5 ms·

Here in Southern California, we are running out of room for housing. You can basically drive all the way from San Diego to Santa Barbara, or from the coast to a

by vondur 9y ago

Here in Southern California, we are running out of room for housing. You can basically drive all the way from San Diego to Santa Barbara, or from the coast to about a 100 miles inland and it's all city. Unless you are going to tear down existing housing and rebuild with more high density housing which is just cost prohibitive. I figure at some point availability of water will become the limiting factor.

krausejj 9y ago
some redevelopment is likely to occur. McKinsey did a deep dive here and came up with a 3 million number for new units (https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/closing-californias-housing-gap https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/closing-...) this wouldn't happen overnight, but it would be the biggest increase in housing supply in recent history. there are quite a few maps you can google to see where the increased density would be likely to go: https://transitrichhousing.org/ https://transitrichhousing.org/ (it looks like most of SB will not be affected, because you don't have as much transit as California's other cities)
nopinsight 9y ago
Since agriculture uses the bulk of water, it is a matter of allocation and proper pricing. California’s is a knowledge-based economy—Agriculture contributes but a small percentage to it (about 2%). Why should we restrict the number of productive people who can live in the state in favor of crops? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California
- DougN7 9y ago
  There is the small issue of those productive people needing to eat...
  - nopinsight 9y ago
    California exports a lot of food, including to other countries. It does not need to have excess food supply given its economic structure.
    - DougN7 9y ago
      California exporting a lot of food is a great thing. How about instead of destroying a major source of food, people simply move away from California?
      - nopinsight 9y ago
        The world has an excessive amount of food production capacity. That is why all the subsidies many governments give to prop up their farmers. I thought a key American ideal is freedom. Why would you want to restrict people’s freedom and only give the privilege only to the few who just happen to be born early enough to get property there? (Even some California native sons and daughters cannot afford to buy a home in their own home city.) By the way, flippant answers are not appreciated. Consider reading more about the topics before giving thoughtful answers?
- yellowapple 9y ago
  There's an absurd number of crops that would effectively disappear from American (and probably even global) diets if California started to downsize its agriculture. The Central Valley is very unique in having both fertile soil and year-round reasonably-temperate weather. That's a resource which - if anything - ought to be prioritized and expanded to as high of a degree as possible. Water is quite literally the only issue, and it's a very recent one. It's also an easy one to solve: follow Israel's lead and build desalinization plants up the wazoo. That, or pray that we mountain folks keep getting decent winters to sustain the summers. Pushing ranching (which is disproportionately-water-intensive) out-of-state is another option, as is figuring out ways to reduce ranching's water impact. As for the low proportion of California's economy to which agriculture contributes, it's worth remembering that agriculture doesn't exactly have high margins. California's farms in particular are also heavily staffed with undocumented labor (which I reckon will skew a lot of data in all sorts of crazy directions). Put simply: crops ain't the problem, and scapegoating the "dumb and dirty" farmers was already a tired trope five years ago, let alone now.

by vondur 9y ago

krausejj 9y ago

some redevelopment is likely to occur. McKinsey did a deep dive here and came up with a 3 million number for new units (https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/closing-californias-housing-gap https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/closing-...) this wouldn't happen overnight, but it would be the biggest increase in housing supply in recent history. there are quite a few maps you can google to see where the increased density would be likely to go: https://transitrichhousing.org/ https://transitrichhousing.org/ (it looks like most of SB will not be affected, because you don't have as much transit as California's other cities)

nopinsight 9y ago

Since agriculture uses the bulk of water, it is a matter of allocation and proper pricing. California’s is a knowledge-based economy—Agriculture contributes but a small percentage to it (about 2%). Why should we restrict the number of productive people who can live in the state in favor of crops? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California

DougN7 9y ago
There is the small issue of those productive people needing to eat...
- nopinsight 9y ago
  California exports a lot of food, including to other countries. It does not need to have excess food supply given its economic structure.
  - DougN7 9y ago
    California exporting a lot of food is a great thing. How about instead of destroying a major source of food, people simply move away from California?
    - nopinsight 9y ago
      The world has an excessive amount of food production capacity. That is why all the subsidies many governments give to prop up their farmers. I thought a key American ideal is freedom. Why would you want to restrict people’s freedom and only give the privilege only to the few who just happen to be born early enough to get property there? (Even some California native sons and daughters cannot afford to buy a home in their own home city.) By the way, flippant answers are not appreciated. Consider reading more about the topics before giving thoughtful answers?
yellowapple 9y ago
There's an absurd number of crops that would effectively disappear from American (and probably even global) diets if California started to downsize its agriculture. The Central Valley is very unique in having both fertile soil and year-round reasonably-temperate weather. That's a resource which - if anything - ought to be prioritized and expanded to as high of a degree as possible. Water is quite literally the only issue, and it's a very recent one. It's also an easy one to solve: follow Israel's lead and build desalinization plants up the wazoo. That, or pray that we mountain folks keep getting decent winters to sustain the summers. Pushing ranching (which is disproportionately-water-intensive) out-of-state is another option, as is figuring out ways to reduce ranching's water impact. As for the low proportion of California's economy to which agriculture contributes, it's worth remembering that agriculture doesn't exactly have high margins. California's farms in particular are also heavily staffed with undocumented labor (which I reckon will skew a lot of data in all sorts of crazy directions). Put simply: crops ain't the problem, and scapegoating the "dumb and dirty" farmers was already a tired trope five years ago, let alone now.