DeSantis' Diabolical Plan For Reedy Creek

 Florida Governor Ron DeSantis may have more plans for the Reedy Creek Improvement Area other than just owning the libs.  And they are, predictably, evil.  

Here's the plan, as I see it.  It's only my opinion, and I have no doubt whatsoever that DeSantis will deny it.  

DeSantis dissolved the Reedy Creek Improvement Area, forcing Orange and Oscola Counties to pick up at least $163M/year to pay for services that are currently being provided by Reedy Creek.  Orange and Osceola Counties are heavily Democratic, so they aren't DeSantis' "people", so he thinks he can get away with screwing them over.  

- Orange and Osceola Counties have to increase property taxes by at least 25% to cover the shortfall.  This triggers people who live there to pack up and leave.  Property owners will feel the pinch badly enough, but renters will go elsewhere because those property taxes will be passed on to them, and they'll have no choice but flee.  So then those heavily Democratic residents will be displaced elsewhere, reducing or eliminating the Democratic stronghold in the area.  

- No longer able to meet their obligations, Orange and Osceola Counties file for bankruptcy.  DeSantis appoints Receivers for them, and the Republican Party effectively takes control of two heavily Democratic counties in a coup rather than an election. 

- With so many people leaving the Reedy Creek area, Disney will lose so many workers that they will have to curtail park hours, or close some days, costing them billions.  

But the plan also has some risks.  

- Screwing over Disney, the largest employer in the state, may start a downward spiral, which would cause the loss of the parks.  As the tourism surrounding Disney currently provides something like 20% of Florida's total economy, this would be disastrous.  Counting all of their theme parks and resorts, Disney employs roughly 80,000 people in the Reedy Creek area.  They affect tens of thousands more in non-Disney properties and services in the area.  Losing all of that is something Florida voters won't soon forget.  

- While Orange and Osceola Counties are heavily Democratic, they do have a lot of Republicans as well, who might not appreciate DeSantis causing their taxes to skyrocket.  DeSantis only won the election by a little over 30,000 votes.  If he makes life unpleasant for enough Republicans in Orange and Osceola Counties then in the 2022 election they might vote for someone else, or just sit out the election.  This would likely affect the presidential election in 2024 as well. 

Either way the message is clear: DeSantis has a vindictive streak a mile wide, and if you cross him he will break you.  No one with that sort of personality should hold the reins of power in a democratic country. 

Your Florida Has Already Been New-Yorked

 Whenever changes to the way we plan our cities in Florida are discussed, whether it's changes to land use zoning, streets and highways, bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, or especially mass transit, there is invariably some mook who pops up and comments "Don't New York my Florida."  Well, I hate to break this to you, but your Florida has already been New-Yorked, and it happened decades ago, in some cases up to a century. 

If you like Florida cities that are sprawled out because land use zoning completely separates out areas for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental purposes then you like a Florida that has been New-Yorked.  The first land use zoning laws in the country were enacted in New York in 1916.  In urban planning circles those laws are known as "Euclidian" zoning, because Euclid, Ohio enacted similar laws, which were tested in court in 1924, and found to be constitutional.  So if you like that kind of zoning regulations then you like a Florida that has been New-Yorked.  

The idea that interstate highways and expressways should drive right through the heart of urban areas came from the tormented mind of Robert Moses, who was the urban planner for New York City for 40 years.  So if you like Florida cities that have interstate highway driven through their cores then you like a Florida that has been New-Yorked.  

If you like urban areas that are completely car dependent, and devoid of functional mass transit then you like a Florida that has been New-Yorked.  Robert Moses hated mass transit, and did everything he could to destroy it in New York.  (Fortunately, he failed, but NYC is paying the price for his folly to this day.)  Prior to the end of WWII, Florida cities were relatively rich in mass transit, from rail lines to tram lines to buses.  After the end of WWII, during the GI Bill land boom, Florida cities adopted the design methods of Robert Moses, and did everything they could to make sure they were completely car dependent, and mass transit, if it existed at all, only competed with walking and never with driving.  The Federal Aid Highways Act of 1953, which created the System of Interstate and Defense Highways, compounded this by enabling and encouraging cities to drive interstate highways right through their urban cores, ala New York City under Robert Moses.  Most often displacing communities of color, and poor communities in the process.  So if you like car dependent cities devoid of functional mass transit then your Florida has already been New-Yorked.  

