OT: California Dreamin': Density is the Future.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by HenryA

ohmygodwereallgoingtodie

Totally

[reuben]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Nature includes people and what we build, like how a beaver dam is natural.

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Dams are probably one of the cleanest ways to make power and you get flood control and fresh water out of the deal.

Removing them to save the salmon is silly.

Preface: I don't take your posts personally, and I think that you are far, far from being an idiot. I agree with a lot of your posts.

But these two statements seem at odds to me. Beaver dams are natural, but salmon migration is not? Am I misreading/misunderstanding? Did you choose words that you did not intend?

[zap]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

People think 'Little House on the Prairie' is romantic. I'm pretty sure it sucked... At least my ancestors thought so....

A day without tp should pretty much settle it.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by reuben

Preface: I don't take your posts personally, and I think that you are far, far from being an idiot. I agree with a lot of your posts.

But these two statements seem at odds to me. Beaver dams are natural, but salmon migration is not? Am I misreading/misunderstanding? Did you choose words that you did not intend?

More like natural stuff interferes with other natural stuff all the time. The beaver dam gets in the way of some species. More to the point, animals eat each other on a regular basis, clearly interfering with each others life plans. Bears eat salmon as they swim upstream, beavers block their path, etc.

I don’t think our intrusions are different in kind to what critters have done in the past. The biggest difference is probably the speed of change we have brought about, which to be fair, is a big difference. The shock to the system is jarring but we don’t know how it will turn out yet.

Lots of people seem to see nature that we haven’t interfered with in some kind of idealized way, assuming it must be better than whatever it turns into after we get our hands on it. To me, what we do it is part of nature, we are in fact natural. Our future is uncertain but I like people and I believe we can overcome our mistakes and that over time we will get better and better at living here. If we don’t, well, we will go the way of the dinosaur and just be another footnote in the planets history.

Thanks for not thinking I am an idiot

[reuben]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

More like natural stuff interferes with other natural stuff all the time. The beaver dam gets in the way of some species. More to the point, animals eat each other on a regular basis, clearly interfering with each others life plans. Bears eat salmon as they swim upstream, beavers block their path, etc.

I don’t think our intrusions are different in kind to what critters have done in the past. The biggest difference is probably the speed of change we have brought about, which to be fair, is a big difference. The shock to the system is jarring but we don’t know how it will turn out yet.

I would argue that it's not only the speed (a few hundred years), but the degree, or magnitude. To your point above, we've interfered a lot faster and to a far greater degree than any other species. Orders of magnitude. It hasn't happened over a few million years. A beaver dam is nothing compared to a human dam.

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Thanks for not thinking I am an idiot

Piece of cake.

[Ozz]

Virtually indistinguishable......

[HenryA]

Nope, that last one is a bear.
I am positive. Puking up a fish I think.

[Ozz]

Originally Posted by HenryA

Nope, that last one is a bear.
I am positive. Puking up a fish I think.

Are you sure? I will take your word for it...

Which reminds me of a quote I came across (to keep this a little on topic):

“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring.”― Desmond Tutu

[woodworker]

I own two properties on the Coast, so I'd benefit from this, as increasing density means that I get to maximize my return flowing from these investments due to more units. Still, I don't support this. Why?

Because many of the areas where this will be implemented (like where I live) were built a long time ago, based upon single family dwellings, not multiple units--with the result that the roads and other infrastructure are not in place for a quadrupling of the population and the resulting demand on resources (water, roads, sewers, etc.). It's a one size fits all solution that will ruin a lot of places that folks bought into with the idea of not having crowded streets, impossible traffic, and neighbors right next door.

Policy-makers are fed up with not getting more housing units built, so they've used this blunt instrument. Just a shame from where I'm sitting (but I guess the upside is that this will help fund my girls' overpriced college education. ).

