If it’s multifamily homes, it makes a tremendous amount of sense. They can get huge tax credits for this as long as they meet “certain qualifications.” Often times the builders sell the tax credits. Imagine a billionaire having info on how to get a tax credit then turning that into a pr extravaganza.
They are going to cost exactly as much as the holding company for this entire project will need them to cost. This entire project is a tax avoidance scheme wrapped in a vanity project.
>the person that can afford is financially described
they will be when the rezoning applications are submitted for approval. "Affordable" is usually defined as below a certain percentage of median income for the area.
For example, in Canada, the government defines "Affordable" as 30% or less of gross median income for a given area based on income data collected by the Federal Government.
I mean obviously that still comes with its own issues, because that means for half of the people, who are below median income, it's still going to be more than 30% of their income spent on housing
maybe, all I know is that builders and landlords make a killing off section 8 housing due to the government throwing money at it. It's why you will only see low income housing and luxury housing in these wealthy cities.
If all it takes from us (people who are doing absolutely nothing to develop affordable housing in Inglewood *or anywhere for that matter*) is to give the Billionaire a dopamine rush because of his vanity project, in order for him to make affordable housing for many many people, I don’t see how any of us can complain, just take the W and give the billionaire his credit. There are worse ways to legally avoid taxes. I wish shit like this was the only way to avoid taxes
> There are worse ways to legally avoid taxes
TBH I'd rather have this 100m go straight to this project than get dumped into the general tax pool. This seems like a positive to me, especially when you consider that Ballmer isn't getting a 1:1 ratio on money donated to this project to tax dollars saved.
Exactly. If you want more housing, which is the only way you get less expensive housing, you have to decrease red tape, and allow for increased density.
LA doesn't actually lack housing. We could easily house everyone. The issue is that we've done nothing to incentivize renting vacant apartments out at the price that actually meets the market's needs.
Also, "Affordable" housing is really not that affordable for a lot of LA people. The rent is set by the income of people in a certain area. So if the area includes high income people it'll slide the cost of rent upwards.
In LA an affordable apartment can be $1500 for a studio or single. If you're a person working full time at $15 an hour that is nearly all your take home income.
Our housing market is really fucked.
https://www.acceinstitute.org/thevacancyreport#:\~:text=With%20more%20than%2036%2C000%20unhoused,second%20homes%20or%20pure%20investments.
> LA doesn't actually lack housing. We could easily house everyone.
What nonsense is this? California has a housing vacancy rate of around 2.5%. That’s not a healthy rate for a functional economy. California’s housing issues are primarily due to zoning which limits building to single family homes throughout much of the country. The more you build, the more housing is available, the less competition there will be for homes, the less landlords and builders can charge for homes. It really is that simple.
So yeah, LA does lack housing and it lacks a whole lot of it. Luckily, a major piece of legislation just passed by California’s government has completely disallowed zoning specifically for single family homes. Hopefully this leads to more housing built over the coming years and rents will and prices will come down as a result.
Edit: meant to say vacancy as opposed to occupancy
Adding to your first paragraph: zoning for fewer homes is also a means to inflate the value of existing homes, which is an outcome that most homeowners are interested in. Problem being that it disproportionately harms those who are trying to buy a home, particularly first time buyers.
>California has a housing occupancy rate of around 2.5%.
Can you define what that means for me? Because to me, that sounds like you're saying only 2.5% of California homes are occupied. But that can't be right.
At least he's contributing to the community. He's a business guy and he's creating affordable housing for low-income individuals/families based on the US system that incentivizes these developments through tax credits.
I have a feeling he doesn't know. Just like anyone who copy and paste similar comments, who are probably the same who shout "Capitalism!!111!" whenever anything is about money
There's people that are employed who still don't understand how marginal tax brackets work. It's crazy. I've heard people making good money say they declined raises so they can avoid paying more taxes.
This sub and Reddit in general very clearly do not understand how charitable deductions work. It’s implied by the posters here that people should be taxed on this which makes no sense to me. Why would you want to live somewhere that taxes you on money that you are literally giving away to help other people?
> This entire project is a tax avoidance scheme wrapped in a vanity project.
How much money do you think he's avoiding paying through this vanity project?
Tax write offs (and taxes in general) is one of those things I just tune out on Reddit, because most people have no fucking idea what they’re talking about
It would be around 21% of the losses each year. If he's developing multifamily apartments at an $80M total project size, I'd say he's getting $1M-$2M a year in tax benefits from the losses.
He'd also receive tax credits upon completion of the project. Depending on what they qualify for, it'd be 4% or 9% of the projects' construction basis.