If you don't mind all of these things, and you think they're the way Florida cities should be, despite coming from New York, then maybe your problem isn't with New York after all, but with the idea of doing things differently from the way we have done them over the past 80 years.  In which case you need to get out more. 

Guidelines for commenting in a field not your own

Quite a lot in online discussions I see otherwise highly intelligent people demonstrate a seemingly utter lack of ability to hold a civil argument.  I have been guilty of this myself.  So I thought about it for a while and came up with some guidelines for a civil discourse.

1. Don’t be arrogant.  Keep firmly in mind that maybe, just possibly, there’s a teensy-weensy chance that you aren’t the smartest person in the room.  This is especially so if you are an expert in one field commenting on an area that is not your field.  People with PhDs seem to have a particular problem with this.  Being an arrogant know-it-all will shut down the conversation and get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

2. Don’t shoot from the lip.  Keep firmly in mind that someone somewhere at some time for some reason thought the idea you’re commenting on was a good one.  If you start the discussion with words to the effect “That idea is insane and you’re stupid,” then that shuts down the conversation before it starts.  Approaching the subject with a little humility will yield far better results.  
First, instead of going on the attack, start by asking a question: “What leads you to believe this is a good idea?”  
Or lead an explanation.  “This idea doesn’t make sense to me, please explain it in more detail.”  
Or just ask questions, in a non-insulting manner, that make the people you’re disagreeing with justify their position.  
Instead of going on the attack turn the comment on yourself.  Instead of “you’re wrong” start with “I disagree”.  Then construct your argument accordingly.
You could construct your argument along these lines:
“As a [$CREDENTIAL] I think your idea is mistaken because [$FACTS], [$REASONING], [$CONCLUSIONS].  
Making a well reasoned argument will get you listened to.  Starting with insulting both ideas and people will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

3. If you are commenting outside your field, and you think your field may add perspective to the conversation then say so.  Keep firmly in mind, however, that you are commenting outside your field.  When in doubt, see Guideline 1.  

4. Get the facts of the subject you’re commenting on before you comment.  Keep in mind that people in whatever forum you’re using may have facts you don’t, especially if they’ve been involved for a long time in a project that you’ve just stumbled across.  Get the facts before you comment, especially if you think an idea is a bad one.  If there are publicly available documents then get them, read them, and make sure you understand them before constructing your argument.  Spouting off before you have the facts, or refusing to learn them, will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

5. Learn the language of the field in which you are commenting, especially if it is not your own, even if it is closely related to your own.  Every field has its own language.  Never assume the language is the same as your own field.   Even closely related fields may have significant differences in their nomenclature, terminology, concepts, and sources.  Learn them before you try to impose your will on a forum that is not in your field.  Failure to learn the language, and a refusal to do so, will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

6. Learn something about the widely respected sources in the field in which you are commenting, especially if it is not your own field.  Most especially if you disagree with those sources.  Preferably before you insult them.  If you come out of the gate by insulting people’s mentors then the only thing you’re going to get is pushback, and dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

7. Keep in mind that unlettered people aren’t stupid.  An unlettered autodidact who spends a lot of time studying a subject of interest may, in fact, have knowledge that you don’t.  Insulting those people, their sources, their reasoning, their opinions, and their intelligence is not a good way to win friends or influence people, and will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

8. When you’re an expert in one field who dabbles in another field as a hobby, and you find yourself in an argument with people who are credentialed working professionals in that field, then your best course of action is to listen to them before you disagree with them.  You, as a hobbyist, trying to dictate policy to working professionals in the field will not go over well.  As a hobbyist in a discussion with working professionals in a field, trying to explain their jobs to them, and refusing to listen to them, will get you dismissed as an arrogant crank.  

In conclusion, I think you get the idea by now.  Keeping a discussion civil is much more likely to get you listened to.  Even if you at first disagree strongly with an idea, make sure you wrap your mind around it fully before diving headfirst into disagreement.  Make sure you understand the facts, language, reasoning, and sources behind the idea before you vociferously disagree with it.  Just don’t be an arrogant crank and you won’t get dismissed as an arrogant crank. 

Is Astra pulling a scam, or is Kerrisdale Capital?

 Or is Kerrisdale Capital just too stupid to understand space startups?  Or is Kerrisdale Capital a short seller trying to drive the stock price down through the power of bullshit so they can make money from it? 

