San Diego leads the U.S. in income growth (utilities, tax)
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.
You’re reaching so far you’re likely to fall overboard, sav ... nobody is “zero” anywhere anytime anyhow in history of the world. On the other hand, there is no reason to be “zero” impact. All living things contribute to the functioning balance of the biosphere through essential consumption, processing and recycling natural by product.
If the area population was even ¼ as efficient as I am, which isn’t hard to do, you could still not justify packing more in. All the planning won’t make people responsible enough ... nor will it solve the psychological pressures associated with meaningless density.
Ok great so you admit that you also contribute to the growth of SD and its associated problems. Finally. Therefor it's hypocritical for you to say others shouldn't move there when that's exactly what you did.
Considering denser development uses less resources and is more efficient than the current American growth model its hardly "meaningless". Kind of contradictory that you talk about efficiency yet are against more efficient land uses.
Ok great so you admit that you also contribute to the growth of SD and its associated problems. Finally. Therefor it's hypocritical for you to say others shouldn't move there when that's exactly what you did.
Considering denser development uses less resources and is more efficient than the current American growth model its hardly "meaningless". Kind of contradictory that you talk about efficiency yet are against more efficient land uses.
Lmao ... No. I definitely do NOT agree I contribute to the growth problems of SD. I have demonstrated that my levels of “use” and consumption are so far less than the average population that they easily fall within sustainable parameters by any measure. Furthermore my contributions to serving problems in the community notably exceed the average and thus my net impact is positive - not negative.
As for the argument that denser development uses less resources: lmao again. “Less” is still more, sav, when it involves adding population.
1.5 million people, at an existing consumption/use factor of 1 per person, is 1.5 million units.
Add 250,000 more people living at an increased efficiency of even .5 units per person
... and the total community use/consumption factor is?
1.625 million units of use/consumption.
Adding new, more efficient residents does not change the consumption of the existing residents ... unless you are considering converting existing residences and systems to new models ... in which case you need to factor the financial and environmental costs of tearing down existing infrastructure and residences and replacing.
Lmao ... No. I definitely do NOT agree I contribute to the growth problems of SD. I have demonstrated that my levels of “use” and consumption are so far less than the average population that they easily fall within sustainable parameters by any measure. Furthermore my contributions to serving problems in the community notably exceed the average and thus my net impact is positive - not negative.
As for the argument that denser development uses less resources: lmao again. “Less” is still more, sav, when it involves adding population.
1.5 million people, at an existing consumption/use factor of 1 per person, is 1.5 million units.
Add 250,000 more people living at an increased efficiency of even .5 units per person
... and the total community use/consumption factor is?
1.625 million units of use/consumption.
Adding new, more efficient residents does not change the consumption of the existing residents ... unless you are considering converting existing residences and systems to new models ... in which case you need to factor the financial and environmental costs of tearing down existing infrastructure and residences and replacing.
Ridiculous.
I'm sure you don't which is odd since you admit you do have an impact. Well it's only "sustainable" if someones else leaves, according to what you said earlier. That's clearly not really happening. You just seem to keep finding self-righteous excuses while it's okay for you to move there but not others. It's hypocritical.
It certainly lessens the impact of future growth. And yes redeveloping older areas is part of that. You seemed to agree with redeveloping the Midway/Rosecrans area was an improvement earlier no?
"Less is still more", I'm sure you fail to see the irony there.
I'm sure you don't which is odd since you admit you do have an impact. Well it's only "sustainable" if someones else leaves, according to what you said earlier. That's clearly not really happening. You just seem to keep finding self-righteous excuses while it's okay for you to move there but not others. It's hypocritical.
Actually it does; denser development uses less water, power, infrastructure, etc.. than less denser, more spread out development.
Again, you are leaning awfully far overboard to gaff a fish you haven’t hooked, bro.
And again, impact can be offset by contribution to create sustainable balance. As long as I mitigate drains on the community in greater measure than I impose, then I am, literally, creating the offset.
Example: if I counsel homeless veterans who are burdening the community systems and infrastructure and assist them in benefits acquisition that end their social burden, that creates relief to the community in several ways.