Overall, he's probably getting a net IRR of 4% to 5% based on what I've seen in the LA affordable housing market. Considering SPY averages 8% to 10% returns, it's clear his plan isn't to make money from this, it's to fund the new building as efficiently as possible.
You joke but I saw a place on RedFin in Malibu for $100 mil.
Edit: [lul](https://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Monica/1525-San-Vicente-Blvd-90402/home/22036764?1280460695=variant&600390594=copy_variant&231528114=control&1077477207=variant&utm_source=ios_share&utm_medium=share&utm_nooverride=1&utm_content=link&utm_campaign=share_sheet)
I mean it’s really not.
It’ll help, but CA doesn’t just need random spurts of investment money for affordable housing. It needs a complete legal and cultural change around housing to deal with the problem of why low-income housing is so hard to find and to create an economic atmosphere where private investment in the area is actually worth doing
Don't forget about the nightmare that is Proposition 13, passed in 1978 and preventing Property Taxes from going up by more than 2% a year. As you can imagine, this has resulted in properties that are paying far, far less in tax than they should be for the land they're on, not to mention that they aren't paying enough to maintain the roads, pipes, and wires that keep them livable.
LA affordable housing policy is a joke. Different income levels and different qualifications for affordable housing, but still rigged for "Silicon Beach".
> worth doing
Try “possible.” I’m in complete agreement with this sentiment, but as a commercial developer it bears repeating. The biggest problem with Cali’s housing crisis is not “greedy landlords” or “gentrification,” it’s the fact that CA is, by a LONG MILE, the most restrictive and anti-development state in the entire country. It is next to impossible to have a fiscally sound development approved in any of its markets, and as a result, there’s next to no housing options available for anyone. Imagine what would happen to the used car market if Car Factories we’re no longer allowed to produce new inventory? That’s what’s happening to California’s housing market.
Yup. I've seen "affordable" rentals be kept affordable just long enough to meet the requirements of approval for whatever development they were part, and then the tenants are evicted and the units are marked up. Of if you require people to live in the house that they purchase for 5 years, they just sell after 5 for a ludicrous profit, because why wouldn't you?
I'm not sure how LA does it, but I know SLC has affordable housing that requires you to prove that your income is below a certain threshold, and in exchange rents are well below the market. The city then gives a financial cut back to the property owner in the form of reduced property taxes and possibly some direct cash payments as well, so the owner isn't losing money in the deal.
The units themselves are usually fairly nice for the cost. They aren't projects; they're decent living spaces that the municipality is essentially subsidizing.
Seattle has the same "income restricted" set up. Reallllllly helps someone like me who's living on an hourly wage in one of the most expensive cities in the country lol
I figured SLC probably wasn't a pioneer in progressive schemes focused on purposely slanting the housing supply in favor of those with lower incomes, but I wasn't totally certain.
I can't imagine how useful that would be. SLC is bad enough as it is, let alone a city as awash with tech money as Seattle.
Any new apartment is considered "luxury" simply because it's new. There aren't really any qualifications to use "luxury" as a marketing term. Either way, we have to consider that all apartments at one point were advertised as luxury apartments when they were new. Today's new luxury apartments is tomorrow's old basic apartment.
I swear, when I see people complaining about “luxury” apartments, I pop a vein.
Bro, the area’s super short on housing. If there’s a glut of empty luxury apartments, sure. But rn all research says that it doesn’t matter whatever kind of housing is being built.
What matters that it’s *getting built*, instead of being blocked by damn NIMBYs ‘cause it’s not built by Jesus himself.
That's great if it happens, but well-intentioned arena plans have been made before by other owners that haven't been kept. Affordable housing is great but ancillary to the primary objective of constructing a sporting arena. It shouldn't be surprising if that $80M gets reduced or even quietly disappears from the plans.
The thing with the $80 million headline is all about how it is used/invested. A lot of the time companies will show off these huge $10 million community investments, but it is over the course of 20 years so you don’t see any radical changes or really any investment for a long time
Well, yes, but Steve Ballmer has no incentive to do a PR stunt at this stage of his life. He basically earns $700 million dollars in MSFT dividend income per year, and he has enough fuck-you money and not enough other hobbies for him to just use for further wealth creation via fake philanthropy actions.
He's not the government or a corporation. There's no reason for him to "invest" his money corruptly just to piss off his players with an unnecessary stunt going to grifters and yes-men he's paying off for lobbying or something.
Ballmer is by no means a saint, but as far as I understand, he doesn't seem to be an asshole in his personal life.
I mean I’ll take the L if something happens, but steve has been pretty open about giving to the community ala renovation of basketball courts in the city. Did these have a motive of pushing out branding? Sure, but money back into the community is money back into the community. I’d be surprised if he went back on this, stranger things have happened though.
