How did an entire state price itself out for entry-level home buyers?

It depends on how close the numbers were beforehand, right?

> Disenfranchising transplants does not stop the idea.

If they retain the franchise in their former states, then they're not disenfranchised.

I'm frankly astounded that so many people have reacted so negatively to this idea. TO me, it seems like common sense: the mere fact of moving somewhere doesn't make one a local. We require immigrants to our country to learn about American history & civics: why not immigrants to our states?

What I almost never see considered whenever I read an article on California's agricultural water use is what happens to the water.

For instance, I see it commonly cited that it takes one gallon (3.79 l) of water to grow one almond. OK, but note that an almond weighs about 1.2 g. A gallon of water weighs 3.79 kg, so clearly that gallon of water used to produce an almond does not actually all end up in the almond. At most, 0.03% of that water actually ends up in the almond, and so will leave the area when that almond is sent off to some distant market.

Where does the remaining 99.97% of that gallon go? Some presumably gets absorbed in the ground, and eventually ends up in the local aquifer, where it can come back via local wells to be used again for more crops. Some will be taken up by the plant and released into the atmosphere via the plant's respiration. Some will go onto the ground and evaporate into the atmosphere.

Some that ends up in the atmosphere will condense out locally. Some might end up in local rain. Some might end up in distant rain.

I'm sure there are plenty of other paths and cycles I'm overlooking.

My point is that we can't just say water was taken from X and dumped on crops at Y, and treat it as if that water is now lost forever. It's the system as a whole that has to be considered.

It's a lot easier to bring water to that soil and climate then to bring that soil and climate to someplace that has enough water.

People, on the other hand, are more flexible. We can thrive pretty much anywhere. So it makes some sense from a resource efficiency perspective to put the big population centers somewhere that doesn't have terrific agricultural potential, and utilize the great agricultural areas for agriculture.

Developers would justify the cost of the parking structure by adding a few residential floors on top of the tower. But that's where height restrictions kick in and price out low-tier and middle-tier apartments, leaving room only for luxury, using SF as an example http://missionlocal.org/2016/10/neighbors-double-down-agains... "Coliver said her team concluded that developers could squeeze a maximum of 13 parking spots in the 12,000 square foot lot— but that would make the building “structurally not feasible,” since it would require removing the columns that support the structure. The cost for the hypothetical scenario? Coliver said $2.25 million — or $180,000 a stall."

So the long-term recipe for opposing any new development is:

1) Require certain minimum parking spaces per square feet built (already done in most cities).

2) Run the numbers for a minimally economically viable structure, calculate the total number of floors it would need with parking garage included.

3) Lobby for regulations that set the maximum height at N-1 floors.

4) Bingo, every tall structure is now economically unfeasible. Saves you a trip to the city hall to protest new development, as most developers come to the conclusion that the numbers don't make sense well before acquiring the land and permits.