The Spanish word brava literally translates to English as “brave” or “rough.”
And yet, while Spain’s bravas sauce often (but not always) has a spicy kick to it, the flavor is not as stringent as the name implies.
Usually incorporating a hefty dose of Paprika, chicken broth and tomato sauce, bravas is simultaneously pungent and delicate. It is intensely fragrant, and rich in flavor, without overpowering the taste buds. If condiments were paintings, bravas would be the Mona Lisa.
In Spain, restaurants only serve bravas with potatoes, as part of a tapas plate.
But I’ve found it goes equally well on rice, pasta and (Mexican) tortilla chips.
Here is my recipe.
1 large Garlic Clove, minced
2 tablespoons of unseasoned Tomato Sauce
1-2 tablespoons of Olive Oil
2 1/2 Teaspoons of Paprika*
1/2 Teaspoon Black Pepper**
1/3 cup Chicken Broth
Cooking Time: 5 minutes. Makes enough for two servings of Patatas Bravas + two servings of Pasta
Heat Olive Oil in a small saucepan. Add minced Garlic and saute for 1 minute.
Add Tomato Sauce and Paprika and stir for 30 seconds.
Add Chicken Broth and stir. Let simmer for three minutes.
After this you have two options:
To make Patatas Bravas: Pour sauce over roasted or fried potatoes. Mix 2 tablespoons of mayonnaise with 1/2 teaspoon of minced garlic to make a garlic aioli. Add aioli to the potatoes with sauce, toss and serve.
For other uses: Pour over rice, pasta, chips or whatever else serves your fancy…!
I had a busy social calendar in February. I went out to bars and coffeeshops every weekend, where I chatted and flirted with both friends and strangers. I kind of miss those days.
Nor surprisingly, COVID-19 was rarely mentioned in these conversations.
Americans are notorious for shying away from unpleasant topics in conversations. As the saying goes, “never talk about politics, religion and death.”
Vox’s David Roberts, notes how “small talk” in conversations between strangers or at social events serves a purpose of social bonding, rather than conveying information. Thus, small topic focuses on “topics of reliable comity, and stresses fellow feeling rather than sources of disagreement.”
However, as my past life experience shows, keeping our conversations light and cushy prevents us from confronting issues of grave importance.
Imagine if we had talked about COVID-19 at the bar. We might have thought about social distancing earlier or even demanded answers from officials hesitant to tell the truth.
In the long run, Climate change poses an even greater threat to our existence, but is still considered too awkward and “nerdy” for the cocktail party.
By neglecting such topics of social importance, we fail our civic duty as citizens of a democracy to stay informed on the issues we vote on.
Some might argue that you can only have a good conversation with a person who is knowledgeable of the subject at hand. Yet, conversations about the weather are a core part of small talk, and we aren’t all meteorologists…
This is not to degrade small talk’s role in facilitating social bonding. A certain exchange of niceties at the beginning of a conversation is psychologically needed to initiate contact. This opening small talk should be differentiated from the dominance of superficial yet agreeable topics in many conversations.
Indeed, American small talk’s aversion to uncomfortable topics discourages people from opening up about their personal troubles or struggles. By foregoing topics that make them vulnerable, participants in a conversation lose an opportunity to establish a deep connection. By pushing discomfort, pain and anguish under the rug, conversational norms further a harmful stigmatization of mental health.
Having struggled with Obssessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Asperger’s traits for much of my life, I can vouch for the last point being far from trivial.
Much of the pain and depression I have experienced in my adult life might have been assuaged if I felt more comfortable sharing my feelings with others.
In the current crisis, let’s resist the urge to deflect conversations and shame “negativity” or geekiness.
Let’s give ourselves (and others) space to share and listen, to love and to learn.
When I need a rush of grease and carbs, nothing screams louder than British pub food. My favorite pub dish is Steak and Ale Pie.
Ironically, I discovered the dish as I was leaving England last summer. I arrived at Gatwick airport with some time to spare, so I headed to a fast-casual “pub-style” restaurant. I decided to break from my routine “fish-and-chips” (usually a wise choice, but one that was starting to become tiresome), and the “steak-and ale pie” was a featured item.
You know how they say terminal food can never quite match that elsewhere? While, this came close. I recall the crust being a tad rubbery, but the steak filling’s rich umami flavor–a tad smokey and a tad sweet–amazed me.
“I have to make this someday!” I thought to myself.
