Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Make More Land

jefftk.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–279 of 279 posts

Re: Make More Land

#271

Post by pas »

numtel wrote: post #235
pas wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is sound though. Calculate how much that particular wetland is worth ecologically and find a low-price equivalent somewhere, buy that. The Bay gets more space to sprawl their ugly single family madness and the wetlands (or more precisely the wetland equivalents) are safe too. Furthermore, it's possible to simply incrementally move the wetlands toward north by filling in a southern patch and wetland-ifying so…

So we've already destroyed 99% of wetlands in California in the last 150 years, let's play hot potato with the small patch that's left? The entire central valley was a marsh. The delta is the small part that still slightly resembles its natural state. Look at this picture of Sacramento from 1857 surrounded by ponds and wetlands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Sacramento,_Califor...

This seems like a straw-man argument. I'm simply recommending that doing something that increases density and reduces commute time and sprawl while also accounting for environmental factors is strictly better than doing nothing and waiting for people to just stop moving toward the Bay Area.

Rehabilitation of wetlands is a very important goal in itself. Now that 99% is already gone and fucked up (virtually beyond repair) ... well, it means it's almost irrelevant what happens to the remaining 1% if the other 99% will be "restored" somewhere else, then that 1% can be "moved" too.

Not to mention that it the fugly plain of endless mansions sitting where the wetlands were would be replaced with a few high rises, there would be ample space to recultivate a big chunk of it.

Re: Make More Land

#272

Post by jelliclesfarm »

Nitramp wrote: post #264
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Nitramp said]Apparently many people are upset with their housing cost and commute situation, which I understand triggered the original post on making more land. Having lived in the Bay Area for a while, the housing/commute/living cost situation there definitely seems dysfunctional.[..] Right. But how is America different from other countries? Mumbai and Tokyo have similar problems and they can’t expand housing outsi…

I think my comment is reasonably clear as it stands, if you don't intentional try to distort it. Your style of argument (including the ad hominems) suggest to me you're neither interested in an exchange of ideas nor in a civilized conversation, so I don't think there's a point for me in engaging any further.

Apologies. No ad hominems intended. English is not my first language.

Having said that, I still don’t find your comment coherent or clear enough to pursue this discussion. So it’s probably a good idea to drop this exchange. Have a great rest of the day.

Re: Make More Land

#273

Post by jelliclesfarm »

masonic wrote: post #266
Nitramp wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> america functions just fine [...] I think reasonable people might disagree with that assessment. Also, as an example the South Bay (Santa Clara County) houses 2'400 ppl/km2. That's cherry picking a bit, but somewhat comparable to the Netherlands' densely populated area (the Randstad @ ~1'600/km2). The US just happens to contain a lot of desert in the middle, but that says little about the metropolitan areas. I don'…

The vast majority of Santa Clara County is rural or open space. Only the Valley north of Coyote, and the 101 corridor, are populated to any semblance of density.

Probably because the region is mountainous and the San Andreas fault line runs right through it.

Re: Make More Land

#274

Post by 205guy »

teshier-A wrote: post #6
choeger wrote: post #2

The more pressing question: Can we actually still do such projects in western democracies? How long would it take until the last judge has dismissed the plea to save the nearly extinct Californian Pink Stink Beetle that by circumstance breeds in that area? How much more expensive would the project become over its ever longer runtime? What will happen when the seemingly inevitable corruption scandals are brought to da…

The parallel with Mauna Kea is too tempting to not be mentioned!

But apparently not tempting enough to give details or show how it is in fact parallel.

Re: Make More Land

#275

Post by kragen »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #120
kragen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not sterile; their brilliant colors are produced by halophile archaea and in some cases bacteria and algae that flourish in environments that would kill anything else.

If a piece of industrial environment is so fucked that only extremophile bacteria can live there than it is sterile for all societal purposes.

I don't know what you mean by "sterile for all societal purposes". A salt pond is not a good place to carry out a surgery, even though the archaea (more common than extremophile bacteria, and also more extremophilic) aren't pathogenic. It isn't poisonous, just dry and salty.

Re: Make More Land

#277

Post by CydeWeys »

jelliclesfarm wrote: post #254
CydeWeys wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the cities within it are much more highly populated still, with population centers at the East and west ends. The center is relatively less populated.

The middle is agricultural land. You have to consider rural areas akin to industrial areas or open air factories. Because acres under industry is not suitable for residences.

Agricultural/rural land doesn't need public transportation. The actual space within the US that merits it is a tiny fraction of the country, a much smaller fraction than in more densely populated European countries.

Re: Make More Land

#278

Post by Breza »

howard941 wrote: post #152
isostatic wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A land value tax, where you pay for the value of the land. Society builds a new subway stations near you, and land increases 20%, you pay 20% more tax. Society puts a power plant on your doorstep, land drops 40%, and you pay 40% less tax. What you do with that land is irrelevent - you pay the same whether you have a small house on a 15 story building on it.

But isn't it relevant when the use changes the need for public services? Aren't the external effects captured when fair market value is the value against which a millage rate's applied? I'm not seeing what's gained by ignoring the use.

I agree with this objection. If I use my land for a business, it stresses the government more than if I live on my land. My customers need a place to park (my neighborhood has on-street parking), the local housing crunch is made worse because I have to find another place to sleep, etc. And what if my business has externalities like pollution?

Re: Make More Land

#279

Post by jschwartzi »

gfodor wrote: post #163
jschwartzi wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. I stopped reading the article after that "who cares, the birds can just move somewhere else" kind of thinking. It's supremely ironic that the author copped this attitude about land use in the Bay Area, of all places.

I mean, you either accept the plan or not. The author clearly accepts the plan. Instead of writing reams of text about how much they care about the birds, they state clearly that's one negative characteristic of the plan: the birds are fucked. You may disagree, but you have to commend the honestly and lack of trying to weasel out of it as we've come to expect. And frankly, the behavior of stopping reading of a propos…

The reason I stopped reading is that the author didn't care enough to find out why the birds even have a protected area to begin with. His argument basically boiled down to "the birds can move" and he didn't appear to have done basic research to understand why they can't. If he's not going to dig into one of his major premises then it's not a very strong argument to be making and I think I'm better off moving on.

That's why.

Post reply on HN