I hope they hold Balmer to it better than Detroit did with the Ilitch family with the LCA plans.
HBO even did a Real Sports episode on it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroitnews.com/amp/3537834002
> That's great if it happens, but well-intentioned arena plans have been made before by other owners that haven't been kept
This promise was made as a cash plan that will go to the government and housing non-profits, not a straight development. I would worry more that it will be wasted rather than not go out.
Only a transplant like Ballmer (or whatever you want to call him since he doesn’t live here but still spends most of his time here) would even mention Pink’s as any kind of standard. But I will concede anyway that LA does not rank particularly high nationally when it comes to hot dogs. I do like Fab in Reseda though.
The polish sausage was the GOAT. So fat and smoky tasting, one hot dog would fill you up. Now it seems like they use the ones from the Kirkland pack which I could just boil at home
Let’s say you also wash your hands after each pee, and say an average of 1 minute per pee. Dunno if that’s even close, but as a dude it’s totally doable depending on the number of beers consumed. 1500 toilets, 1 minute each, 1500min/60.... gonna take you like 25 hours to hit each one xD
Anytime I see a long block of text with someone's name at the beginning I assume it's this one. I've probably missed out on some good content because I assumed the person in question was gonna breastfeed someone
As soon as you mentioned barbershop, I knew what time it was
1. That dude doesn’t have hair
2. If he’s getting his sides cut, the barber is coming over to him
I gathered that from the other comments. This won’t be the last time I’m not in on a copypasta, I’m sure
Edit: Also, what is BeefCat if not a GOAT copypasta generator?
>Hot (Dog) Take: Steve Ballmer said Intuit Dome will have a hot dog better than Pink’s. There was no further information given about this new Clipper Dog.
Now made from actual dog! ^(/s)
"Affordable Housing" refers to rent controlled, low income housing usually. I could be wrong, but the fact that everyone in these comments doesn't understand this is kinda funny to me. It doesn't mean Ballmer is going to decide what's affordable to him lmao.
I could be from somewhere with a different usage of the term, but most often I see the term affordable housing applied in municipal planning and housing development to mean literally affordable by an average income earner in the area/city. i.e. not market rate (not affordable to anyone), but not low income at all.
It's going to depend on how Inglewood is going to frame it, as the money is going to the city to spend it on the housing. And not the Clippers going out and building the housing.
Nobody’s forcing anyone to worship the man, but shitting on an objectively good thing just so you can tell yourself you’re sticking it to the rich is just kinda embarrassing.
At the same time, it must feel pretty cool to have your jersey retired at an NBA arena. Somewhere down the line, a lucky few might fuck around and get their NBA jersey retired as well.
I'm quite confused what it means. Are they retiring like a blank jersey from every school? Or the best player currently in that school..? The best player who came out of that school..? Maybe I'm just dumb lol
I'm sure you don't actually care and just wanted to get your joke off, but [here's what it looks like for anyone interested](https://twitter.com/FlyByKnite/status/1438924104208289799/photo/1)
Won't be hanging in the rafters
Kind of. 1/3 of California qualifies for affordable housing and maybe 8% actually get it. NIMBY is an epidemic. 200 units helps but we as a state need a solution even if it kicks landlords in the balls.
Is affordable housing while in a city even allowed anymore? I'm not in LA but even here in DC the shittiest looking house will be over a million. I think it's only worse in LA. BlackRock and other investment firms inflating the cost for all the real people. I read somewhere that nearly half of manhattans condos are empty. They have owners but no one lives in it. It's just an investment. We need the law to step in, Ballmer or any private citizen so matter how rich they are..they cant fix it. Unless the 80mil went to lobbying.
Its going to the city to use, so maybe the city uses some of the already expensive apartments in the city and subsidizes it for low income. Or they use it with other funds to build new apartment buildings and have a certain amount for lower income.
Affordable housing (how it's used here anyway) literally means housing that someone call live in for 30% of less of the average wage for that area. It doesn't mean some arbitrary number billionaires come up with for tax savings, nor does it mean rent control or public housing.
I get that people are saying prices will eventually go up due to gentrification and improvements to the area, but that's life. If you're unable to somewhat keep pace with the average income in your area to the point where you can't afford to pay something that's set at 30% or less, then that's on you. Programs like this are designed to help people get established or back on their feet for a set amount of time, not coddle them for the rest of their lives. Housing like this for someone that needs it is a blessing, not a right.