I had my first opportunity in November. I had collected pie crust ingredients before Thanksgiving but ended up buying pies for the holiday. So I resolved to make a savory pie the following weekend.
My steak-and-ale pie was inspired by an Allrecipes recipe I found online (using SeriousEat’s Old-fashioned Flaky Pie Dough). However, I made a few tweaks in the ingredients (e.g. substituting soy sauce and sherry for Worcestershire sauce) and process. The stew flavors came out even better than I had experienced in the pub, topped off by the melt-in-my-mouth crust, though the meat (generically-labeled “stew meat” from the supermarket) was tough.
This past Sunday, I gave the pie a second try. I used cut-to-order chuck meat and Samuel Smith’s Organic Chocolate Stout for the beer.
I think I might have perfected this. Recipe below.
Serious Eats’ Old-Fashioned Flaky Pie Dough Recipe, courtesy of Stella Parks. Omit the sugar. You about throw in about a teaspoon of cheddar cheese, if you’d like, to enrich the flavor.
Meats and Veggies
2 pounds of Chuck Meat, diced
About 1 cup of Diced Onion (1/2 to 3/4 of a large Onion)
One large clove of Garlic, minced
3/4 to 1 cup sliced Mushrooms
1/4 Cup unseasoned Tomato Sauce or Diced Tomato (approx a whole average tomato)
Diced Carrots (optional)
Diced Potatoes (optional)
Seasonings and Stock
1 1/2 Cups Dark Beer, Stout and English-Style Brown Ale both work well (based on experience)
1 Cup Beef Stock
2 Tablespoons Soy Sauce
1 Tablespoon Cream Sherry
1/2 teaspoon Thyme
1/2 teaspoon Pepper
1/2 teaspoon Salt
Make the Pie Crust following instructions in the linked recipe. When done mixing and kneading, divide the dough into two portions and refrigerate for at least two hours.
Cube the beef and coat in flour. In a large pot, heat oil and drop in beef chunks. Cook on each side for 2-3 minutes, until browned. Remove the beef from the pot, leaving fat and drippings at the bottom.
Heat one tablespoon of butter in the pot in which you cooked the beef. When sizzling, drop in the onion. Cook for 3-4 minutes (until translucent) and then add the garlic and mushrooms. Cook for another 1-2 minutes.
Slowly pour in 1/2 cup of the beer. Stir for 2 minutes so that the beer deglazes the pan (dilutes the beef drippings to absorb their flavor). Then add the remaining cup of beer, soy sauce and sherry.
Re-introduce the beef, along with the thyme, pepper and salt. Then pour in the beef broth. Cover the pot and let simmer for an hour and a half (beef should be very tender when done).
While the beef is simmering, preheat the oven to 425 degrees Fahrenheit. Take out the two portions of pie dough. Roll out one portion with a rolling pin (making sure the dough stays slightly below room temperature-between 68 and 70 degrees Fahrenheit*). Grease the bottom of a 10-inch pie pan. Line the pan with the rolled-out portion of dough and weigh down with dried beans. Place in the oven for 15 minutes.
Roll out the second portion of dough. Take the bottom pie crust out of the onion and remove the dried beans. Spoon the stewed beef over the partially-baked pie crust. When done, cover up the stew with the second dough portion. Join the top and bottom dough portions at the edges and crimp with a fork.
Place the pie in the oven and bake for 30 minutes.
Take pie out of the oven (dough should be crisp) and let cool for 10 minutes before serving.
*You can ensure the pie dough remains at a cooler temperature than the room by refrigerating the rolling pin or placing a bag of ice cubes on the rolling surface.
The COVID-19 outbreak has crippled the US airline industry. A precipitous decline in travel demand has forced carriers to cut flights by 40 percent. A temporary national shutdown of air travel may be the only way for the aviation industry to stop hemorraghing money.
In the grandest of (American) corporate traditions, the airlines are now lobbying the federal government for money, a “bail-out” to put it bluntly.
With Democrats and Republicans apparently nearing a deal on the Coronavirus stimulus package, it looks like the airlines’ request will be granted (an exact amount has not been specified yet).
And yet, helping aviation workers is not the same as helping airlines.
Its not just that airlines have squandered the last decade’s profits on stock buybacks and executive bonuses (rather than improving worker pay). Airlines have a hefty carbon footprint.
