6 ms·
No we want people sitting on extremely valuable, underutilized land to leave. They’re already paying very low taxes. It will make room for people to come in and
by ethanbond 3y ago
No we want people sitting on extremely valuable, underutilized land to leave. They’re already paying very low taxes. It will make room for people to come in and pay income tax and more efficiently utilize the land.
- 29athrowaway 3y agoHow do you want to "efficiently utilize the land" if there is no water? The central valley aquifer is dry.
- scoofy 3y agoThe people who want to "utilize the land" already live here... in shoe-box apartments... with roommates... in their forties. Most of them are literally just the children of the people living on that under-taxed land. Who may finally get the tax benefit sometime in their 60s that their parents got in their late 20s.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> if there is no water False condition. California has plenty of water, as evidenced by its wasteful farming practices, which consumes 80% of it [1]. As with most of its problems, California’s retail water “shortage” is a policy choice. [1] https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agricultural-Water-Use-Efficiency https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Water-Use-And-Efficiency/Agric...
- 29athrowaway 3y agoSignificant part of the agricultural water comes from the central valley aquifer system which is being pumped much faster than it is replenished. Adding more population in permanent settlements won't help mitigate the problem.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> agricultural water comes from the central valley aquifer system which is being pumped much faster than it is replenished Sure. They’re still wasting the water. > more population in permanent settlements won't help mitigate the problem It also won’t meaningfully worsen it. Water is simply not a real barrier to development in California.
- Retric 3y agoCalifornia doesn’t have a water issue, it has at worst a water allocation issue. However, even with dumb policy desalination has become cheap enough to be practical for costal communities. Paying ~1$ for 200 gallons just isn’t an issue at the household or retail level just agricultural and industrial uses.
- 29athrowaway 3y agoRight, that is why there are people in the central valley living of water from trucks. And the ones that do have water need to dig deeper and deeper to find it. "Don't look up" is a film that could be perfectly be based on the California groundwater crisis.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> people in the central valley living of water from trucks Would these be the same communities pumping their aquifers dry [1] to export almonds and alfalfa? [1] https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-water-to-go-around-farmers-in-california-are-exhausting-aquifers https://www.npr.org/2021/07/22/1019483661/without-enough-wat...
- 29athrowaway 3y agoRight. And if they stopped doing that, the water level would not be replenished. Groundwater aquifers are not a renewable water source, and when you extract the water from underground you can compact the soil causing it to sink and lose its ability to store water, which is also happening over there according to the USGS.
- Retric 3y agoThe alternative of simply never tapping these aquifers isn’t somehow better. Abstractly using up local resources until forced to import them isn’t a policy issue, it’s simply rational behavior.
- throwaway8877 3y ago[flagged]
- ethanbond 3y agoActually neither. I’m an American who cares about our country prospering long into the future and California is a huge, huge component to that whether you like it or not. One of our most technologically innovative and naturally productive regions putting itself in a tax policy chokehold is Strictly Bad. Certainly so for the majority of Americans, at the very least.