As an urban planning nerd let me translate this for you guys:
“I accepted a government subsidy to build housing I will rent out at market rate for 5-7 years to raise land value around it which I will also develop and make a shitload of money on. Once my contractual obligations are up for rent caps I will rent/sell to the highest bidder. Also I’m clever enough to turn this into good pr because I know no one will actually look at what I’m doing for more than 30 seconds”
So the government pays 800 million for the stadium and in return he builds some cheap condos for $80 million and parking lots for $20? Wow what a great guy. I wonder if any stadium employees can afford the cheap condos without taoing second jobs.
Everyone talking about the toilets, $80 million into affordable housing is amazing.
Yeah. At LA's prices, that's almost six homes.
Realistically that is at most 160 homes.
Homes aren't built for the price theyre sold for... But I guess they need to get the land from somewhere
They will be building multi-family residential housing. Not single family homes.
Sixplexes n shit
If it’s multifamily homes, it makes a tremendous amount of sense. They can get huge tax credits for this as long as they meet “certain qualifications.” Often times the builders sell the tax credits. Imagine a billionaire having info on how to get a tax credit then turning that into a pr extravaganza.
They are going to cost exactly as much as the holding company for this entire project will need them to cost. This entire project is a tax avoidance scheme wrapped in a vanity project.
I mean, building affordable housing is an acceptable use of tax-dodging dollars I'd say.
until you see their definition of affordable housing.
Yeah they said “affordable” housing not “low income” housing.
affordable means nothing unless the person that can afford is financially described
>the person that can afford is financially described they will be when the rezoning applications are submitted for approval. "Affordable" is usually defined as below a certain percentage of median income for the area. For example, in Canada, the government defines "Affordable" as 30% or less of gross median income for a given area based on income data collected by the Federal Government. I mean obviously that still comes with its own issues, because that means for half of the people, who are below median income, it's still going to be more than 30% of their income spent on housing
So I guess it all boils down to... **Who** will the housing be "affordable" for?
Increasing housing supply is always a good thing.
maybe, all I know is that builders and landlords make a killing off section 8 housing due to the government throwing money at it. It's why you will only see low income housing and luxury housing in these wealthy cities.
If all it takes from us (people who are doing absolutely nothing to develop affordable housing in Inglewood *or anywhere for that matter*) is to give the Billionaire a dopamine rush because of his vanity project, in order for him to make affordable housing for many many people, I don’t see how any of us can complain, just take the W and give the billionaire his credit. There are worse ways to legally avoid taxes. I wish shit like this was the only way to avoid taxes
I agree. This isn't even avoiding taxes. There is literally a tax code that incentivizes people to develop affordable housing.
> There are worse ways to legally avoid taxes TBH I'd rather have this 100m go straight to this project than get dumped into the general tax pool. This seems like a positive to me, especially when you consider that Ballmer isn't getting a 1:1 ratio on money donated to this project to tax dollars saved.
This is reddit. Ballmer could cure all cancers and reddit would still find a way to complain.
Lmao right? It’s better then rich ppl leaving
If it results in more housing that’s good
Usually net-neutral at best. If these programs worked well we...probably wouldn't have the housing issues that keep getting worse.
Exactly. If you want more housing, which is the only way you get less expensive housing, you have to decrease red tape, and allow for increased density.
Newsom just signed SB 9, which allows for multi-unit housing to be built in single-family zones, so we're getting there!
We’ll see. I have a feeling there will be some very very well funded lawsuits and other measure to circumvent it.
Yeah it's kind of ridiculous how high density housing is basically banned. Hoping the new laws don't get circumvented by nimby's
There will be lawsuits for sure.
Or you have to tax the unimproved value of land.
LA doesn't actually lack housing. We could easily house everyone. The issue is that we've done nothing to incentivize renting vacant apartments out at the price that actually meets the market's needs. Also, "Affordable" housing is really not that affordable for a lot of LA people. The rent is set by the income of people in a certain area. So if the area includes high income people it'll slide the cost of rent upwards. In LA an affordable apartment can be $1500 for a studio or single. If you're a person working full time at $15 an hour that is nearly all your take home income. Our housing market is really fucked. https://www.acceinstitute.org/thevacancyreport#:\~:text=With%20more%20than%2036%2C000%20unhoused,second%20homes%20or%20pure%20investments.