Let's get this straight: Investing in space launch startups is gambling.  There's an old joke about this: "How do you make a small fortune in the aerospace industry?  You start with a large one."  It's gambling.  If you don't know that investing in space launch startups is gambling then maybe you shouldn't be investing in space startups. 

Kerrisdale Capital claims that Astra mis-stated their post merger cash on hand, and rather than having enough cash to run through 2025 they only have enough to run through 2023.  Big deal.  Is it an intentional violation of securities law, or did someone just underestimate their burn rate?  Or is Kerrisdale inflating their burn rate?  Again: It's gambling, and if you don't know it's gambling then maybe you shouldn't be investing in space launch startups.  

Kerrisdale claims that "the seemingly mundane issue of finding somewhere to launch is a risk to Astra's long-term vision because contrary to management's oft repeated claim -- Astra can't launch from anywhere."  This is nonsense.  Astra already has a place to launch: Kodiak Island Spaceport.  Astra designed their launch infrastructure to be portable, and it all fits into, IIRC, 6 shipping containers.  They fly the whole mess to Kodiak for their test launches.  They could launch from Kwajalien Island for equatorial launches.  They are negotiating a lease at Wallops Island.  They're negotiating a lease at Cape Canaveral.  Heck, they could launch from a good size parking lot if they could get the permissions.  Any problems they might have in finding places to launch aren't physical, but legal.  If Kerrisdale can't figure this out then maybe they shouldn't be investing in space startups.  

This is one of the problems with the financialization of tech startups in general, and space startups in particular: Bean counters demand guaranteed returns, and space startups often run into technical issues that prevent them from delivering those guaranteed returns.  If you can't figure this out then maybe you shouldn't be investing in space startups. It's gambling, pure and simple. 

Disclaimer: I have a position in Astra Space.  I am not a professional investment adviser, and if you need one then you should hire one.  I am not an expert in spaceflight, I'm just a guy with an opinion and a big mouth. 

Update: Unfortunately, this did not age well.  Astra is going bankrupt because of criminal mismanagement.  They've failed to get payloads to orbit enough that all of their potential customers bailed out.  Now they're going into the business of building parts for other businesses.  Criminal mismanagement.  

Conservatives on the Covid vaccine

 

Conservatives: "Pharmaceuticals in America are too expensive and take too long to bring to market because there is too much regulation and too much bureaucracy in getting them approved. We should slash the regulations and red tape to bring down drug prices." 

 

Also Conservatives: "You shouldn't take the Covid vaccines because they are experimental, they don't have full approval, we don't know how effective they are, and we don't know anything about long term aftereffects."

 

<facepalm>

Why Don't You Move There, Part Duh

Whenever I mention that I like the way some other part of the country or part of the world does something, when I think they do it markedly better than we do here in Florida, USA, there's always some mook who pops up with the question "Why don't you move there".  It happens so often, with the same set of answers, that I'm tired of relitigating it every time it crops up.  Here is a list of answers, and you can pick the ones that apply. 

1. It's too far away from my family.

2. It's too far away from my friends and social network. 

3. There isn't any work for me there with my skill set.  

 4. (conditional) It's too expensive. 

5. (conditional) I don't like the weather. 

6. Fleeing is the easy way out.   Working to improve your home is the much more challenging, and much more rewarding path.  

Governor DeSantis did not have a majority.

 One of the current Republican claims is that Governor DeSantis won the 2018 gubernatorial election with, depending on who is telling the tale, 270,000 votes, or 320,000 votes.  They're wrong.  Governor DeSantis didn't even have a majority, let alone a large majority.  

The expressly nonpartisan site, Ballotpedia, tells the actual story:

https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_gubernatorial_and_lieutenant_gubernatorial_election,_2018

The TLDR is that DeSantis didn't have a majority at all.  He won with 49.6% of the vote, so he had the largest plurality, but not a majority.  Taken as the difference between DeSantis' plurality, and the next largest, Democrat Andrew Gillum, DeSantis won by 32,463 votes.  In fact, the difference was so small that the third largest plurality, that of Reform Party candidate Darcy Richardson, was larger than the difference, at 47,140 votes.  

Any way you slice it, DeSantis' election win was a squeaker, not a landslide.  If Florida had a sane electoral system then we would have had a runoff election between DeSantis and Gillum, and voters would have had another crack at them without the alternate parties.  If we had used ranked choice voting then the outcome might have been different.  

Finally, I'll repeat my observation from the 2018 campaign: If these two mooks are the best our political parties can come up with then we're in real trouble.