“Self-righteous”? Let’s see: I contribute to community problem solving while using almost no resources and that, to you, = “self-righteousness”, while you advocate for increasing the burden on the community resources. Heh. Hypocritical my butt.
Denser development can use less than existing development ... but it still increases the total burden. Simple math. I have not argued that spread out development is superior to denser development, sir. I am pointing out that any development increases burden, whether at a lesser rate or greater rate is not the point. Increase is increase. Unless offset in some manner.
It certainly lessens the impact of future growth. And yes redeveloping older areas is part of that. You seemed to agree with redeveloping the Midway/Rosecrans area was an improvement earlier no?
"Less is still more", I'm sure you fail to see the irony there.
? Redeveloping a failed district is not the same as adding new development where there was none before. And redeveloping Rosecrans does not equal redeveloping any large % of San Diego County that are NOT failed, in order to achieve higher efficiencies. I pointed out, correctly, that redeveloping existing community will not generally be an efficient offset. Exceptions can be found and correctly redeveloped, sure. That’s not a San Diego County makeover in order to increase total efficiency.
But again you persist in entirely ignoring the foundational issue of pointlessness to ever expanding.
“Less (rate of consumption) is still more (in total).” ... 100% correct. Simple math.
Again, you are leaning awfully far overboard to gaff a fish you haven’t hooked, bro.
And again, impact can be offset by contribution to create sustainable balance. As long as I mitigate drains on the community in greater measure than I impose, then I am, literally, creating the offset.
Example: if I counsel homeless veterans who are burdening the community systems and infrastructure and assist them in benefits acquisition that end their social burden, that creates relief to the community in several ways.
“Self-righteous”? Let’s see: I contribute to community problem solving while using almost no resources and that, to you, = “self-righteousness”, while you advocate for increasing the burden on the community resources. Heh. Hypocritical my butt.
Denser development can use less than existing development ... but it still increases the total burden. Simple math. I have not argued that spread out development is superior to denser development, sir. I am pointing out that any development increases burden, whether at a lesser rate or greater rate is not the point. Increase is increase. Unless offset in some manner.
It doesn't matter, you still have an impact. That's the point. Therefor all the supposedly great things you do and think you do is completely irrelevant. You're just trying to justify why its ok for you to move to San Diego but not others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
? Redeveloping a failed district is not the same as adding new development where there was none before. And redeveloping Rosecrans does not equal redeveloping any large % of San Diego County that are NOT failed, in order to achieve higher efficiencies. I pointed out, correctly, that redeveloping existing community will not generally be an efficient offset. Exceptions can be found and correctly redeveloped, sure. That’s not a San Diego County makeover in order to increase total efficiency.
But again you persist in entirely ignoring the foundational issue of pointlessness to ever expanding.
“Less (rate of consumption) is still more (in total).” ... 100% correct. Simple math.
I never claimed it was and I was more referring to developing underutilized areas. And the undeveloped areas that I'm thinking off are already part of San Diego's existing urban footprint and already surrounded by development. I'm not talking about expanding out beyond its current footprint. I didn't suggest tearing up perfectly fine communities, it wouldn't be financially feasible nor would its residents let it happen.
I'm not ignoring it, I already addressed it; growth is going to occur so might as well try and do it better. You want to keep talking about higher level issues such as global population growth that are way beyond the scope of local government and not really appropriate for this local subform.
Yes so you consuming less (supposedly) than the average San Diegan is still more overall. You're still adding to the total consumption of the region. 100% correct. Glad we finally agree.
It doesn't matter, you still have an impact. That's the point. Therefor all the supposedly great things you do and think you do is completely irrelevant. You're just trying to justify why its ok for you to move to San Diego but not others.
I never claimed it was and I was more referring to developing underutilized areas. And the undeveloped areas that I'm thinking off are already part of San Diego's existing urban footprint and already surrounded by development. I'm not talking about expanding out beyond its current footprint. I didn't suggest tearing up perfectly fine communities, it wouldn't be financially feasible nor would its residents let it happen.
