Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then maybe you should move to a country that isn't growing. You do realize that the majority of growth in San Diego's population is from within, right? Should we create a San Diego that can't support our children? Is it time to have a one-child only policy?
I wasn't aware that children are cancerous.
Well, they weren't until about 4 or 5 Billion ago.
But let's get past your superciliously righteous indignation and point out that birth rates haven't changed much over the years. In fact they are going down a bit. The issue for responsible, intelligent thinking citizens is to consider how to adjust to lower mortality rates. More babies are surviving. More people are living much longer.
That's nice. But there are universal laws of mathematics to be honored. Such as: it is impossible to perpetually grow / expand in a finite paradigm. And what makes this truth all the more curious in the cases people like yourself want to advance is: not only is it impossible to grow continuously forever, you also don't have the slightest notion WHY it would be a good thing to do so. You simply, blindly, believe that GROWTH is a universal mandate from heaven.
Tell us what exactly you think would make the world, or even little San Diego, better with more people in it than it has now. What are you and everyone else missing that can't be had with half the population we have?
Is it just me or are San Diegans so annoyingly NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) that nothing can ever get done? I mean honestly, the number of recent transplants that are adamantly against new residents/growth is just mind-boggling. I call it Last Newcomer Syndrome. Once you've earned your slice of paradise, no one else is allowed. As a native, I simply can't stand these people.
I'm also increasingly frustrated with the people who continue to cling to the small town mentality. We have 3.3 million people, with about a million more to come in the next few decades. Do you want to end up like San Francisco? Restrict development and then push everyone out (locals) who can't afford it? Wake up! San Diego isn't a small town and restricting development isn't going to return us to the 1970 beach town feel. It's time to get competitive and think outside the box. San Diego is literally the least forward-thinking major city on the Pacific. Portland, Seattle, LA, SF, San Jose? Lightyears ahead of us in terms of planning for the future.
Don't people see that our current policies (state & local) are just making this area a place of haves and have-nots?
-rant over-
There is a casino going up in Jamul. This casino is going to provide hundreds of jobs and bring lots of business and attention to Jamul-some wanted some unwanted. But yet it is growth and it will supply lots of jobs and permanently change this small community. Roads will get wider, mass transit will find its way there and progress will be made.
Just wondering, how do you feel about this progressive move to provide jobs and growth?
Well, they weren't until about 4 or 5 Billion ago.
But let's get past your superciliously righteous indignation and point out that birth rates haven't changed much over the years. In fact they are going down a bit. The issue for responsible, intelligent thinking citizens is to consider how to adjust to lower mortality rates. More babies are surviving. More people are living much longer.
That's nice. But there are universal laws of mathematics to be honored. Such as: it is impossible to perpetually grow / expand in a finite paradigm. And what makes this truth all the more curious in the cases people like yourself want to advance is: not only is it impossible to grow continuously forever, you also don't have the slightest notion WHY it would be a good thing to do so. You simply, blindly, believe that GROWTH is a universal mandate from heaven.
Tell us what exactly you think would make the world, or even little San Diego, better with more people in it than it has now. What are you and everyone else missing that can't be had with half the population we have?
Agreed. One thing I'd like to point out is that Americans have low birth rates (barely at or even below replacement) but we have tremendously high levels of immigration.
There is a casino going up in Jamul. This casino is going to provide hundreds of jobs and bring lots of business and attention to Jamul-some wanted some unwanted. But yet it is growth and it will supply lots of jobs and permanently change this small community. Roads will get wider, mass transit will find its way there and progress will be made.
Just wondering, how do you feel about this progressive move to provide jobs and growth?
No, as I've said all along the growth needs to be strategic. Housing and jobs need to be concentrated in areas with existing infrastructure.
It's not progress if you are continuing the same land use patterns of sprawl. Mass transit will be insufficient, roads maintenance will be a future burden as the Jamul community cannot pay for it itself, and these jobs are not even high paying.
I'm not saying yes to anything that creates jobs or housing.
