The Official NBA Season Thread: SFA Prevails

I think it’s easy for us to scoff at Steph but if you were one of the most recognizable athletes, if not people, in the world you would be concerned about you and your family’s privacy with all of the weirdos out there too. I’m also sure they didn’t hastily send this email and talked to their advisors and legal team before coming to this conclusion.
Seems like if that were to happen they have enough money to accommodate extra security and privacy, or to move vs the lack of options for the people who could use affordable housing.
 
I think it’s easy for us to scoff at Steph but if you were one of the most recognizable athletes, if not people, in the world you would be concerned about you and your family’s privacy with all of the weirdos out there too. I’m also sure they didn’t hastily send this email and talked to their advisors and legal team before coming to this conclusion.
If he is so worried, he can hire more security, or he can move

But this "by potential neighbors might be dangerous" is the thinking white people deployed black people to punch through exclusionary zoning and keep neighborhoods segregated, it is nasty for him to deploy it on people he doesn't even know, and hasn't even met. So this claim that allowing more people to live in the neighborhood will put his privacy and safety in danger doesn't make much sense. With that logic, then Steph should protest any additional housing building in the area since he moved there.
 
I think it’s easy for us to scoff at Steph but if you were one of the most recognizable athletes, if not people, in the world you would be concerned about you and your family’s privacy with all of the weirdos out there too. I’m also sure they didn’t hastily send this email and talked to their advisors and legal team before coming to this conclusion.
Assuming 16 townhomes in that neighborhood will bring more weirdos out is the problem to begin with
 
Seems like if that were to happen they have enough money to accommodate extra security and privacy, or to move vs the lack of options for the people who could use affordable housing.

“We kindly ask that the Town adopts the new Housing Element without the inclusion of 23 Oakwood. Should that not be sufficient for the State, we ask that the Town commits to investing in considerably taller fencing and landscaping to block sight lines onto our family's property.
 


It's all hindsight but damn


#Crapshoot. At least Philly didn’t totally goof and has managed to perennially stay at the top of the East through it all. Not sure what direction they go in if Jimbo leaves this summer and they are just left with Embiid and Maxey. Maybe a S&T would be possible with his new team that could bring something valuable back?
 
The situation in California’s major cities, SF and LA in particular, is very complex. The homeless populations in those areas have indisputably become more prone to crime in recent years. Driven by people with seriousness mental health and/or substance abuse issues. So I think NIMBY-ism in the state has become more common because of that, with people tending to forget there are other categories of low income folks who need affordable housing. So, the knee-jerk reaction to alternative housing proposals in certain areas is negative.
 
I'm honestly shocked Atherton was even contemplating multi-family housing....how did that even get on the agenda :lol:

edit: with as many bay area properties they've bought/sold - if the answer is something gets built right behind them, they'll just up and move again
 
BLOW IT UP

This is a steal for you guys.m but I’m willing to do this for you.

5A9D985E-2DFB-4B35-8502-3868EED437FA.jpeg
 
I'm not sure why ya'll don't just come to the truth of situations :lol: . Rich people are always going to choose the safety & comfort of them & their families over the feelings of the general public.

Also i'm confused.... If where Steph lives at is one of the most affluent places in all of America. Do ya'll genuinely think that housing is going to People in need?? I'm in NYC where they have "affordable" housing that starts at 100K & can make upwards of 200K in some places.

Chances are if that housing was ever built it was gonna go to some people who make at least 6 figures a year, not no homeless dude off the street.
 
Last edited:
I'm honestly shocked Atherton was even contemplating multi-family housing....how did that even get on the agenda :lol:

edit: with as many bay area properties they've bought/sold - if the answer is something gets built right behind them, they'll just up and move again
I’m surprised too. Atherton is basically all huge mansion estates and nothing else :lol:

516C25B2-5DBA-4E40-A38D-DDED0C430578.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The situation in California’s major cities, SF and LA in particular, is very complex. The homeless populations in those areas have indisputably become more prone to crime in recent years. Driven by people with seriousness mental health and/or substance abuse issues. So I think NIMBY-ism in the state has become more common because of that, with people tending to forget there are other categories of low income folks who need affordable housing. So, the knee-jerk reaction to alternative housing proposals in certain areas is negative.
NIMBY-ism directly contributes to homelessness. If californians want less unpredictable elements on the street they should support more housing to place them in.
 
Back
Top Bottom