otherwise.”

                    Unless he runs a bakery, wedding chapel, T-shirt company, florist shop, etc., etc.

                    1. As Eddie points out in the article he posted above…allowing SSM is a completely different issue than establishing a new protected class.

                    2. OK, then, riddle me this (if you’re understandably hesitant to challenge your SJW allies by defending the free association rights of private businesses):

                      Say that a “restaurant, hotel or motel” in Charlotte refuses to cater a wedding reception for Adam and Steve, even though they have a state-issued marriage license. Say the owner of the business tells Steve, “if you were a woman, I would totally have catered this wedding, but I don’t recognize marriages between men and women.”

                      OK, then, how does the business owner defend him/herself from a claim of sex discrimination under Sec. 12-59 of Charlotte’s ordinances, which prohibit sex discrimination?

                      (from municode.com)

                      http://ow.ly/K2zYR

                    3. …”but I don’t recognize marriages between men and men.”

                    4. I don’t have any SJW allies.

                      I have libertarian principles.

                      Your scenario is a false choice. I don’t favor a protected class for women any more than I do for homosexuals.

                      For the 69th time, dipshit, libertarian principle supports SSM (at least as much as hetero marriages). Libertarian principle supports freedom of association and DOES NOT support protected classes.

                    5. So you aren’t comfortable with the way the sex-discrimination of the ordinance, combined with state-recognized SSM, could operate to force a business to cater a same-sex wedding?

                      Again, explain how this won’t happen given that the two issues are TOTALLY SEPARATE!

                    6. Has nothing to do with SSM. I’m not comfortable with protected classes…PERIOD. Moron!

                    7. No, libertarian principles would seek to get the state out of straight marriages, not into gay ones.
                      Stateist principles seek to expand the state mandate, and that’s what you support.

                    8. No, libertarian principles would seek to get the state out of straight marriages, not into gay ones.

                      …libertarian principle supports SSM (at least as much as hetero marriages).

                      Read much?

                    9. So, I guess they must support man-sexbot marriage, and man-dog marriage, and mother-son marriage, etc, at least as much as hetero marriages.

                      You’re nuts.
                      You claim to be a libertarian while supporting the expansion of the state mandate.

                    10. “libertarian principle supports SSM (at least as much as hetero marriages). ”

                      Wrong.
                      That’s essentially a communist “make everybody equal” principle.
                      You are a closet commie, it seems.

                    11. You claim to be a libertarian while supporting the expansion of the state mandate.

                      I support government having no involvement in marriage whatsoever.

                      BUT, as they DO, they don’t get to discriminate under the law.

                      That’s essentially a communist “make everybody equal” principle.
                      You are a closet commie, it seems.

                      You are openly, a moron, it seems. There is an obvious difference between equality of outcomes and equality under the law. Equality under the law is a VERY libertarian concept, supported by the tenet that everyone has equal rights.

                    12. “I support government having no involvement in marriage whatsoever.”

                      Yet you support expanding the states power to coerce by supporting SSM.

                      Equality before the law is gone the way of the Dodo since affirmative action, pal, and you should know that the state is just a coercive power, that’s all it is, all it ever was.

                      What you are saying is “The state coerces A, so they should coerce B as well”.

                      You just dress your coercive nature in semantics.

                    13. Yet you support expanding the states power to coerce by supporting SSM.

                      No, I support equality under the law. As I said, the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage. But since they are, I insist they comply with 14A until we can institute a fully libertarian solution.

                      I don’t support affirmative action.

                      the state is just a coercive power

                      Of course it is. That power can be used for good or evil. It’s good is the protection of individual rights. The evil is taking individual rights.

                      Tenet 2:

                      The ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the rights of the individual.

                    14. Coercive power can never be used for good.
                      Coercion, is, in and of itself, a violation of the NAP.

                      “The evil is taking individual rights.”
                      By supporting SSM, you are supporting state coercion of those who do not recognize it.
                      If it were merely a matter of taxation levels, it could have been called a “homosexual co-habitation contract”.
                      A gay couple doesn’t have the right to adopt children, either, no-one does.

                  2. “So you’re opposed to all government recognition of marriage, correct? ”
                    Yes, I am.

                    The government is forcing folk to recognize marriages that they don’t believe in, thus the whole wedding cake-baking fiasco.