Well, they weren't until about 4 or 5 Billion ago.
But let's get past your superciliously righteous indignation and point out that birth rates haven't changed much over the years. In fact they are going down a bit. The issue for responsible, intelligent thinking citizens is to consider how to adjust to lower mortality rates. More babies are surviving. More people are living much longer.
Well here's another trend: The population of the region is growing at 50,000+ per year and will continue to do so for the next 30-50 years. Should we ignore it? Where do you recommend we put up the fences?
I've studied the Japanese demographic bomb, its effects on city structures and organization, and am quite familiar with its potential implications on the US. Let's be clear on one thing: it's not looking good for this country. Japanese land patterns concentrate people, infrastructure, and jobs near the city. As the population declines, the center city continues to be maintained because resources are concentrated there.
Unfortunately, we continue to build infrastructure in the middle of nowhere that can not be realistically maintained during a population decline. These beautiful gated suburbs will turn into unmaintained ghettos, something that we already witnessed in Riverside County with the recent recession. Maintenance of this far-flung infrastructure will be a heavy burden for our future generations.
Visit Japan and there will be no sign that the population is declining (other than tons of old people). Visit Nagoya, heart of Japan's auto industry, and notice the difference between the Detroit region and Nagoya region. Nagoya is thriving! Detroit is falling apart EXCEPT the one place that they concentrated resources, infrastructure, and investment: urban areas.
I'm not advocating for San Diego to become as dense as Seattle (although it will have to be with the current projections- which are likely off). Just build new infrastructure and housing strategically to accommodate the short to middle term population growth. When the population stabilizes or declines, these town centers or urban areas can be areas were maintenance investments can be prioritized because the cost is less/resident and will affect more people. We need to plan for both scenarios.
Quote:
That's nice. But there are universal laws of mathematics to be honored. Such as: it is impossible to perpetually grow / expand in a finite paradigm. And what makes this truth all the more curious in the cases people like yourself want to advance is: not only is it impossible to grow continuously forever, you also don't have the slightest notion WHY it would be a good thing to do so. You simply, blindly, believe that GROWTH is a universal mandate from heaven.
Have you done population projections? These "mathematics" you speak of? Hmm, well I have. Learned it in college and use it to this day. So please don't lecture on the math behind demographics and growth. Growth is not a universal mandate, it's the reality of living in an immigrant-focused nation. But hey, if you want to live in ga-ga land and not accept the reality that our country/state/region will grow for at least the next 50 years, go for it. Have fun changing the national policy, mission, and direction of the United States. Clearly that is a better cause than simply creating a progressive plan to account for a growing population that concurrently plans for a population decline in a world. And no, that doesn't mean accept anyone. It just means concentrate growth so current residents are not pushed out.
What is your solution- do nothing? Price all the locals out of San Diego? Force the next generation to leave?
You criticize my thoughts, but have offered nothing of your own plan.
Again, I live in the real world. It's time to make difficult decisions and not just pretend these problems are going to go away. News flash: Our population will continue growing with or without our direction. Maybe you don't see this as your problem? Something for future generations to deal with?
Quote:
Tell us what exactly you think would make the world, or even little San Diego, better with more people in it than it has now. What are you and everyone else missing that can't be had with half the population we have?
Why it will make the world better? No, it won't. I'm not claiming the world will be a better place. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Will it make San Diego better? Yes. Our jobs are too spread out. People spend more time in their cars than walking in their local neighborhoods. Accessible shopping, jobs, etc. actually make people healthier!
Half the population means that we can't realistically maintain our current infrastructure. The life you enjoy and the current cost of living will cease to exist as your increasingly higher tax dollars go towards maintaining sprawl. How is that for a little dose of reality?
A larger population means more people to contribute to the resource pool for maintaining roads, utility lines, etc. 50-60% of San Diego was built between 1980 and 2000. Fast-forward 50 years and now 50% of our infrastructure needs to be replaced in a 20 year span. Wake up people, we can't afford the lifestyle we've enjoyed in the long-run!