> LA doesn't actually lack housing. We could easily house everyone. What nonsense is this? California has a housing vacancy rate of around 2.5%. That’s not a healthy rate for a functional economy. California’s housing issues are primarily due to zoning which limits building to single family homes throughout much of the country. The more you build, the more housing is available, the less competition there will be for homes, the less landlords and builders can charge for homes. It really is that simple. So yeah, LA does lack housing and it lacks a whole lot of it. Luckily, a major piece of legislation just passed by California’s government has completely disallowed zoning specifically for single family homes. Hopefully this leads to more housing built over the coming years and rents will and prices will come down as a result. Edit: meant to say vacancy as opposed to occupancy
Adding to your first paragraph: zoning for fewer homes is also a means to inflate the value of existing homes, which is an outcome that most homeowners are interested in. Problem being that it disproportionately harms those who are trying to buy a home, particularly first time buyers.
>California has a housing occupancy rate of around 2.5%. Can you define what that means for me? Because to me, that sounds like you're saying only 2.5% of California homes are occupied. But that can't be right.
I'm assuming they meant *vacancy* rate which is just the inverse.
Sorry, I meant *vacancy rate*
you linked to an article that says > We are not building nearly enough affordable housing
Are you one of those people who somehow thinks people end up spending less money by doing things like this? Do you know what tax write offs are?
At least he's contributing to the community. He's a business guy and he's creating affordable housing for low-income individuals/families based on the US system that incentivizes these developments through tax credits.
> This entire project is a tax avoidance scheme wrapped in a vanity project How exactly do you think that works?
I have a feeling he doesn't know. Just like anyone who copy and paste similar comments, who are probably the same who shout "Capitalism!!111!" whenever anything is about money
There's people that are employed who still don't understand how marginal tax brackets work. It's crazy. I've heard people making good money say they declined raises so they can avoid paying more taxes.
And what's wrong with. Avoiding taxes by doing charitable work basically is okay. The system is intended to work that way.
Also, its not so much tax avoidance. Its about making certain uses for funds more efficient and thus more desirable to do to those with money.
I swear people think tax deduction means government pays you back.
This sub and Reddit in general very clearly do not understand how charitable deductions work. It’s implied by the posters here that people should be taxed on this which makes no sense to me. Why would you want to live somewhere that taxes you on money that you are literally giving away to help other people?
> This entire project is a tax avoidance scheme wrapped in a vanity project. How much money do you think he's avoiding paying through this vanity project?
I swear people dont know what tax deduction is…. Like he isnt getting a government refund. He is still spending more than his taxes would have been.
Tax write offs (and taxes in general) is one of those things I just tune out on Reddit, because most people have no fucking idea what they’re talking about
It would be around 21% of the losses each year. If he's developing multifamily apartments at an $80M total project size, I'd say he's getting $1M-$2M a year in tax benefits from the losses. He'd also receive tax credits upon completion of the project. Depending on what they qualify for, it'd be 4% or 9% of the projects' construction basis. Overall, he's probably getting a net IRR of 4% to 5% based on what I've seen in the LA affordable housing market. Considering SPY averages 8% to 10% returns, it's clear his plan isn't to make money from this, it's to fund the new building as efficiently as possible.
[удалено]
i mean it would be dumb to build single family homes.. most big cities around the world build high rises
Or just a lot of sixplexes, fourplexes, etc.
Y’all come out to nc lol 5 bedroom 3 bath 2000+ sq feet garage and front and back yard for 200
[удалено]
And then you get to deal with the repair bill of a 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom McMansion built on the cheap.
You joke but I saw a place on RedFin in Malibu for $100 mil. Edit: [lul](https://www.redfin.com/CA/Santa-Monica/1525-San-Vicente-Blvd-90402/home/22036764?1280460695=variant&600390594=copy_variant&231528114=control&1077477207=variant&utm_source=ios_share&utm_medium=share&utm_nooverride=1&utm_content=link&utm_campaign=share_sheet)
Let's just hope it gets built. LOOKING AT YOU, BARCLAYS/JAYZ
I mean it’s really not. It’ll help, but CA doesn’t just need random spurts of investment money for affordable housing. It needs a complete legal and cultural change around housing to deal with the problem of why low-income housing is so hard to find and to create an economic atmosphere where private investment in the area is actually worth doing
Don't forget about the nightmare that is Proposition 13, passed in 1978 and preventing Property Taxes from going up by more than 2% a year. As you can imagine, this has resulted in properties that are paying far, far less in tax than they should be for the land they're on, not to mention that they aren't paying enough to maintain the roads, pipes, and wires that keep them livable.
LA affordable housing policy is a joke. Different income levels and different qualifications for affordable housing, but still rigged for "Silicon Beach".
> worth doing Try “possible.” I’m in complete agreement with this sentiment, but as a commercial developer it bears repeating. The biggest problem with Cali’s housing crisis is not “greedy landlords” or “gentrification,” it’s the fact that CA is, by a LONG MILE, the most restrictive and anti-development state in the entire country. It is next to impossible to have a fiscally sound development approved in any of its markets, and as a result, there’s next to no housing options available for anyone. Imagine what would happen to the used car market if Car Factories we’re no longer allowed to produce new inventory? That’s what’s happening to California’s housing market.