Air travel is by far the most polluting means of transport. According to the BBC, a short-haul flight emits 154 grams of CO2 per passenger per kilometer, triple the emissions per passenger traveling in a four-person vehicle. Collectively, commercial aviation accounted for 2.4% of global carbon emissions in 2018, more than the sixth-heaviest polluting nation, Germany.
Almost one-quarter of global aviation emissions came from flights originating in the United States (two-thirds of which came from domestic flights).
The Democratic draft bill circulating in the House would require airlines to reduce Carbon emissions to 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2050–and have the government buy out old, less fuel-efficient jets–as a precondition for $50 billion aid.
Yet with much of the planet having burned the last few years (and countries obligated to limit temperature increases under the Paris Climate Accord), even this target seems to modest.
The airline industry’s failure provides a once-in-a-life-time to go big for the planet. Emulating Greta Thunberg, we can take radical steps to support airline industry workers while phasing out jet-fueled aviation technology once and for all.
The federal government can do this through the following steps:
Let the airlines collapse. The government could potentially buy up the aircraft.
Provide a separate stimulus package for airline industry workers (could also carry over to cruise industry) by paying pre-layoff monthly wages, up to $60-75K per year.
Give airline workers priority in hiring for new high-speed rail or sustainable long-distance air/sea travel services.
When the economy recovers, companies might regroup, or the government could (if it bought up aircraft) establish its own airline. But an interconnected high-speed rail network would reduce air travel demand on short-haul domestic routes, where air travel is the least carbon efficient. Airlines would be compelled to focus on long-haul international routes, whose higher fuel costs would increase the incentive to develop sustainable technology.
Nearly a month ago, I pondered whether democratic governments could respond to COVID-19 as effectively as authoritarian China. I hypothesized that democratic governments are better equipped to handle COVID-19 due to public feedback mechanisms (like voting and free speech) and their prioritization of public welfare, but may still be handicapped by public misinformation and interest group politics.
Now, with much of the world shut down by the virus, my hypothesis seems to be bearing out.
The US and European democracies have largely failed to contain the outbreaks. Underestimation of the virus’ risk (by politicians as much as the general public) and misinformation by right-wing partisans (following President Trump’s talking points) led “western” leaders to ignore the virus’ spread within their borders, until it was too late to contain or mitigate an outbreak.
By contrast, East Asian industrial democracies such as Taiwan and Hong Kong have led the way in preventing or containing the virus’ spread.
In stark contrast to the authoritarian mainland, Democratic Taiwan swiftly took action following the first reports of the virus in Wuhan.
In December 2019, Taiwan authorities began screening passengers on every flight arriving from Wuhan. Taiwan soon followed up by enforcing two-week quarantines of passengers arriving from infected countries using mobile tracking devices. Partitions in schools and cafeterias and universal mask-wearing ensured that social distancing was maintained without shutting down the economy. The government nationalized private factories to ramp up mask production, while simultaneously rationing distribution, to ensure an adequate supply for the nation’s citizenry.
Taiwan currently has only 169 confirmed COVID-19 cases, while the US has over 24,000.
Unlike Taiwan, South Korea, had a large outbreak of COVID-19 in February, with more than 8,000 cases by the end of the month. But through aggressive testing and quarantine measures, the country brought the outbreak under control, with little growth in cases in the last two weeks. Like Taiwan, South Korea has used cell phone tracking to monitor the movement and location of confirmed COVID-19 patients.
In both countries, governments have fought COVID-19 by partially infringing on certain citizens’ privacy and property rights. But they have done so in a trustworthy manner (e.g. Taiwan’s cell phone monitoring program is authorized solely for public health purposes) and with the support of their populations.
Democracies do respond swiftly to crises-when citizenry are willing to make a few sacrifices for the common good, and when governments earn citizens’ trust through honest and effective communication.
A democratic government with the capacity and desire to maintain its citizens’ safety will contain the crisis and marshal popular support.
Contrast that with the response of President Trump, the first true “authoritarian” president of the United States.
First he denied the pandemic, then he downplayed it (hoping to preserve a facade of stock market growth), and finally–once it was too problematic to ignore–he declared war, while blatantly lying about the previous cover-up.
Authoritarian states can’t protect us. They only give a &#@ck about their own survival.
Two days ago, Governor Newsom issued a “stay-at-home” order to combat the COVID 19 epidemic here in California. Similar orders have been issued in Illinois, New York and Connecticut and will likely come to other states soon.
These orders have forced all “non-essential” businesses, including dine-in restaurants and bars, to close.