I'm not ignoring it, I already addressed it; growth is going to occur so might as well try and do it better. You want to keep talking about higher level issues such as global population growth that are way beyond the scope of local government and not really appropriate for this local subform.
Yes so you consuming less (supposedly) than the average San Diegan is still more overall. You're still adding to the total consumption of the region. 100% correct. Glad we finally agree.
No. Again, we do NOT agree, at all, bub.
Funny, you strike me as being more intelligent generally than this argument you are trying to force here. You can’t assign such specificity to a select individual. You seem educated enough to understand this.
Example: the death rate in San Diego is about 11,000 annually. Births are running about 4x that. But unknown are how many persons are leaving for other reasons. Regardless, people die and leave ... which creates open slots for replacement without increasing density.
WHO, exactly, qualifies for those slots is arguable, of course. You might suggest that newborns are automatic ... I would basically agree. But these beings grow up and many leave for various reasons. We are still, then, left with replacement opportunities unless you can verify that present growth is fully accomplished by births that remain for life, alone. Growth is generally regarded in the state to include outside increases.
So, if only one, or only a dozen, let alone a few thousands slots are open for replacement each year at static levels ... WHO gets those?
You can argue pure lottery ... and that wouldn’t exclude me as a replacement.
You could argue a point-preference system ... and that damn sure wouldn’t exclude me.
Another factor your reductionism doesn’t account for is: offsetting contributions are not limited to utility resource uses.
You are no doubt familiar with carbon credits and offsets? The principle works in other community resource issues as well. If a person brings value that exceeds drain, that’s an offset. Your problem with me is personal, apparently. You keep inferring that my lifestyle and my volunteerism are either bs, as in I’m lying ... or are not valuable ... or both. Try taking Tulemutt out of the equation and substituting a theoretical single, retired military veteran who was stationed in SD starting in 1965-66 and then elsewhere several bases around California ... where he became permanent resident and small business owner and family man and now, in retirement, returns to SD ... where he continues to provide volunteer service to veterans and clean waterways.
All while using nearly zero infrastructural resources.
Are you upset with that fictional individual if it’s not Tulemutt? Probably not, eh? Seems a lot of people would even make the case that guy has already paid dues in full and earned his entitlement to a replacement slot in any community.
But wait. There are a million more people who want that slot! What to do what to do?
Now then, I didn’t suggest that you suggested tearing up existing communities that function well. I pointed out that without doing so, you aren’t going to lessen consumption and community burden when you add more new development, no matter how efficient the new is. Of course it’s stupid ... and you know that.
Another thing you are mis paraphrasing is that I have said it’s ok for me to move back to SD and not okay for others. It IS ok for others to move here. I have simply made the point that perpetual growth / development is ultimately impossible to sustain ... and long before ‘ultimately’ it is self-defeating in terms of QOL issues for all.
You are making this conversation a personal referendum specifically. I’m not.
As for your position that “growth WILL occur so we might as well do the best with it we can ...” ... I haven’t argued that a bit otherwise. In fact, I have agreed with you several times. But I don’t agree it is OK to ignore the stupidity inherent in such acceptance of unnecessary fate. Nor do I agree it is ever beyond the scope of any related discussion. We are stupid to go along with perpetual growth as a model.
There is a name for when living things reach maturity but then experience a new, additional force of limitless growth ... it’s called cancer. And it eats its host every time.
Funny, you strike me as being more intelligent generally than this argument you are trying to force here. You can’t assign such specificity to a select individual. You seem educated enough to understand this.
Example: the death rate in San Diego is about 11,000 annually. Births are running about 4x that. But unknown are how many persons are leaving for other reasons. Regardless, people die and leave ... which creates open slots for replacement without increasing density.
WHO, exactly, qualifies for those slots is arguable, of course. You might suggest that newborns are automatic ... I would basically agree. But these beings grow up and many leave for various reasons. We are still, then, left with replacement opportunities unless you can verify that present growth is fully accomplished by births that remain for life, alone. Growth is generally regarded in the state to include outside increases.
So, if only one, or only a dozen, let alone a few thousands slots are open for replacement each year at static levels ... WHO gets those?
You can argue pure lottery ... and that wouldn’t exclude me as a replacement.
