4 ms·

The chilling effect of (some) regulation often goes unnoticed, because it impacts few people directly. The chilling effect is essentially invisible until we can

The chilling effect of (some) regulation often goes unnoticed, because it impacts few people directly. The chilling effect is essentially invisible until we can see a better way. Eg uber vs taxis. There's usually an incumbent that benefits from these regulations as well that will argue against lessening them. I think your recommendation can help with this issue, but I wonder if CA is a good place for this. As I understand it, access to water is a limiting factor in CA.

davidw 7y ago
> access to water is a limiting factor in CA. It is: for farmers, who use something like 80% (I forget the exact number). It isn't for cities, and denser cities use less water because there are no big lawns and other waste.
- Accujack 7y ago
  Many cities in my state (MN) still have laws on the books that will fine lawn owners for failing to maintain a green, healthy appearance. Never mind if it's in a desert or forest terrain... they only allow paved spaces, green grass and landscaping, or certified native prairie replantings, which cost a mint's worth of money to do. Because "everyone loves green grass" no matter how much water it uses or how much fertilizer runoff it allows.
- GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago
  And most of the produce is exported. California wouldn’t have a water crisis if only Californians used the water.
thomascgalvin 7y ago
> The chilling effect is essentially invisible until we can see a better way. Eg uber vs taxis I don't think it's clear that Uber is a better way than taxis. Cheaper for an individual ride? Yes. Better for the drivers? Maybe, but maybe not. Better for society as a whole? I lean toward no, even if the only factors we consider are congestion and pollution. Zoning laws need to be addressed, and we need to do something about housing prices in major metropolitan areas. But at the same time, we don't need to allow the construction of meat packing plants in the middle of residential neighborhoods, and we don't want to promote construction of what will end up being slums in the name of affordable housing. There is, like always, a balance to strike.
- deckard1 7y ago
  > Better for society as a whole? I lean toward no I used to think this way. But I realized something. Uber/Lyft eliminate an entire class of scams that taxi drivers have gotten away with for decades. No longer can unscrupulous drivers take tourists on a joy ride "shortcut" or just outright overcharge them. Fares are agreed upon ahead of time. They also tend to be safer. You don't have to worry about writing down the taxi cab number you're in, or the driver's name. Uber/Lyft track everything for you. This is not to say that traditional taxis couldn't be this way. But the fact is, they weren't getting there if Uber didn't light a fire under their ass.
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    Uber/Lyft eliminate an entire class of scams that taxi drivers have gotten away with for decades. And in the process introduced whole new categories of scams. As a for example: look up vomit scam. But there are a lot more.

davidw 7y ago

> access to water is a limiting factor in CA. It is: for farmers, who use something like 80% (I forget the exact number). It isn't for cities, and denser cities use less water because there are no big lawns and other waste.

Accujack 7y ago
Many cities in my state (MN) still have laws on the books that will fine lawn owners for failing to maintain a green, healthy appearance. Never mind if it's in a desert or forest terrain... they only allow paved spaces, green grass and landscaping, or certified native prairie replantings, which cost a mint's worth of money to do. Because "everyone loves green grass" no matter how much water it uses or how much fertilizer runoff it allows.
GrayTextIsTruth 7y ago
And most of the produce is exported. California wouldn’t have a water crisis if only Californians used the water.

thomascgalvin 7y ago

> The chilling effect is essentially invisible until we can see a better way. Eg uber vs taxis I don't think it's clear that Uber is a better way than taxis. Cheaper for an individual ride? Yes. Better for the drivers? Maybe, but maybe not. Better for society as a whole? I lean toward no, even if the only factors we consider are congestion and pollution. Zoning laws need to be addressed, and we need to do something about housing prices in major metropolitan areas. But at the same time, we don't need to allow the construction of meat packing plants in the middle of residential neighborhoods, and we don't want to promote construction of what will end up being slums in the name of affordable housing. There is, like always, a balance to strike.

deckard1 7y ago
> Better for society as a whole? I lean toward no I used to think this way. But I realized something. Uber/Lyft eliminate an entire class of scams that taxi drivers have gotten away with for decades. No longer can unscrupulous drivers take tourists on a joy ride "shortcut" or just outright overcharge them. Fares are agreed upon ahead of time. They also tend to be safer. You don't have to worry about writing down the taxi cab number you're in, or the driver's name. Uber/Lyft track everything for you. This is not to say that traditional taxis couldn't be this way. But the fact is, they weren't getting there if Uber didn't light a fire under their ass.
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  Uber/Lyft eliminate an entire class of scams that taxi drivers have gotten away with for decades. And in the process introduced whole new categories of scams. As a for example: look up vomit scam. But there are a lot more.