I'm a retired computer programmer so this is spur of the moment, but it occurred to me reading this thread that I'd like to help anyone using AI in the sobriety and recovery community on a volunteer basis. I've been using Claude Opus as a sponsor, sobriety coach and recovery therapist (CBT,DBT) to amazing effect. I'd like to share what I've discovered and formalize the process. If you know of any opportunities like this please let me know.
Location: San Jose
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: These days I mostly use C# and Python, but have used several others
Résumé/CV: I deleted my LinkedIn account because I'm retired, but resume available
Email: See Hacker News profile for contact information
I used a program called Monkey extensively in 1986 while performing final testing of Microsoft Works for the Macintosh to shake out the last bugs in the program. I found a quite a few bugs that would probably never occur in real life, but it made the program much more robust. Nobody ever complained about Works crashing.
But where? Therein lies the rub. Would you go up the North Coast? There's plenty of farmland there. Would you go into the forest, requiring felling a lot of trees? Please don't say you want to build out Lighthouse Field.
Everywhere there's currently a building, that's where more housing should go.
The only problem is that it's currently illegal to do that. Building a massive mansion is by-right, building apartments triggers a discretionary process that can be derailed by only a few motivated people.
I'm 66, born and raised in Santa Cruz with family there and it's bizarre when your sleepy surf town turns into the hottest real estate market in California, which might make it the hottest market in the world, and none of your children, nieces and nephews can afford to live there. There's a adage in Santa Cruz that we all know well "Once you move from Santa Cruz you'll never be able to afford to move back." Many small towns across America are experiencing depopulation and poverty. Santa Cruz is the opposite, experiencing wealth and luxury. I have no further comment except to say it seems unusual.
Edit: I'm not living there. I'm over the hill in San Jose where rents are more affordable and I can't move back.
Edit2: The locals blame giving UCSC students a vote in local politics on our woes, because they are transients, progressive and don't understand local issues, preferring to preserve greenspace and the environment over growth. I'm happy with the greenspace and acccept the cost of maintaining it - I'm not complaining, merely sharing how strange it is to be priced out of your home town.
This was the explicit plan for Santa Cruz, to stop all housing after the 70s and 80s and see a massive rise in property values.
It's all there in the opinion articles and letters to the editor from the time, this future was predicted. It was the plan that was accepted by leaders at the time.
I'm not aware of any such plan. The plan was always to preserve open space such as Lighthouse Field and the green belt around Santa Cruz. I'm grateful for both of those. Property values would have risen even if they had built on Lighthouse field and the green belt. It just occured to me that I could think of them as the equivalent of NYC's Central Park or SF's Golden Gate Park.
I love the green belt! But talk to the Greenbelt's original proponents, like Primack, and you will find that the city left out the other part of the green belt proposal that was necessary for environmental protection: allow apartments to be built up.
So instead of building taller, we have decades of people living further out, building into the urban wild land interface outside of the greenbelt. That results in massive ecosystem destruction, more car pollution, and of course tons of traffic everywhere.
The solution is to merely allow apartments and 3-4 story buildings. It only takes three four story buildings to equal that 12 story building, for example.
They're doing that outside the city limits, in Live Oak for example, but inside the city limits, the Beach Flats is the only place I can think of until recently, when they started building downtown Santa Cruz. As unsightly as the downtown buildings are, if they revitalize downtown it won't be so bad. Maybe Logo's used books will come back.
There have been some buildings on Water Street in recent years too.
But that's the "plan" I was talking about: all other areas are banned from having apartments. It's right there in the city general plan. No more housing, except for a few tiny areas.
A few years ago we proposed housing along Soquel in the commercial area, and millionaire homeowners bemoaned that we were destroying their poor "working class" neighborhood by allowing apartments and affordable housing. Meanwhile these same wealthy homeowners would never consider selling their homes to anyone who is not extremely wealthy or with an astronomical income. They cater to the wealthy while blocking more affordable housing.
This is the plan continuing its execution.
Recent state law will change this, slowly, over the coming decades by making such unfair plans illegal. More housing must be allowed in city general plans, and it can't all be stuck in the poor areas, or that will violate the states interpretation of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing provisions, as enforced by state HCD.
The city will delay as long as possible, and block as much as possible, but it will happen eventually. And if the city delays too long in updating the plan to allow for more housing, the Builders Remedy will allow developers to build without city having any discretionary approval.
Santa Cruz is certainly an outlier, but we're definitely seeing it all over the country.
I'm in a small town in southeast AK. Most of the buildable land has already been claimed. Tourism is growing faster than local people can support the industry, so there's all kinds of pressures: housing for summer employees, an increased temptation to do short term rentals to tourists instead of long term rentals to locals, and people buying second and third homes that they don't use most of the year.
Many of us watch our young people leave to go find their place in the world, and then find they can't move back even if they wanted to. The ones who do are paid really well, or have their housing largely subsidized by being given property their family bought a long time ago, or some similar assistance that isn't generally available to everyone.