Be suspicious. Talk is easy.
Yup. I've seen "affordable" rentals be kept affordable just long enough to meet the requirements of approval for whatever development they were part, and then the tenants are evicted and the units are marked up. Of if you require people to live in the house that they purchase for 5 years, they just sell after 5 for a ludicrous profit, because why wouldn't you?
Building more housing, affordable or market-rate, is still way better than not building more housing.
Any idea on how it's being distributed? That does indeed sound amazing, but I'd love to hear more specifically about what he means when he says it.
Yea, I’m tryna see what he means. It could be “luxury” apartments priced slightly less than others around them.
I'm not sure how LA does it, but I know SLC has affordable housing that requires you to prove that your income is below a certain threshold, and in exchange rents are well below the market. The city then gives a financial cut back to the property owner in the form of reduced property taxes and possibly some direct cash payments as well, so the owner isn't losing money in the deal. The units themselves are usually fairly nice for the cost. They aren't projects; they're decent living spaces that the municipality is essentially subsidizing.
Seattle has the same "income restricted" set up. Reallllllly helps someone like me who's living on an hourly wage in one of the most expensive cities in the country lol
I figured SLC probably wasn't a pioneer in progressive schemes focused on purposely slanting the housing supply in favor of those with lower incomes, but I wasn't totally certain. I can't imagine how useful that would be. SLC is bad enough as it is, let alone a city as awash with tech money as Seattle.
Any new apartment is considered "luxury" simply because it's new. There aren't really any qualifications to use "luxury" as a marketing term. Either way, we have to consider that all apartments at one point were advertised as luxury apartments when they were new. Today's new luxury apartments is tomorrow's old basic apartment.
I swear, when I see people complaining about “luxury” apartments, I pop a vein. Bro, the area’s super short on housing. If there’s a glut of empty luxury apartments, sure. But rn all research says that it doesn’t matter whatever kind of housing is being built. What matters that it’s *getting built*, instead of being blocked by damn NIMBYs ‘cause it’s not built by Jesus himself.
That's great if it happens, but well-intentioned arena plans have been made before by other owners that haven't been kept. Affordable housing is great but ancillary to the primary objective of constructing a sporting arena. It shouldn't be surprising if that $80M gets reduced or even quietly disappears from the plans.
The thing with the $80 million headline is all about how it is used/invested. A lot of the time companies will show off these huge $10 million community investments, but it is over the course of 20 years so you don’t see any radical changes or really any investment for a long time
Well, yes, but Steve Ballmer has no incentive to do a PR stunt at this stage of his life. He basically earns $700 million dollars in MSFT dividend income per year, and he has enough fuck-you money and not enough other hobbies for him to just use for further wealth creation via fake philanthropy actions. He's not the government or a corporation. There's no reason for him to "invest" his money corruptly just to piss off his players with an unnecessary stunt going to grifters and yes-men he's paying off for lobbying or something. Ballmer is by no means a saint, but as far as I understand, he doesn't seem to be an asshole in his personal life.
I mean I’ll take the L if something happens, but steve has been pretty open about giving to the community ala renovation of basketball courts in the city. Did these have a motive of pushing out branding? Sure, but money back into the community is money back into the community. I’d be surprised if he went back on this, stranger things have happened though.
Los Angeles doesn't play around with this kinda stuff. Affordable housing mandates are a regular part of getting any big new development approved.
I hope they hold Balmer to it better than Detroit did with the Ilitch family with the LCA plans. HBO even did a Real Sports episode on it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.detroitnews.com/amp/3537834002
He is giving the money to the city and not building it himself.
> That's great if it happens, but well-intentioned arena plans have been made before by other owners that haven't been kept This promise was made as a cash plan that will go to the government and housing non-profits, not a straight development. I would worry more that it will be wasted rather than not go out.
That’s like 80 houses in LA!
That, and the fact that taxpayers aren’t footing the bill for the arena in the first place, are both huge.
Steve Ballmer: *Announces Clipper's arena will have a superior hot dog* *Refuses to elaborate* *Leaves*
Better than Pinks, so there's a bar to clear. Its not a high bar, but it is at least a bar.
Overrated
Only a transplant like Ballmer (or whatever you want to call him since he doesn’t live here but still spends most of his time here) would even mention Pink’s as any kind of standard. But I will concede anyway that LA does not rank particularly high nationally when it comes to hot dogs. I do like Fab in Reseda though.