While grocery stores are exempt, their supply chains are squeezed to the limit on many staple foodstuffs. Plus, crowded grocery stores are great places to get infected.
As the outbreak worsens over the next few months, I will try to avoid grocery shopping as much as possible.
To that extent, I have come up with a weekly menus to ensure the food in my pantry lasts for about three months.
I conducted an inventory of my fridge, freezer and pantry last Sunday, after I completed my final round of grocery shopping. I revised the inventory earlier today to account for some deliveries my family received this week. The following food items were in abundant supply:
10 (14 oz) Tofu blocks
10 (15 oz) cans of Kidney Beans
10 (15 oz) cans of Black Beans
5 lbs of Chuck Meat
3 (14 oz) “meatless” soy meat
Four packages of deli-style sliced Turkey (9 slices per package)
Four cartons of (12) eggs
5 cans (5 oz), tuna
5 cans (5 oz), salmon
9 (1 lb) boxes of pasta
1 1/2 (2 lb) bags of basmati rice
1/2 (10 lb) bag of Botan short-grained rice
3 (8 oz) boxes of couscous
1 1/2 (1 lb) bags of quinoa
17 whole Sweet potatoes (12-13 lbs)
12 Yukon Gold Potatoes
3 large Russet Potatoes
2 packages of tortillas (1 large,1 medium)
12 (16 to 24 oz) bags of frozen vegetables
17 (15 oz) cans of canned vegetables
Cereal and Yogurt
About 10 packages of Cheese: 2 large (32 oz), 1 medium (16 oz) and the rest small (8 oz)
2 pasta sauces
2 Salsas (about 15 servings each)
2.5 cans of coconut milk
1 Tikka Masala Sauce
1 Soy Sauce
Baking essentials (e.g. flour, butter, sugar)
7 frozen meals
I will be feeding my mother and myself with these staples.
Based on personal experience, my supplies of black beans, kidney beans, meatless meat, and tofu, will each give me 10 main courses.
The pasta supports more than 10 meals (1 box=1.5 to 2 meals, so about 15 to 20 meals), and the rice supports a little less (One 2 pound bag of basmati rice yields about 4 cups or 6 meals give or take. It looks that there is about 1 meal worth in the partially-open basmati bag and three meals worth in the short-grain rice container). The couscous and quinoa (about 5 to 6 meals each) extend the number of side dishes I can cook. The copious potatoes can feature in both side dishes and main courses.
As for vegetables, a 16-ounce bag of frozen peas can currently complement as many as 10 meals, so I might be able to make ’em last me a year.
Accordingly, I can forego shopping/deliveries for 10 weeks by sticking to the following menu.
Lunch: Open-faced tuna, salmon or turkey/chicken (2 slices) melt sandwich
Pasta with tomato or cream sauce, and vegetables
Lunch: Open-faced fish/turkey melt (2 slices) or pan-fried vegetables+”meatless meat” with left-over pasta
Dinner: Kidney Bean/vegetable stew with quinoa/couscous/rice* or sweet potatoes (Start with former and move on to latter as supplies dwindle)
Lunch: Black Bean Patties for hump day!
Dinner: Leftover stew (tends to make more food) with a new side (quinoa, couscous, rice or potato)
Lunch: Second day of black bean patties.
Dinner: Vegetable Stew/Curry with either Tofu or Potato (Tikka Masala Sauce/Spices and Coconut Milk or Salsa: make enough for two)
Lunch: Weekend lunches are kinda TBD. Might push out breakfasts later to reduce consumption (bread slice with peanut butter+cereal+yogurt)
Dinner: Meatless Meat Quesadillas (1 large tortilla or 2 medium tortillas per person) with rice/potato as side.
Lunch: See above
Dinner: Pasta (same options as Monday)
For weekday breakfasts, I’m sticking to yogurt (have about 6 weeks supply right now) and cereal (1 year’s supply).
I haven’t started the menu yet (I had takeout earlier this week, with leftovers lasting a few days). I will likely change up the days on which I cook particular dishes (e.g. black bean patties earlier in the week and deli meat later), based on my work schedule, how I’m feeling, etc. But I intend to primarily revolve among the set of dishes laid out above.
I will keep everyone posted on how it goes.
How are you planning to conserve food throughout the COVID 19 lockdowns?
Share your menu/recipe suggestions below!
*My mother doesn’t eat quinoa, so I would have to make a second side to accompany the main course.