All I want is your step-by-step strategy (and explanation) of you plan for current growth (+1,000,000) and future decline. It appears that you want to wing it and see what happens. Oh, and please make it politically feasible too. No utopia or fences. Remember, real world.
Agreed. One thing I'd like to point out is that Americans have low birth rates (barely at or even below replacement) but we have tremendously high levels of immigration.
I think what's also relevant is that recent immigrants also have higher birth rates. That really is what has buoyed our current birth rate from collapsing. Hispanics are a growing percentage of San Diego (California & US) and the majority of children are hispanic.
Personally I love demographics and examining population structures in detail.
Let's not pretend this is a recent thing. We've allowed growth in the last 20 years to the point it really isn't prudent until we get problem number one solved.
Last, I commute by bike as often as possible. It's not as unsafe as you all are making it out to be.
This literally is the only legitimate argument I have heard against growth. Thank you for providing something tangible. Most San Diegans who cry boo-hoo because their "quality of life" is being destroyed from a bike lane or 3 less parking spots. Yeah, like the 400 spots within a 4 block radius aren't enough. Parking isn't free, it's heavily subsidized!
I think the water crises adds an interesting dimensions to the discussion. Will it force us to become more sustainable? Reuse water for irrigation? Desalination? And what does that mean for price and consumption? I think this is an important discussion that our region needs to have because the water districts aren't going to solve this problem for us. As long as they aren't cutting their budget or laying-off employees, it doesn't matter to them.
Honestly, I'm not sure why it took us this long to look to Israel. They figured out the water thing like 30 years ago.
The truth is, other places and companies are thinking of some of these things and it is not about more bike lanes or more roads or more buses. The future is more about self-driving cars or people not owning cars. More like you use your smart phone to call an Uber car, but instead of somebody driving it, it's automated. There is already a semi-automated tractor trailer in Nevada where the Truck driver becomes more like a pilot who is there for emergencies. You have companies like Google testing out driverless cars on roads in San Fran. Companies like Tesla and Ford working on driverless cars. Some cars already have self-parking features. There is a company actually testing Elon Musks HyperLoop train concept. It's not really about transporting people, but transporting goods across cities or the country. That would eliminate the need for a ton of freeways where huge Tractor Trailers transport goods or old train tracks and trains transport goods.
Change is actually change, not all this pretend stuff that really doesn't change anything. Adding more bike lanes in San Diego is nice, but SD is so damn spread out that it becomes pointless. Who is riding their bike from North Park to Rancho Bernardo, even if they created a bunch of connected bike lanes?
So lets be real about what some of these bike lanes are for and what they are not for. Most people will never ride a bike to work, even in cities like SD. So adding a few bike lanes helps people who don't work or so few individuals that it's kind of pointless. It is better for the environment, better for peoples health, but most people aren't doing it.
All the future talk might be years away, but changing the future does require actually changing the future now and not just waiting for 2030 or 2050 to show up and let the kids and grandkids worry about that. Those thoughts are why things wind up the way they are. The future is really having self-driving cars, self-driving buses and so on. It is a long ways off, but not as long as you think. In only 10 years places like San Fran and Mountainview will have some driver-less cars, will SD?
I agree that self-driving cars are the future. 30% of all inter-city congestion comes from people just circling the block to park... Ownership is the key word, and who knows how that will factor in. I think Uber has already said they plan to convert their fleet to 100% automated in 10 years.
A lot of talk but then again, a lot of technology to back it up.
Remember in The Matrix when Neo asks Morpheus if he would ever be able to dodge bullets? and Morpheus replies: "No, Neo. What I'm saying is that you won't have to."
Bike lanes go hand in hand with the whole idea that you can live close enough to work to be able to bike there. Just like the whole idea of a car is that you can live miles and miles away from work and be able to drive there. It's a matter of scale and perspective.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's time to get competitive and think outside the box. San Diego is literally the least forward-thinking major city on the Pacific. Portland, Seattle, LA, SF, San Jose? Lightyears ahead of us in terms of planning for the future. 
