3 ms·

We don't have the water for that. Sorry.

• darksaints 5y ago
  Yes, you do. Sorry.
  • TedShiller 5y ago
    I'm with you, I wish we did. Unfortunately, the reservoirs say otherwise.
    • darksaints 5y ago
      No you don't...you're a NIMBY just like the rest of Californians. I can tell because of the rehashed completely disingenuous arguments that have been debunked a million times by now.
      • TedShiller 5y ago
        I probably would be a NIMBY if I owned property myself. Unfortunately I'm not in that position. Higher density could help me become an owner (and hence a NIMBY), but it's not even clear that it will. The reason I say that is because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand NYC built all the housing they possibly can, and yet I personally still could never afford to own property there. Same with LA. I'm also opposed to the building of more roads. Not because (as you might claim) I own existing roads and have a vested interest, but because I know that more roads simply means more traffic. The places that have the most roads also have the worst traffic. I wish it were different.
        • 0xB31B1B 5y ago
          it is different, consumption of road space (road use is free, or at least priced in time instead of money, many routes to get to a destination). Urban land has an enormous cost priced in dollars, and as we practice land ownership in the west, it involves the monopoly right of a fixed space. One can own multiple pieces of property simultaneously, but one cannot take up multiple spaces in traffic. Entirely different concepts and mechanisms.
        • space_fountain 5y ago
          Luckily for you there isn't much support for the idea of induced demand in housing. It's a thing in roads, but not in literally everything and definitely doesn't seem to be in housing. Also while NYC certainly has built tons of housing in the past, it too has been festering anti growth elements and literally the densest us city is only the 20th world wide.
        • TedShiller 5y ago
          It is not different with housing, unfortunately. Singapore, Shanghai, NYC, SF, LA, won't get cheaper if they build more housing. Nevertheless, I completely hope that I'm totally wrong on everything I said. It would mean that I might finally be able to afford to buy a house in those places.
          • space_fountain 5y ago
            Why do you believe that? There are literally tons of studies showing more housing reduces prices and basically none showing increased prices. Look I think you are right that SF will never be as cheap as rural Ohio or something, but the idea that building housing will make the problem worse seems just wrong.
• 8note 5y ago
  Replace the lawns with buildings and you free up some water. Stop growing water intensive crops and you do even better
  • TedShiller 5y ago
    Sure, once we convince everyone, we can do that.
• woah 5y ago
  That's a bald-faced lie. Residential water use is only 10% of California's water use. Most of the water is used up by farmers who have free water rights dating back to the 1800's, flooding almond groves in the desert. https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/#:~:text=Statewide%2C%20average%20water%20use%20is,between%20wet%20and%20dry%20years.&text=Half%20of%20California's%20environmental%20water,along%20the%20state's%20north%20coast https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/#:~....
  • TedShiller 5y ago
    Building more housing won't solve that.
    • woah 5y ago
      But it will solve the housing shortage