With the country on shutdown for the next few weeks or more, this blog is shifting gears a bit. I am going to publish two series of articles (in weekly episodic installments). The first, Viral Nation, discusses how our country and social norms got us into this clusterf*#k (re: pandemic), and what we can learn for dealing with future crises. The second, HomeBar, will introduce drinks you can make (with ingredients easily available!) while locked up at home. Stay tuned for new articles:)
And remember. At Entrepot, no topic is off the table (provide I have the time and means to research).
So….let me know if you have any questions or ideas!
One of the more memorable aspects of this Democratic presdential primary cycle was Andrew Yang’s championing of a Universal Basic Income (UBI). The idea that every adult in the US should receive a 1,000$ a month check from the government drew a cult-like following to the candidate.
The UBI, as a permanent mechanism, has gained both admiration and criticism from persons across the political spectrum.
I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on the use of UBI as a broad social welfare mechanism (though I would consider myself on the “Yes” side). But in the public health emergency we are currently experiencing, a check from the government with no strings attached is essential for the health and welfare of the nation.
As “social distancing” measures become more widespread, many companies and governments will likely have to close their facilities.
While some professional jobs (e.g. law, government) can be conducted remotely-to a certain extent-, many restaurant, retail and service jobs cannot. Already, some Chinese restaurants in the San Gabriel Valley have had to close doors because of decreased foot traffic driven by fears of the virus. Once more restaurants begin to follow suit, an untold number of cooks, busboys and other staff will be left jobless.
Many small business owners will have to close with losses, with no quick, easy route to recoup them (you can’t open another store or restaurant when people aren’t going anywhere).
Even professional firms may eventually have to close doors if clientele slow for a long time.
The sad irony is that many workers’ primary source of revenue will dry up just when their medical expenses start to mount.
Taking a step back, this could have happened at any time. By this I don’t mean coronavirus, specifically, but a shock to the economy caused by a freak disaster be it a wildfire, hurricane, earthquake or illness.
Our country should have an rainy-day fund, by which citizens contribute revenue in “good times” to ensure their well-being in the “bad”.
Every year, we would pay slightly more in taxes (with the amount varying based on income) to contribute money to the fund. When an emergency strikes, the money would be returned to the persons affected in monthly deposits, sufficient for them to live decently. Personally, I think the amount returned should start off higher than what UBI proposals call for (at 3,000$ a month: which is equal to the living wage in a high-cost state like CA)-for those in the lowest income bracket-and decrease inversely to the income bracket and assets of the recipient.
Call it Emergency Relief (ER).
ER would relieve Americans of the added burden of economic anxiety (when crises occur). It would allow American workers and employers to take all steps necessary to combat crises. And it would provide a literal safety net, ensuring that the level of protection one receives in emergencies and disasters does not depend on his or her income.
The Chinese government’s draconian response to the coronavirus outbreak begs a question. Do authoritarian regimes have an advantage, relative to democracies, in responding to crises?
A brief refresher on democracy. A form of government “in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
A brief refresher on the Coronavirus quarantine. Following the Coronavirus outbreak, the Chinese government imposed a quarantine that severely restricts travel into and out of an area with a population the size of California.
In an interview with Scientific American, NYU bioethicist Arthur Caplan upheld the measure as necessary for containing the spread of the disease. In addition, he noted the legal hurdles that might prevent such a measure in the United States.
“But quarantining an entire large city—or multiple cities—is not an approach that would work in many other places. You’re not going to quarantine the city of New York, ever,” Caplan argues, noting that U.S. authorities could not even effectively enforce a quarantine imposed on one nurse who returned to the country after treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone in 2014. “
The last sentence refers to the quarantine attempted on Kari Hickox. Upon her return to the states from West Africa, where she had treated Ebola patients, Hickox was quarantined for three days in New Jersey before being permitted to return to Maine. The Maine authorities tried to extend Hickox’ quarantine but Hickox took legal action and won.
(Hickox was neither infected with Ebola nor showed any symptoms).
There aren’t many other recent examples of an industrialized democracy dealing with a pandemic (though the US imposed a fair number of quarantines in the 19th-century: more on this later).
However, democratic systems have stumbled in confronting the multitude of crises currently facing humanity.
Take climate change. In the United States, older, more conservative constituencies support politicians who deny its very existence despite the numerous signs that it is indeed happening.