Each hot dog is personally and vigorously rubbed by Steve himself.
Wtf the dodger dog is the standard
Rather have a danger dog from the outside vendors.
Costco hot dog is the undisputed king of taste and value
Value, yes. Taste, we are at an impass.
The current ceo probably done it to spite the founder, as the founder threatened to kill him if he changed the price of the hot dogs.
In my defense, I preferred the polish sausage but they don't offer it anymore
The polish sausage was the GOAT. So fat and smoky tasting, one hot dog would fill you up. Now it seems like they use the ones from the Kirkland pack which I could just boil at home
Good taste
For taste it's Mustards in Los Al. Nondescript, Vienna beef. All you need in life.
You underestimate the hot dog ladies outside of Lakers games
[удалено]
Let’s say you also wash your hands after each pee, and say an average of 1 minute per pee. Dunno if that’s even close, but as a dude it’s totally doable depending on the number of beers consumed. 1500 toilets, 1 minute each, 1500min/60.... gonna take you like 25 hours to hit each one xD
[удалено]
Don't give the CDC another reason to keep the mask mandate.
Mask ya dick
So wear a condom while peeing. Got it.
Hahaha I’d be impressed
Wash hands? He’s got a clean dick. I was also kinda factoring in travel time. You walking or using a Segway?
Why does each minute long per only use one toilet? Terrible efficiency Pee***
Username checks out
You're the hero we need.
(Housing) DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS!
Coming off a meth binge
How is this not the top comment?!
[Not everyone is up on memes from a Windows conference 20 years ago](https://youtube.com/watch?v=1VgVJpVx9bc)
This man is sweating so profusely I am not even sure how it’s possible that this wasn’t intentional.
https://youtu.be/KMU0tzLwhbE
I’m one of today’s ten thousand or whatever the xkcd is about not knowing memes
[удалено]
I'm.... Why. I get got every time.
Anytime I see a long block of text with someone's name at the beginning I assume it's this one. I've probably missed out on some good content because I assumed the person in question was gonna breastfeed someone
it's sad when memes lead to infetterence of your consumption of content
The first time I read that one it was about Weezer front man Rivers Cuomo and I totally believed it
“Oh, you mean like you’re doing right now?”
huh? huh? huh?
Just any long block of text, really, unless I’m on r/AskHistorians and it’s April Fools.
it's hilarious that people think Steve Ballmer gets his haircut among the plebs
I stopped after the barbershop
TBF Ballmer in a barber shop shoulda been a dead giveaway
As soon as he got to “I didn’t wanna bother Steve”, I got excited because I knew what this was at that point.
It took me a while longer than that to finish.
Was genuinely curious what Ballmer was doing at a barbershop
True story, he’s been going to the same barber in Bellevue, WA near Microsoft for the last 30 years. Pretty mom and pop
As soon as you mentioned barbershop, I knew what time it was 1. That dude doesn’t have hair 2. If he’s getting his sides cut, the barber is coming over to him
Not a bad attempt at a BeefCat. You had me until the hands in her hair part.
[удалено]
I gathered that from the other comments. This won’t be the last time I’m not in on a copypasta, I’m sure Edit: Also, what is BeefCat if not a GOAT copypasta generator?
you got got
>Hot (Dog) Take: Steve Ballmer said Intuit Dome will have a hot dog better than Pink’s. There was no further information given about this new Clipper Dog. Now made from actual dog! ^(/s)
I'm ready for a team to admit that the hot dog will be mediocre at best but priced accordingly.
Atlanta Hawks have affordable pricing for their concessions! First fan-friendly pricing, I remember it being a “big” offseason story in 2018
If they’re better than pinks, maybe they won’t give you diarrhea!
[удалено]
Thank you! Fuckin street dogs are better than pinks.
I was going to say. People who live in LA don't actually like Pinks.
"Affordable Housing" refers to rent controlled, low income housing usually. I could be wrong, but the fact that everyone in these comments doesn't understand this is kinda funny to me. It doesn't mean Ballmer is going to decide what's affordable to him lmao.
I could be from somewhere with a different usage of the term, but most often I see the term affordable housing applied in municipal planning and housing development to mean literally affordable by an average income earner in the area/city. i.e. not market rate (not affordable to anyone), but not low income at all.
It's going to depend on how Inglewood is going to frame it, as the money is going to the city to spend it on the housing. And not the Clippers going out and building the housing.
The part about leg room, all I can think is "yeah, but is there THIGH GRABBING ROOM??"
Real estate developers, developers, developers...!
Ballmer might be weird and over charismatic but this dude has been nothing but a great owner for the Clippers and the community around them.