For the past several years, multiple schools in our town have been unable to fill empty teaching positions because the people who are hired spend all spring and half the summer looking for housing, and simply can't find it. They bail and go somewhere that's willing to hire them and has some kind of housing available.
The most obvious answer seem to be around population density. What is the population density of your small town? Why would the developers not build multi-story apartments/condos?
Why is there no supply of multi-family buildings anywhere outside of cities? If everyone wants a single family home with a yard, you are going to run into space limitations.
I live in Sitka, AK. I don't know my town's land area, but we're roughly a 14-mile strip of land right between the base of steep mountains and the ocean. Most of town is about a half-mile from coast to mountains, with some stretches much narrower than that. We have about 9,000 people.
> Why would the developers not build multi-story apartments/condos?
Most of the same reasons as many places, with the added issue of not much undeveloped land to build on. Who wants to build a multi-story building when you can build an expensive house and deal with a single buyer? Zoning laws are controlled by people who already have homes, and don't prioritize accessible housing. People don't want to see the value of their home drop. People don't want their views blocked by tall buildings.
I feel a certain kind of sadness about it. There's not a word for the loss of your home town in English that I'm aware of, but there's a song that comes close to it.
If there are 5 houses in an area, populated by 1 family each for a total of 5 families, and those families have 1 child each (50% below population replacement rate), then with no new houses, there is no way for any of those children to have a house of their own until their parents die. But when their parents die, they get to have a home of their own.
At 2 children, the population replacement rate, only one child can have a house of their own after their parents die, if no new houses are constructed.
That assumes that the children stay single as they grow up. If they all get a partner it is no longer one house - one person. You literally only need half as many houses.
That's what happens when the low-income job market is dominated by the service industry. When wealth gets geographically concentrated, low-income workers have to follow it, and can't.
The worst part is that the wealth isn't getting concentrated into the hands of people: it's getting concentrated into the hands of landowners.
* If you are poor and pay rent, you're fucked
* If you are poor, but own your home, you are just OK; but would be better off if services were cheaper and more available (as a result of poor renters not being fucked)
* If you are rich, but pay rent, you are just OK, but would be better off if rent was lower (and poor renters wouldn't be fucked. Win-win!)
*If you are rich and own your home, then you are lucky enough to be the problem. Even so, you would be better off if rent was lower, because services would become more available, and your community would be safer and happier.
There's a fifth category; rich, own your home, and a couple more. If you're a landlord, high rents mean more money in your pocket and who doesn't want more money? The broader community effects of high rents are secondary to being able to afford a new car and a foreign vacation every few years.
The other version of that is a landowner who doesn't live in the area. If you are an exec at a property management corporation, then you get to buy your own ignorance.
Who do you blame if the big industry in town that has been growing for decades is projected to keep growing but the locals decide to not take advantage of it?
The best universities, community colleges, amazing tool libraries to learn the trades, yet.. all these people who move half way around the world to settle with no credit and hardly any savings to start end up buying a home, yet the locals can’t figure it out. Decade after decade.
> all these people who move half way around the world to settle with no credit and hardly any savings to start end up buying a home, yet the locals can’t figure it out.
That's because it's brain drain on the rest of the world. You're importing some of the world's most educated people in and of course they outcompete the locals.
Are you saying the unis in Santa Cruz are sufficient to raise yourself to millionaire, and the local high schools sufficient to get into those unis? I’m not from the US, genuinely asking. But I have often seen unis have a far-distance preference, just for the social mix, while letting down the locals.
I guess it really depends on how you count your monies, but if you apply yourself at UCSC you can definitely do quite well. At least, that was true for my generation- I graduated from there in '95, missed out on the first tech recession by hiding in grad school, and then eventually moved to industry when I felt educated enough. Since my industry is tech, I've generally been paid well, with an especially profitable stint at Google. Nearly all that money got reinvested (not in housing) and continues to grow quite well.
Realistically, though, everything about CS changed and so now, I don't know that somebody could get a degree from UCSC and even afford to be a grad student or junior programmer here unless they're willing to give up a lot of niceties.
Lots of entrepreneurs got their education at UCSC, but typically they put their companies outside of town (not many employees want to move to town. There are some exceptions...)
Santa Cruz students have no more difficulty getting into UCSC than other parts of the state. But the UC has gotten extremely selective due to the same reason housing is short in Santa Cruz: it's not been properly sized to allow for standard population growth in the US.
I went to UCSC, the Santa Cruz uni, as a California resident that went to high school 30-40 mins north of Santa Cruz, got a BS in computer engineering, and managed to do a couple of years at Google, so I've some money, though they didn't make me a millionaire. They would have if I'd stayed longer though.
I mean, if you're saying the locals (a population of what? a million?) should be able to compete with the best and brightest from the entire planet (9 billion?) or move, then I have to disagree.