Even lefties in the US and Europe who claim to care about climate change are loath to take measures to restrict vehicle travel (e.g. ending parking minimums, raising gas taxes) that would actually make a dent in emissions.
What’s happening here?
In a government where politicians are responsive to the people, prudent action can be hampered by imperfect information, groupthink (i.e. voting based on social identity rather than substantive issues), and lack of political knowledge. Differing levels of political participation not only take the “democratic” out of democracy (as practiced) but allow well-connected minorities to hamper actions that would benefit the populace at large.
And yet, China’s response to the Coronavirus shows that authoritarian systems, in all likelihood, do a worse job of handling crises.
In the first days of the outbreak, the Wuhan provincial government dragged its feet, going so far as to threaten a doctor who reported the first cases of the virus.
Such misinformation may reflect authoritarian governments’ prioritization of (the facade of) stability over public welfare. They can solidify legitimacy this way (and always have a golden escape parachute in case things get out of control).
In fact, the Chinese government is already sending people back to work, despite acknowledging that the virus is still an issue.
Furthermore, the quarantine may not actually have been the most effective measure. By concentrating persons (both healthy and sick) in a disease-ridden area, it could end up increasing the infection rate in these areas. Restrictions on the flow of goods into and out of quarantine areas create shortages in medicines those infected desperately need. Democratic oversight on this policy would have probably warranted consideration of these issues.
Point being, democracies have stronger incentives and improved feed-back mechanisms for protecting public well-being in times of crisis. How can democracies respond to voters without being beholden to voters’ imperfections, or to the narrow interests of a loud minority?
I wonder how improving the spread of knowledge from expert sources can better inform voters (something social media could aid, if willing to referee). Bringing more people into the democratic process dampens interest group politics, if the focus is on achieving outcomes rather than fighting battles.
February 15 brings a sigh of relief:) For singles of all genders, Valentine’s Day can be a cause for anxiety.
Since I have borderline Asperger’s symptoms and tend to miss indirect and non-verbal cues, the pressure I feel to flirt in February can jitter my nerves. I have a feeling that many other men feel the same.
Why is it that, in the era of #metoo, straight guys are expected to pursue girls and not the other way around?
Evolutionary psychologists would argue that it is “natural” for a woman to choose the partner because she’ll end up having to carry his baby for nine months.
And yet, being the smart apes we are, our personality and “character” traits likely have as much to do with social conditioning as with evolutionary hard-wiring.
Indeed, a study conducted ten years ago found that when women were given the initiative to approach men as part of a speed dating experiment, they were as assertive as men who were told to approach women.
I can’t speak for the experience of women, so I won’t attempt any answers. The speed dating experiment article noted that the large size of women’s accessories makes it harder for women to be mobile at speed dating events. I wonder what role slut-shaming (by stigmatizing female sexual expression) and women’s safety concerns (e.g. the risk of being a victim of assault/ harassment) play?
Regardless, I think there are some major problems (based on my experience talking with other guys about the subject) with the expectation that men should initiate relationships.
It makes flirting and courting stressful for guys like myself, who fall on the spectrum or have other issues that impede social interaction. Male mental health is an often overlooked subject: The role flirting plays in this should be taken seriously.
I also feel that it reinforces some toxic male behaviors.
The belief that men’s “success” in dating depends on how strongly they pursue a partner can lead men to coerce women into sex.
The pressure for men to be witty and interesting when flirting encourages patronizing displays of expertise (i.e. “man-splaining”).
In a recent study of sexuality in young men, Psychologist Peggy Orenstein expressed shock at finding that “It was still all about stoicism, sexual conquest, dominance, aggression…. athleticism, (and) wealth.” All of these characteristics are–to one degree or another–seen as enhancing men’s ability to “win over” attractive women.
Readers, do you agree with my perspective?
What has your experience with flirting as a cis/trans guy/girl been like?
The Rent is too damn high in LA! Median Rent last year for a one-bedroom apartment last year clocked in at $1,369 a month or $16,428 a year!
For low-income Angelenos (annual income with minimum wage is about $24,000), the situation is dire. High rents are pushing many out of their homes and onto the streets or out of the region altogether.
Many planners have long argued that the problem is one of bad policy. LA has high rents because it doesn’t permit too much new housing, causing housing production in the city to lag far behind the growth in housing demand.
And yet, two recent bills by the California State Senate that would have loosened zoning regulations for housing development around transit lines (where new housing would have the least impact on traffic and the most benefit for poor people), were opposed by many pro-tenant and pro-equity groups, a factor contributing to their failure.