Oh, one other thing: one basic premise of our economic system is stability in land assets, and this results from zoning laws that people can rely upon. For example, I chose to buy in an area zoned R-4 (four units per acre). Now there will be 16 potentially. Do you think that's consistent with the buyer's expectations? ...sure, I might end up benefitting from this, but only in the short run. In the long run, the place I like will begin to look like the more densely places that I used to live in (D.C., SF, etc.), and left, in part to raise my kids.

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

It’s a change in the zoning laws throughout the state, not just in the dense urban areas.

SB 9 makes two important changes to state law:

It allows homeowners in most areas around the state to divide their property into two lots, thereby increasing opportunities for homeownership in their neighborhood; and
It allows two homes to be built on each of those lots, with the effect of legalizing fourplexes in areas that previously only allowed one home.
SB 9 also contains important protections against the displacement of existing tenants.

Much of the pushback would (presumably) come from people whose property values might be affected.

But the state is burning. South Lake Tahoe anyone? The “California Dream” needs to be radically reconfigured, and this seems like a sane, equitable, and none too radical approach.

[ORMojo]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

More like natural stuff interferes with other natural stuff all the time. The beaver dam gets in the way of some species. More to the point, animals eat each other on a regular basis, clearly interfering with each others life plans. Bears eat salmon as they swim upstream, beavers block their path, etc.

I don’t think our intrusions are different in kind to what critters have done in the past. The biggest difference is probably the speed of change we have brought about, which to be fair, is a big difference. The shock to the system is jarring but we don’t know how it will turn out yet.

I think another difference is choice. What the beavers, bears, etc. do is by necessity, and they really don't have other choices, or the ability that humans do to consider other choices. And that's where I believe we have fallen short, we have not fully considered our choices. I was educated and trained as a resource economist by some of the best in the business, and in one word what I'm talking about is externalities. Humans for the most part have done a horrible job of taking into account all of the impacts of the choices we make, or caring about (valuing) those impacts.

I'll leave it at that.

[RWL2222]

Still watching Cadillac Desert on youtube. Fascinating.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by woodworker

I own two properties on the Coast, so I'd benefit from this, as increasing density means that I get to maximize my return flowing from these investments due to more units. Still, I don't support this.

We are just at a point in time here though. The people before you probably lamented that switch to R-4 zoning, ruining the solitude and open beaches and farmland. And the settlers before that. And the native people before that.

I dont know what the right answer is other than change is inevitable. Our community here outside of DC organized pretty hard against the property developers buying up the two golf courses here since that land gets awful valuable if its re-zoned residential but everyone wants to preserve the open space, even if we dont play golf.

And quite a few office buildings and empty parking lots are getting razed and rebuilt with $3k/mo apartments, $500k condos, and $800k townhouses, I guess, because there's a market for it but it sure as **** isnt making it any cheaper to live here.

[bicycletricycle]

I think single cell organisms terraformed the planet or something so I would say it is just rate of change. Sort of a pedantic point I guess but I’m sticking to it

Originally Posted by reuben

I would argue that it's not only the speed (a few hundred years), but the degree, or magnitude. To your point above, we've interfered a lot faster and to a far greater degree than any other species. Orders of magnitude. It hasn't happened over a few million years. A beaver dam is nothing compared to a human dam.



Piece of cake.

[bicycletricycle]

In many very important ways , yes, indistinguishable.

What would you say the major difference is?

Originally Posted by Ozz

Virtually indistinguishable......

[bicycletricycle]

I agree with you on that, we can definitely do better.

Originally Posted by ORMojo

I think another difference is choice. What the beavers, bears, etc. do is by necessity, and they really don't have other choices, or the ability that humans do to consider other choices. And that's where I believe we have fallen short, we have not fully considered our choices. I was educated and trained as a resource economist by some of the best in the business, and in one word what I'm talking about is externalities. Humans for the most part have done a horrible job of taking into account all of the impacts of the choices we make, or caring about (valuing) those impacts.

I'll leave it at that.