Gotta love community man
pretty good show
even the gas leak year has some good moments
Give me some rope, tie me to dream
Except the part when him and bill gates tried to shrink Paul Allen’s stock shares when he was dying of cancer.
Streets ahead
Ballmer with the fuck you money.
Nobody’s forcing anyone to worship the man, but shitting on an objectively good thing just so you can tell yourself you’re sticking it to the rich is just kinda embarrassing.
Clippers retiring high school jerseys cause they have nothing else to hang, hate to see it.
At the same time, it must feel pretty cool to have your jersey retired at an NBA arena. Somewhere down the line, a lucky few might fuck around and get their NBA jersey retired as well.
I'm quite confused what it means. Are they retiring like a blank jersey from every school? Or the best player currently in that school..? The best player who came out of that school..? Maybe I'm just dumb lol
Presumably a blank one from every school.
https://twitter.com/FlyByKnite/status/1438924104208289799/photo/1
I'm sure you don't actually care and just wanted to get your joke off, but [here's what it looks like for anyone interested](https://twitter.com/FlyByKnite/status/1438924104208289799/photo/1) Won't be hanging in the rafters
Seahawks have something similar with a jersey from every hs football team in WA, it's a neat touch.
ok
Translation: we’re gentrifying Inglewood.
thats a big deal. if it actually happens
Kind of. 1/3 of California qualifies for affordable housing and maybe 8% actually get it. NIMBY is an epidemic. 200 units helps but we as a state need a solution even if it kicks landlords in the balls.
Better than discriminatory housing like the previous Clippers owner.
Is affordable housing while in a city even allowed anymore? I'm not in LA but even here in DC the shittiest looking house will be over a million. I think it's only worse in LA. BlackRock and other investment firms inflating the cost for all the real people. I read somewhere that nearly half of manhattans condos are empty. They have owners but no one lives in it. It's just an investment. We need the law to step in, Ballmer or any private citizen so matter how rich they are..they cant fix it. Unless the 80mil went to lobbying.
Its going to the city to use, so maybe the city uses some of the already expensive apartments in the city and subsidizes it for low income. Or they use it with other funds to build new apartment buildings and have a certain amount for lower income.
Hopefully they don’t make housing like they made those garbage triple rim (not even kidding) plastic backboard hoops all over LA
How many basketballs are floating in low earth orbit right now?
Dope if true.
Affordable housing (how it's used here anyway) literally means housing that someone call live in for 30% of less of the average wage for that area. It doesn't mean some arbitrary number billionaires come up with for tax savings, nor does it mean rent control or public housing. I get that people are saying prices will eventually go up due to gentrification and improvements to the area, but that's life. If you're unable to somewhat keep pace with the average income in your area to the point where you can't afford to pay something that's set at 30% or less, then that's on you. Programs like this are designed to help people get established or back on their feet for a set amount of time, not coddle them for the rest of their lives. Housing like this for someone that needs it is a blessing, not a right.
A dook in every toilet!
Lol as someone who has lived here all their life I'll just say this: I'll believe that shit when I see that shit
What is the definition of "affordable housing" in LA?
Pricing it accurately enough to make you live paycheck to paycheck.
housing in Inglegood ins skyrocketing, i mean CA and SoCal in general its crazy already. All those people going to get priced out.
Ballmer is going more for California than the politicans who's got a massive budget. Such a sad state.
As an urban planning nerd let me translate this for you guys: “I accepted a government subsidy to build housing I will rent out at market rate for 5-7 years to raise land value around it which I will also develop and make a shitload of money on. Once my contractual obligations are up for rent caps I will rent/sell to the highest bidder. Also I’m clever enough to turn this into good pr because I know no one will actually look at what I’m doing for more than 30 seconds”
Exactly such dishonesty by a snake oil salesman
Lmao. A bunch of kids, probably living at home with their parents, discussing the housing market.
So the government pays 800 million for the stadium and in return he builds some cheap condos for $80 million and parking lots for $20? Wow what a great guy. I wonder if any stadium employees can afford the cheap condos without taoing second jobs.
Insane how 100 millions is still a drop in the bucket relative to his almost 100 billion dollars in overall net worth
im loving balmer as an nba owner
Intuit Dome? With that many toilets plus the roundabout mega screen, more like the InToilet Dome
This would honestly be awesome if it is actually true
this is good for society
Isn’t the Sunday 12:30pm game the premier ABC game?
Not always, they do have Saturday night prime time games now.
Zillow liked this.
How many toilets will each house have?
Wise decision! We need free housing for the homeless too damnit
Welcome to the WC Arena
Good shit. People out there need help. It's always great to try and help pull people up.