• jaybone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    This article is confusing at is uses the terms “vacancy rates” and “empty homes” the wording is very murky if they are attempting to compare rental versus home ownership. Even AI doesn’t usually write like this.

    • fishpen0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah it’s also unclear where they rank all the vacation homes running the entire coast. SD here and obviously all the homes directly on the water are “vacant” because they are basically hotels. They’ve also been that way since the 60s and are not part of the bnb boom. It’s not realistic that they’d be converting those to affordable housing or something so they’re not exactly available inventory for a normal family. Without them the tourism industry would be nonexistent and that’s a major part of our cities income and drives most of the restaurant and rental businesses that are all small local businesses. Even if you did manage to fill them all with families that could never afford them, they would not be out spending money every day like tourists do.

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        They do mention vacation homes. But the way they throw around all of these various terms is confusing and sloppy.

        I was legit curious about this article, but even with them including actual data, it’s still not clear or easy to draw any conclusions.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      it is faux new for LA, what do you expect journalism here?

      they are muddying water on purpose as fake news generally do.

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I assume this is a local Fox affiliate which is usually not the same as Fox News.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          you aint wrong but how is this distinction relevant here?

          does not fox la push the same owner narrative as the national cable channel?

          • jaybone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            The Fox affiliate in The SF Bay Area (KTVU 2) certainly does not push the same narrative as the cable channel Fox News. I assume that will be true for many other metro areas (like Los Angeles) where a large percentage of the voters are not conservative. If they did this, nobody would watch their local news, and possibly not watch the channel in general, which would make it not profitable to sell ads.

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              my understanding is that these local channels still do the owner’s bidding they just do it in a way that local population will accept. there is a reason why murdoch owns different outlets. it is way more effective to segment the plebs and shill to them as subgroup.

              politcal campaigns are known to do the same… where ads change based on the location and will conflict. example last elections ads in MI and PA re israel