Does Todd Gloria commute by bicycle? Does anyone?

[phinneas j. whoopee]

Originally Posted by Axxlrod

So every bit of open space not built to house people is being underutilized and this is robbing people of the dream of home ownership? Garbage.

The garbage here us you implying I even suggested that every acre of the state be developed, but if you need that strawman to launch into your rant have at it.
Statistics show that Californians live on only 6% of the states land. Whats wrong with 7 or 8% instead if packing us like sardines into 800 sq foot dwellings that sell for a million dollars? That still leaves over 90% for your endangered least terns, snail darters, and pygmy tse tse flies.

[Axxlrod]

You want to go live outside Needles, CA go right ahead.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by phinneas j. whoopee

The garbage here us you implying I even suggested that every acre of the state be developed, but if you need that strawman to launch into your rant have at it.
Statistics show that Californians live on only 6% of the states land. Whats wrong with 7 or 8% instead if packing us like sardines into 800 sq foot dwellings that sell for a million dollars? That still leaves over 90% for your endangered least terns, snail darters, and pygmy tse tse flies.

Keeping land undeveloped isn't about the endangered species for many of us, it's mostly about preserving the beautiful scenery that adds to regional recreational opportunities. Nature is an amenity that improves our quality of life. So it's not worth the loss of that for endless housing. But not all land is beautiful. Like someone said, there are desolate areas nobody wants to be in. We could start by finishing California City in the Mojave Desert. The city grid has been laid out for many decades. That would look much nicer developed than it does now. The Central Valley is also growing a ton, with Fresno and Bakersfield getting huge housing developments. Those are good area in which to build. For areas that are already built out and didn't do a great job on everything, redevelopment is the alternative.
I'll bet by the time the Central Valley finishes all its growth in the next twenty years (including the high speed rail, boondoggled as it may be), we'll have that 8 or 9 percent land use for housing

[phinneas j. whoopee]

Originally Posted by Axxlrod

You want to go live outside Needles, CA go right ahead.

You first.

[phinneas j. whoopee]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Keeping land undeveloped isn't about the endangered species for many of us, it's mostly about preserving the beautiful scenery that adds to regional recreational opportunities. Nature is an amenity that improves our quality of life. So it's not worth the loss of that for endless housing. But not all land is beautiful. Like someone said, there are desolate areas nobody wants to be in. We could start by finishing California City in the Mojave Desert. The city grid has been laid out for many decades. That would look much nicer developed than it does now. The Central Valley is also growing a ton, with Fresno and Bakersfield getting huge housing developments. Those are good area in which to build. For areas that are already built out and didn't do a great job on everything, redevelopment is the alternative.
I'll bet by the time the Central Valley finishes all its growth in the next twenty years (including the high speed rail, boondoggled as it may be), we'll have that 8 or 9 percent land use for housing

High speed... rail? WTH is that? Nobody rides trains.

[Axxlrod]

Originally Posted by phinneas j. whoopee

You first.

No thanks. But I'm not the one advocating for building housing on all the open space in CA because without it, supposedly people are being robbed of the American dream... pfft.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by phinneas j. whoopee

High speed... rail? WTH is that? Nobody rides trains.

I think ppl do ride trains, but not like in Europe. We used to live next door to an Amtrak station, and it was always busy. Yet we never used it, even living right there haha. Our distances are so big in the US that it just takes too long to get anywhere, and driving or flying is much faster -- and cheaper. It'll be interesting to see if the new high speed train between the Inland Empire and Vegas is a success. I would still rather drive.

I could see the high speed rail in the Central Valley becoming a great commuter option to LA or Silicon Valley where driving would be impossible. That's the goal, allowing more and more housing development in cheaper areas while connecting them to Job centers. We shall see!