51–60 of 543 posts
Paradise on Earth and home to the world’s brightest-future industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming from much less eco-friendly places.
Fire season is more like hell on earth than paradise, unfortunately.
Paradise on Earth and home to the world’s brightest-future industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming from much less eco-friendly places.
Fire season is more like hell on earth than paradise, unfortunately.
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/news/release/wui-interface-intermi...
So I assume it’s “people that can move” which means this 200k likely represents a whole lot more in tax base. Miami has really been exploding with ex-SV talent from my anecdotal social feeds. Might as well as you’ll save tens/hundreds of thousands each year in taxes and not have to live with the dysfunctional political system in much of CA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Paradise on Earth and home to the nation’s fastest-growing industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming here from much less eco-friendly places. Are you in agreement with changing zoning laws to accommodate many more high rises e.g…
No need for highrises; just take all the places where 40' single-family houses are allowed, and allow 40' multifamily houses.
I can only comment on the Bay area which has plenty of land and lots of entrenched vested interests. Take a town like Atherton which is full of billionaires like Marc Andreesen who talk about how they want builders etc... But they are allergic when it is in their tony neighborhood of the zillionaires. The hypocrisy of the NIMBYs at full display: https://a16z.com/2020/04/18/its-time-to-build/ https://en.wikipedia.org/…
What is the evidence that Marc Andreessen is a NIMBY other than he lives close to his office?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're acting like when you prevent people from coming here, they vanish into thin air, rather than go live somewhere else that's worse for the planet. For instance, city families use far less water per capita than rural and suburban families, and they produce fewer "capitas". https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-residents-praised... And compare "water used in California to produce almonds exported to other cou…
The majority of water problems come not from a few entities consuming massive amounts of water. Why we allow growing almond trees in an arid climate is beyond me. After that, you have smaller but water intensive businesses. Being suburban doesn’t mean you waste water. I live in the suburbs and our water use is minimal. I use water saving shower heads, I turn off the water during most of the shower. In fact, the water…
In other words, public policies that divert people away from cities tend to increase water consumption (and harm the environment by just about any other metric you can name.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fire season is more like hell on earth than paradise, unfortunately.
The primary reason we have a fire season at all is that we don't let people build housing in California's existing cities and towns, and so instead they sprawl out into fire-prone areas requiring long-distance power lines. https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/news/release/wui-interface-intermi...
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/new-images-of-pge-...
As a resident of California, I would greatly prefer fewer people. Losing population isn’t necessarily something negative in my opinion.
However if there was a system for limiting access, then I think it should be a time based thing, where you get like 30 years but then have to leave. It's the only fair way to deal with an in-demand resources and would quickly get rid of the people that don't really care for it much but are still here just because it's what they know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need for highrises; just take all the places where 40' single-family houses are allowed, and allow 40' multifamily houses.
Why no need for highrises?
http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/
If we allowed four-story apartment buildings again like we used to, the state's population could easily double in size without even having to raise a single height limit anywhere.
(However, I should mention that I, for one, think six-story apartments are where it's at.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Housing prices are going through the roof pretty much all over the country/planet. That's what happens when it becomes an investment vehicle.
I thought that it was a good idea to sell my house and rent for a few years when it tripled in value.... we'll see in 1.5 years if that was a good choice.