OT: California Dreamin': Density is the Future.

[Coffee Rider]

Originally Posted by woodworker

This is a result of politicians and social engineers thinking that they can combat homelessness and unaffordable housing by overriding local control and the free market.

I live in North County San Diego, coastal. The liberal element here has been trying to foist "affordable housing" and density on the area, overriding local resistance for quite a while. Now they are doing it through the state.

Of course they've never studied economics and the free market and have no idea what they're talking about. For example, they've allowed for density bonuses in relation to infill developments along the coast. Those extra units are supposed to help with the problem. It's like spitting in the ocean. Those extra units aren't "low income" at all, and developers just use it as a way to get a better return on the money they paid for raw land. What it has done is make traffic worse because the existing infrastructure can't handle it.

There's plenty of land to build on around here--it's just not as desirable because it's not as close to the Coast. Go figure: a limited supply of a desirable product (Coastal property) results in a higher price, which means that it will never be "affordable housing." But there's an unfortunate reflexive trend in local liberal politics that we need to "share in the pain" by wedging density into our neighborhoods rather than continuing to plan communities a bit farther inland, where you can build more units with better infrastructure to support it.

I consider myself to be a liberal in a number of ways, but that aspect of modern American liberalism--the ill-informed idea that you can fix virtually all free-market problems through government intervention--drives me nuts, particularly when it derives from the vague goal of "equality." Some you can; some you can't.

(A counter-example would be using taxes, incentives and penalties to address and curtail externalities, but instead we've repeatedly given into corporate interests so that they avoid paying those costs to society overall. Here's where government involvement actually could be useful, but it only grabs a few of the available tools in the toolbox).

Ok, sorry, end of rant. Just tag me: Annoyed on the Coast.

It sounds like you live in Encinitas.

[buddybikes]

Society needs to encourage "growth" doesn't equal more people. We need as a global society to breed less people. Otherwise our children or children's children are in a massive boatload of problems which we see the beginnings of

[cgolvin]

Originally Posted by steveandbarb1

Society needs to encourage "growth" doesn't equal more people. We need as a global society to breed less people. Otherwise our children or children's children are in a massive boatload of problems which we see the beginnings of

I agree with you, Thanos.
(Jesting aside, I do.)

Originally Posted by tctyres

In fact, I was on a call two weeks ago where one of California's leading insurers said that California is basically uninsurable with respect to fire. That person was talking about homes, mainly, but also other structures.

Interesting; two weeks ago I received a letter from my home insurance company informing me that they are adding, at no cost to me, wildfire protection (there is zero probability that a wildfire would ever reach my house); I had to send a letter to opt out of this coverage, which I did since there was so much mealy-mouthed language in the coverage that it was clear that even in the infinitesimally small chance that a wildfire reached my home they/their contracted provider would never show up. I assumed that some regulatory change may have prompted this letter but I'm just guessing.

[verticaldoug]

The hard stuff hasn't even started yet. I wonder where on the California coast, they will be able to build a desalination plant.

[pdonk]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

The hard stuff hasn't even started yet. I wonder where on the California coast, they will be able to build a desalination plant.

Likely nowhere, if the people who promote densification have their way. I can only nightmarishingly imagine the EA process for one.

On my previous post I forgot something, don't tell me I can't have or want what you have unless you are willing to give up yours for the greater good. I’ve had that conversation a few times at public meetings about growth.

[tctyres]

Originally Posted by cgolvin

Interesting; two weeks ago I received a letter from my home insurance company informing me that they are adding, at no cost to me, wildfire protection (there is zero probability that a wildfire would ever reach my house); I had to send a letter to opt out of this coverage, which I did since there was so much mealy-mouthed language in the coverage that it was clear that even in the infinitesimally small chance that a wildfire reached my home they/their contracted provider would never show up. I assumed that some regulatory change may have prompted this letter but I'm just guessing.

Oh, that's super interesting. Yeah, regulatory in some weird way. I'll tell you what I know the next time I go climbing with you.

If your house or my apartment burns from wildfire, the city has bigger problems. For the people in the canyons, that's a risk they take. My ex lived in the evacuation zone for the Getty Fire two years ago. I wound up going to a local store and ran into a woman from Mandeville Canyon who could remember the last time things burned. Her house was at risk, again.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by Mike V

Where is this utopia you speak of?

DC Suburbs. We've also made due with 1 car for the past 3 years. Of course now with all the jobs going remote I'm itching to move.

[zap]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

The far-flung “exurbs” are just not environmentally sustainable.
l]

Cities are not environmentally sustainable either.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by zap

Cities are not environmentally sustainable either.

Correct

[reuben]

Originally Posted by zap

Cities are not environmentally sustainable either.

To me they seem like massive landfills of unprocessed soylent green.

Well, OK, not quite that bad.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by reuben

To me they seem like massive landfills of unprocessed soylent green.

Well, OK, not quite that bad.

Last time I was in NY it smelled strongly of trash, also, trash was piled up all over the place. Nasty.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by zap

Cities are not environmentally sustainable either.

There's no reason they cant be. Less land use, less water use, less energy use, less carbon if you're using public transit or walking. The growth of cities in the southwest are probably unsustainable due to the lack of water but that has as more to do with mismanaged agricultural water use than the cities.

[woodworker]

Originally Posted by Coffee Rider

It sounds like you live in Encinitas.

Bingo!

[bicycletricycle]

You can say all of that about any kind of living though. It isn't really that strong of a point.

Originally Posted by .RJ

There's no reason they cant be. Less land use, less water use, less energy use, less carbon if you're using public transit or walking. The growth of cities in the southwest are probably unsustainable due to the lack of water but that has as more to do with mismanaged agricultural water use than the cities.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

You can say all of that about any kind of living though. It isn't really that strong of a point.

You could but density forces a lot of constraints that a lot of folks living in suburbs/exurbs/rural areas wont necessarily do on their own, or is not even practical.