Westwood Boulevard is the address of several major LA destinations, including UCLA’s campus of 45,000 students and 42,000 employees, less than one mile to the north. Four blocks away is a dead mall leased by Google, which is busily turning it into a 600,000-square-foot office complex. But here, where Westwood crosses the tracks of a rail system that carries more than 300,000 people a day, it’s zoned for single-family homes. In fact, in the surrounding neighborhood, many of the 1940s-era houses, valued at an average of $1.4 million, according to Redfin, are being demolished so people in the majority-white, majority-homeowner neighborhood can build even bigger single-family homes.
In July 2018, LA’s City Council approved the Exposition Corridor Transit Neighborhood Plan, which would have allowed construction of taller, multifamily residential buildings along major streets within a half-mile of five E Line stations, including this one. Estimates showed that between 4,400 and 6,000 new housing units could be added across the entire plan area by 2035. But in October 2018, a group that often litigates over density-related issuessued the city for the plan, arguing that more housing would lead to increased traffic. Over a year later, not a single unit has been built.
It’s quite a different scene when you exit the train in my neighborhood, which is across town via the B Line (formerly the Red Line). On busy six-lane Vermont Avenue, a street lined with six-story buildings houses some of the highest percentages of transit-dependent riders in the city. Across the street from the station is a shuttered car dealership where a developer has proposed a large mixed-use apartment building. Several other new mid-rise apartment buildings have gone up within a few blocks of the station, including a supportive housing project for formerly homeless residents, with a second one proposed nearby.
Single-family homes get torn down here, too, but not usually by homeowners. It’s more often by developers who bought the homes with cash. Sometimes they replace them with rental apartments. But more and more, those developers are building condos that are more expensive to buy than the home they demolished.
In other words, LA’s zoning system operates as a form of Social Apartheid. It empowers wealthy white homeowners to metaphorically wall off their communities from any type of affordable housing (driving up costs across the city as a whole).
Simultaneously, it funnels new market-rate, multi-family development into low-income neighborhoods of color, raising property values and displacing long-time residents.
Urban Planners need to tackle this power structure in order to build more affordable housing where it is needed.
Fighting a power apparatus that supports elite landowners requires a more radical policy approach, one that redistributes development rather than de-regulating it.
Land use policies should at least attempt to equalize housing development, so that affluent neighborhoods densify at a comparable rate to low-income neighborhoods with similar levels of job density and transit access.
The state of California’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) provides one potential policy model. The RHNA imposes housing-development targets for cities and regions across the state (the state sets the targets for regions, and regional planning organizations then determine the target for cities). These targets vary according to the region or city’s perceived need for affordable housing (although many question the targets’ effectiveness).
A proposed Maryland law, the (not-so-modestly titled) Modest Home Choices Act of 2020 offers another example. The law up-zones single-family neighborhoods across the state (to accommodate duplexes and other forms of multi-family housing), so long as they’re located either in “high opportunity” census tracts (tracts with twice the regional median income) or in jobs-rich, transit-accessible census tracts with median income equal to or greater than the regional median-income.
Regardless of the policy, shifting multi-family housing development towards affluent neighborhoods will spare low-income neighborhoods the burden of housing market variability. Densification will also create more affordable housing options in affluent neighborhoods. Opening up these neighborhoods’ housing markets to low-income renters will undo the legacy of decades of race- and class-based “redlining”.
Class-conscious land use policy may sound like something from outer space.
But it is really just a new iteration of one of the oldest welfare policies, land reform.
From Tsarist Russia to post-revolutionary Mexico to Post-World War II Japan, policies that redistribute the landholdings of a privileged elite to the masses have played an important role in (partial) democratization and economic development.
Rather than expropriating the property of the wealthy, 21st-century “zoning” land reform will re-appropriate vacant parcels in wealthy neighborhoods, transitioning these parcels towards uses that accommodate a more diverse mix of people and uses.
In an age of Plutocracy and Climate Change, the “new” land reform will reduce inequity and encourage sustainability. By reversing decades of segregation, it will politically empower the poor.
More importantly, in the current (left- and right-) populist moment, the mantra of “land reform” will galvanize the masses.
By winning support from a broad coalition (e.g. renters, progressive activists, construction workers, developers), “land reform” policies are more likely to become law than the milquetoast “zoning changes” proposed by the SB 50 crowd.