You could argue a point-preference system ... and that damn sure wouldn’t exclude me.
Another factor your reductionism doesn’t account for is: offsetting contributions are not limited to utility resource uses.
You are no doubt familiar with carbon credits and offsets? The principle works in other community resource issues as well. If a person brings value that exceeds drain, that’s an offset. Your problem with me is personal, apparently. You keep inferring that my lifestyle and my volunteerism are either bs, as in I’m lying ... or are not valuable ... or both. Try taking Tulemutt out of the equation and substituting a theoretical single, retired military veteran who was stationed in SD starting in 1965-66 and then elsewhere several bases around California ... where he became permanent resident and small business owner and family man and now, in retirement, returns to SD ... where he continues to provide volunteer service to veterans and clean waterways.
All while using nearly zero infrastructural resources.
Are you upset with that fictional individual if it’s not Tulemutt? Probably not, eh? Seems a lot of people would even make the case that guy has already paid dues in full and earned his entitlement to a replacement slot in any community.
But wait. There are a million more people who want that slot! What to do what to do?
Now then, I didn’t suggest that you suggested tearing up existing communities that function well. I pointed out that without doing so, you aren’t going to lessen consumption and community burden when you add more new development, no matter how efficient the new is. Of course it’s stupid ... and you know that.
Another thing you are mis paraphrasing is that I have said it’s ok for me to move back to SD and not okay for others. It IS ok for others to move here. I have simply made the point that perpetual growth / development is ultimately impossible to sustain ... and long before ‘ultimately’ it is self-defeating in terms of QOL issues for all.
You are making this conversation a personal referendum specifically. I’m not.
As for your position that “growth WILL occur so we might as well do the best with it we can ...” ... I haven’t argued that a bit otherwise. In fact, I have agreed with you several times. But I don’t agree it is OK to ignore the stupidity inherent in such acceptance of unnecessary fate. Nor do I agree it is ever beyond the scope of any related discussion. We are stupid to go along with perpetual growth as a model.
There is a name for when living things reach maturity but then experience a new, additional force of limitless growth ... it’s called cancer. And it eats its host every time.
Weird, you agreed less consumption is still more consumption. You may consume less but its still more than it otherwise might be if you weren't there, no? Not sure why you disagree with what you said now.
Not really sure what the point of the long diatribe about who should get it, who shouldn't, etc.. really besides the point and doesn't matter. That seems more of a personal thing you would prefer happen.
I don't care about your personal life or what you do, it's irrelevant but you keep bringing it up because you seem to use that as some sort of justification why its ok for you to move to SD despite adding to its growth and consuming its resources. I'll call out anyone that moves here then complains about others doing the same thing just like I did earlier with another poster for the hypocrisy. Trust me, you're not special there.
When you're talking about something that is way beyond the governance of San Diego or the region, state, etc.. then it's pretty off-topic at that point, at least in this sub-forum. If you want to go there we probably would agree about limiting overall global population growth. Kind of a moot point though.
I lived among the rich and not-so-famous of Palo Alto for 50 years and wasn't impressed with the wealth, which was accompanied by a haughty attitude. San Diego, with its laid-back attitude, is much more pleasant. Believe me, having lots of money ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Or more like, pretending to have money, like the Jones's lol. Reminds me of this song by the Circle Jerks Mrs. Jones
Anyone has a perfect right to make observations about species stupidities.
As I have said before: demanding individuals take broad responsibility for cultural and species-wide failing is a strawman position. I do take personal responsibility as far as an individual reasonably can through my lifestyle choices.
That said, I was originally brought to San Diego by Uncle Sam when I was 18-19, to serve the nation in armed forces. That was 1966, bro. Yes, I moved around California since then and have only returned in the past 4 years, to enjoy the benefits -particularly those afforded military retirees in a city deeply populated by military and facilities. Pretty sure I earned my place ... including under fire for a few years.
Thank you for your service.
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.
nobody is “zero” anywhere anytime anyhow in history of the world. On the other hand, there is no reason to be “zero” impact. All living things contribute to the functioning balance of the biosphere through essential consumption, processing and recycling natural by product.