Most of them are not the best and brightest. The best and brightest get scooped up locally. The people who move are usually just good enough, but they're hungry and willing to work their asses off. That is their edge.
Sources needed. For example, the hottest tech co. paying $1m comp packages, OpenAI. Is leadership from the Bay Area? No, it was the brightest people, from St. Louis, North Dakota, Albania / Canada, Russia / Israel. You can take a look at all the top tech co's and top brass in the Bay Area, it will be like 80% transplants. The brightest didn't start the next best tech co in Missouri or Albania.
Sources needed as to whether they were the brightest people in their home towns / countries when they left or if they became brighter through hard work and learning after arriving to the Bay Area.
Even if they were the brightest, are the thousands of people working at Bay Area companies the brightest from back home? Having worked with quite a few of them, I assure you that there are plenty of brighter people where they come from.
Places change and grow. It's interesting that my kids have found places that speak to them (not the SF Bay Area) and they are growing with their towns as well. One wonders if your nieces and nephews will have the same situation.
There are clearly young families moving in around me, and the real estate market is brisk with houses changing hands quickly, but we've also added about 1500 higher density homes in the area which have afforded even more opportunities for where to live for these folks moving here. Certainly some of them prefer not doing maintenance etc which comes with home ownership.
Looking back at the city's decision to increase high density housing it has been a solid improvement.
Back in the early 1970s, Boulder, Colorado, had a referendum on restricting housing starts. It was pitched as an environmental thing, and it probably got help from the students at the University of Colorado. The referendum passed with absolutely massive turnout--precincts ran out of ballots.
This is pretty common across a number of smaller cities in California, especially beach cities. I moved into current home in Southern California 10 years back and probably not in a position to move in to any home in the city now, even with total family income increasing over this time.
Its practically everywhere in the world. Every city i mean. Maybe in SC on a extreme level, but even where I live in Amsterdam its 1.000.000 for an apartment. Which results in 4000 euros per month. Impossible for starters.
> I'm 66, born and raised in Santa Cruz... and none of your children, nieces and nephews can afford to live there
i mean, you're still living there too... where did you expect them to be? two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time
since we can't 'make land' (unless we dredge), the only logical place to put living habitats is up in the sky (we don't like living in holes in the ground)
There’s a ton of land that can be developed around Santa Cruz, it just can’t be developed due to public policy and local opposition.
Huge empty tracts all over and especially around Ben Lomond etc.
The flip side of all this is that a lot of long term residents love that their 100-200k houses are now worth a million+ with their property taxes capped at essentially nothing. They don’t want to give that up to allow their nieces and nephews to afford to grow their families in Santa Cruz.
There's tons of land inside of Santa Cruz that should be developed first. Keep the green belt and let people experience nature. Let all the people living in the hills and causing lots of environmental destruction through roads and other impacts stop making those impacts by giving them the equivalent rent inside the city.
In short, lots of houses would be great. (I'm a Santa Cruz resident, for the record)
NIMBYs in the city sue the university to stop all housing, infrastructure, or other things that may allow for more students or reduce their problems.
Fortunately there have been modifications to CEQA last year to prevent these abuses of the law that result in worse environmental outcomes (students driving long distances rather than living on campus)
The original plan was to build out UCSC a lot more. I think the regents lost their motivation after building colleges 9 and 10 and also I think if they built more student housing, they'd have to build more parking lots (so many students have cars) and the traffic in the city would increase tremendously.
No need. We're solving a narrow problem: students' need to park on campus. Out-of-town commuter and part-time students will need a car. But everyone else is solvable.
Specifically, Merrill and Oakes college have that parking lot, and there's a parking structure by the Earth/sciences building, and another one up above college 11, and several more. Once you get on campus though, there's a reasonably good shuttle to take you around campus, so you just need to park somewhere on campus and then give yourself enough time to take the shuttle to your destination. If you're living on campus, you only need to get off campus to go to the local downtown bar scene, or for other extracurriculars, but there's a bus that takes you downtown so as a student you can get away with not having a car.
Well, it's also not how car problems are solved at UCSC, either.
UCSC is an enclave on a hill with limited transport routes to downtown or the rest of the world. And the UCSC leadership has its hands tied by many different things; they can't just say "OK no cars on campus except if you are a commuter".
There's probably millions of tons of unused copper wire formerly used for telephone land lines nailed to poles unused. I wonder when we're going to start taking that down instead of despoiling natural wonders like the proposed Pebble Mine in Alaska
Actually I think Bill would be a pretty good candidate. Smart, mature, good at first principles reasoning, deeply understands both the tech world and the nonprofit world, is a tech person who's not socially networked with the existing SF VCs, and (if the vague unsubstantiated rumors about Sam are correct) is one of the few people left with enough social cachet to knock Sam down a peg or two.
I served on a US Nuclear submarine and my wife at the time served at a deguassing station demagnetizing submarines. I understood the purpose at the time was to remove any magnetism the sub might have so it wouldn't trigger magnetic mines.