                    1. The prior, “homophobic” regime allowed people to actually, *gasp,* disagree with the government. A business could reject the government’s opposite-sex definition of marriage and give marital benefits to same-sex couples, polyamorous collectives, etc., without falling afoul of the law.

                      Good luck seeking the same tolerance under the new regime! Good luck saying that you follow an opposite-sex definition of marriage and will limit your spousal benefits to those in an opposite-sex marriage, regardless of what kind of marriage certificate you procure from the state!

              3. Yet you don’t hate Muslims, even though they like to kill gays.
                You are no libertarian, you are closer to being a Frankfurt School commie.

        2. I’ve mentioned before that the ordinance was defeated because of a catfight among the gay-rights crowd. Specifically, the decisive votes to kill the bill were cast by two LGBLT advocates, LaWana Mayfield and John Autry, who believed that the bill didn’t go far enough. Specifically, the bill would not have forced businesses to admit sexually-confused men into their women’s restrooms and sexually-confused women into their men’s restrooms.

          http://www.charlotteobserver.c…..08907.html

          So the gay-rights people get into a catfight in which they try to out-crzazy each other, and this proves there’s no connection between SSM and “public accomodations” laws?

          1. It proves you’re a mendacious little twat. You present evidence that your premise is faulty as evidence in support of your premise. You are a shameless fucking weasel.

            DESPITE allowing SSM, the measure failed.

            UNPOSSIBLE EDDIE!!!!!!

            1. No, sweetheart, the issues are closely connected, which is why the ordinance is being considered at all right now, and why it was only defeated by the votes of a couple pols who thought the bill wasn’t extreme enough.

              *smooches*

              1. Eddie, go preach your statist theology elsewhere. You are are a disgusting, lying bigot who’s flushed any credibility he ever had.

                1. Francisco, you won’t have the guts to do this, but if you did I’d respect you at least a smidgen more:

                  Go to an SJW or gay-rights site and explain how private businesses – including *Korprashuns!* – should be able to decide for themselves whether to serve gay customers or hire gay employees.

                  Explain how a baker should decide for him/herself whether to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

                  Explain how the owner of a for-profit wedding chapel should be able to decide for him/herself whether to assist at a same-sex wedding.

                  Explain (to take another example which might get thrown at you) why the only gas station or hotel in miles should should be allowed to refuse service or lodging to a gay couple on their honeymoon.

                  I doubt you’ll have the guts to do this, but in the unlikely event you do, please report back the results, and see what kind of creative and insulting names they call you.

                  1. Not interested in taking me up on my offer? I didn’t think so.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEQ1E8XPp4

                  2. Eddie, why would I want to go to a liberal site when I’m a libertarian?

                    1. Because you’re open-minded and want to be exposed to different points of view?

                      “I cannot praise a fugitive and cloister’d vertue, unexercis’d & unbreath’d, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortall garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat.”

                      (from dartmouth.edu)

                      http://ow.ly/K2AmP

                    2. Because you’re open-minded and want to be exposed to different points of view?

                      If that were the case, I’d go there to listen and earn from them, not to argue with them. Doing the latter makes you a troll.

                    3. Then why are you feeding me? Especially as midnight approaches?

                    4. Or is that gremlins?

                    5. Is he getting you wet as well?

  18. UC Irvine goes full prog.

    American flag, others banned in UC Irvine student area

    Written by student Matthew Guevara of the School of Social Ecology, the resolution states: “The American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism” and notes that flags “construct paradigms of conformity and sets homogenized standards.”

    “Hello, my name is Matthew Guevara. I learned English from a dictionary compiled by a lunatic and still haven’t quite figured out what words mean. These words are long though, and they’ll make me sound smart.”

    1. Yeah, he and his buddies are *obviously* opposed to “homogenized standards.”

    2. “Social ecology”? Anyone care to explain WTF that is?

          1. Indeed. Imagine Will Wright stamping on a sim’s face – forever.

          2. 10% of those apartments better be affordable.

          3. “The ironic thing about it is the sims in Magnasanti tolerate it. They don’t rebel, or cause revolutions and social chaos. No one considers challenging the system by physical means since a hyper-efficient police state keeps them in line. They have all been successfully dumbed down, sickened with poor health, enslaved and mind-controlled just enough to keep this system going for thousands of years. 50,000 years to be exact. They are all imprisoned in space and time.”

            ***Shudder***
            I almost ran into the street screaming “Soylent Green is people!!!”

          4. Also, I want a 10 GB hi-res jpeg of it.

        1. “Social ecology is a mode of participative thinking and social practice […] “

          I’ve seen enough. Shoot me.

    3. The resolution goes on to say that “freedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible, can be interpreted as hate speech.”

      Treason. Gallows. All of them.

      1. Oh come on. He’s an Onion writer. Right?

      2. Only cleansing with holy fire could eradicate such evil.

      3. Matthew Guevara has progged harder than any have progged before. He has reached the state of Prog Nirvana where a progressive finally manages, after decades of desperate struggle, to disappear entirely up his own asshole.

    4. One wrote that the American flag symbolizes “principles of freedom” that service members fought and died to uphold.

      Used to. Quickly becoming the symbol of FYTW.

    5. God Hates Flags.

    6. I’m a UC Irvine alum and this doesn’t surprise me one bit. A friend of a friend was a leading officer of ASUCI and she hanged a giant Che Guevara flag in her living room window for all the world to see.

      Polite guy that I am, I never pointed out that Che would have killed all her LGBTQRSTUV friends.

      But really, they mostly just bitch about student fees and demand free shit (completely oblivious to what causes tuition to rise in the first place). Oh, and partner with the MSU to rail against Israel.

    7. “One wrote that the American flag symbolizes “principles of freedom” that service members fought and died to uphold.”

      Exactly why they oppose it.

    8. “FOR THE RECORD

      A previous version of this post incorrectly referred to Reza Zomorrodian as “she.” Zomorrodian is male”

      Or at least insists that it is.

  19. A judge may have approved the bankruptcy reorganization plan for Stockton, California, but he forgot to cut up the city’s credit card.

    Just a week out of Chapter 9 bankruptcy and the city is already throwing around the kind of money that landed it in financial ruin in the first place.

    Let me put on my shocked face.

    1. In preview, I didn’t see the paragraph breaks, even when I used a paragraph tag.

  20. What an exciting last post for a Friday night.

  21. I have discovered the greatest website ever.

    While Mollie, a known reactionary, is probably joking, one must consider the problematic nature of the snow shoveling gender gap.
    What lesson are we teaching our young women when all they see outside are men shoveling sidewalks and driveways? That they aren’t strong enough to get the job done? That they can’t compete with men on an equal playing field?
    Guys are getting the short end of the stick here as well. This is a perfect example of the ways in which the patriarchy hurts men just as much as women: forcing yourself into rigid gender roles keeps you outside on a cold, snowy day, gents. Wouldn’t you rather be inside while your partner shoulders some of the burden?
    I give the transgression of assuming that only male members in a relationship are fit to shovel snow two problematics.

    1. So the stronger and taller person who has more leverage and can generally move more snow should let someone who is not as capable do the work because gender reasons?

      So if I’m paying for this to be done and the former person is doing the work I can pay them $x for the work. Bit I’m guessing if I hire the latter person I still need to pay $x even though it is likely to take longer?

      What if the latter person has a partner in order to finish faster? Do I still pay $x or do I have to pay $x+$x because if I do the first or any fraction of the second I’m creating a pay gap. Which is bad. Very bad.

      So in order to not commit gendercrime I have to accept poorer service and/or pay more?

      Whatever happened to the notion of both sides of a deal being equally pleased with the transaction?

    2. “Wouldn’t you rather be inside while your partner shoulders some of the burden?”

      Wouldn’t you *love* to be asleep in bed while your resentful “partner” contemplates your selfishness while fondling her kitchen knife?

    3. Or just buy a snowblower and let technology equalize physical advantages… hmmm… where have I heard that before?

  22. And now there’s a reality show about competing barbers. Hosted by Cedric the Entertainer.

    The End Times.

  23. What were the conditions of the city’s bankruptcy?

  24. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.wixjob.com

  25. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,
    go to tech tab for work detail

    ?~?~?~?~?~~~~~~~ http://www.jobsfish.com

  26. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,
    http://www.go-review.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.