why not build up in the bay area (San Jose, Stockton: appointed, apartments)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Oakformonday

Assuming you are for real, I don't understand what you are proposing? I read that you are proposing no changes? I don't get that. The population is not static. Where are you coming from? I just don't understand the far rightwing.

I don't wing it - left or right. I propose population management for no growth, and reduction through natural attrition. Any further growth at this point in history is disease. Cancer. A healthy, happy, fulfilling society requires no new, complex technology or investment. There simply doesn't need to be a problem requiring a solution.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Oakformonday

Well, I put all extremist in the same pot. Once you are so blinded by your belief that there is no room for compromise then you are far right or far left to me. I see little difference. This guy could be a 14 year old male just messing with this board. Who knows. I won't lose any sleep... LOL Cheers.

Hilarious. You read my posts. You can't understand them?
A few more revolutions around the sun and my odometer hits 70. And the only thing extreme about me is my ability to use logic, as opposed to living a life reacting to market conditioning like an insect or lab rat.

[Oakformonday]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I don't wing it - left or right. I propose population management for no growth, and reduction through natural attrition. Any further growth at this point in history is disease. Cancer. A healthy, happy, fulfilling society requires no new, complex technology or investment. There simply doesn't need to be a problem requiring a solution.

Ok, no politics. How exactly do you propose population management? I'm curious. You state that you don't think we should implement a one child policy like China. If any growth is a cancer then how do you propose to kill that cancer? Be honest. I'm just trying to understand your mindset.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Oakformonday

Ok, no politics. How exactly do you propose population management? I'm curious. You state that you don't think we should implement a one child policy like China. If any growth is a cancer then how do you propose to kill that cancer? Be honest. I'm just trying to understand your mindset.

Fair enough. You asked for it. though it is getting late-ish for me.

Here are some important truths to recognize:

- Through technology, more work is accomplished with fewer people (by far).

- What we are heading into right now is a time of great productivity, but falling employment.

- Humanity can't increase infinitely in a finite world - and not even short term given the above realities.

- The more educated and affluent any culture becomes, it's birth rates drop.

- It is easier, simpler, to incentivize the poor and disadvantaged than the wealthy and independent.

- While the majority of people desire having children, many people do not, or cannot.

So, here's how we put the above together to eliminate having the problem of cancerous growth of humanity:

Without denying anyone the right to have kids, we can incentivize having no more than two. This is the opposite of what we do now by offering tax breaks and social services for each child, regardless of how many. Thus, through incentives and education we cooperatively reproduce at lower than replacement rates.

Convert foci on growth to management of sustainable qualities. This includes shutting down housing development and immigration, except by qualifications having critical open positions. If you look at the immigration policies of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, you will see what I mean.

There is a lot of detail to this that I am not going to write a dissertation on here. I know all the protests and arguments that will be thrown my way. Yes, I have answers. The wheels of commerce need not stop. They do need to morph, however. It is all a function of changing mindsets. We can proceed by utilizing the infrastructures we have. The housing we have. It is a gradual transition process that is called for. Not a sudden revolution.

You can work out the numbers on a cocktail napkin with a pencil, it is so simple. A handful of generations and our children's children, and their children, will continue to thrive with greater and greater freedom and health.

[Oakformonday]

I appreciate your response. I don't think you completely answered the question but that is okay. I don't see the need to talk further. Thank you for you input.

[checkup]

Originally Posted by Pietro25

Puh-leeeze. SF already has the second highest population density in the US after New York City. You want to ruin this beautiful city just so it can accommodate more people?

The problem is in Mountain View and Palo Alto. Those places need to change their zoning laws to accommodate all the people who live there but work in SF.

I mostly agree with this. SF does have room to grow; it has a shockingly large amount of undeveloped land and blighted areas, mainly along the southeastern part of the city, bordering the Bay. Developing those areas could easily add 100k+ ppl

But where there is a LOT of room to grow is the Peninsula. It's absurd that an area that houses so many high paying jobs and F1000 companies is basically a mix of low-density suburb (lots of 1-2 story single-family homes), strip malls, and empty land and next to no real public transit. This comment applies all the way from South SF to San Jose, and includes places like Santa Clara, Palo Alto, San Mateo, etc. Large stretches (tens/hundreds of acres) are completely undeveloped and no one intends to preserve these areas for agriculture or parkland. And not only is there a ton of room for growth, that's where the growth SHOULD be since that's where many of the jobs are. But instead of building there, we build in SF, so even more ppl can crowd into a very high-cost city to then commute 45-75 min each way to their jobs in the Peninsula. (Many of them would move to the Peninsula, except there is practically ZERO inventory there and the lack of density makes it undesirable for many ppl.) If the Peninsula was rezoned and developed, it could easily house 2M+ ppl

[bmw335xi]

Because the people complaining want to eat their cake and not get fat...

They moan and complain about how they cannot afford housing, yet they moan and complain when a developer wants to build a high-rise or any sort of housing development.

They don't understand supply and demand lol.

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by checkup

I mostly agree with this. SF does have room to grow; it has a shockingly large amount of undeveloped land and blighted areas, mainly along the southeastern part of the city, bordering the Bay. Developing those areas could easily add 100k+ ppl

But where there is a LOT of room to grow is the Peninsula. It's absurd that an area that houses so many high paying jobs and F1000 companies is basically a mix of low-density suburb (lots of 1-2 story single-family homes), strip malls, and empty land and next to no real public transit. This comment applies all the way from South SF to San Jose, and includes places like Santa Clara, Palo Alto, San Mateo, etc. Large stretches (tens/hundreds of acres) are completely undeveloped and no one intends to preserve these areas for agriculture or parkland. And not only is there a ton of room for growth, that's where the growth SHOULD be since that's where many of the jobs are. But instead of building there, we build in SF, so even more ppl can crowd into a very high-cost city to then commute 45-75 min each way to their jobs in the Peninsula. (Many of them would move to the Peninsula, except there is practically ZERO inventory there and the lack of density makes it undesirable for many ppl.) If the Peninsula was rezoned and developed, it could easily house 2M+ ppl

The underlying problem is our hyper-local planning and prop. 13 limiting the effect of land value changes on incumbent residents. Most of the cities are set up such that a few individuals with sufficient time and energy can block developments. Meanwhile, long-time residents get the benefit of higher resale values without the burden of equivalent taxes.

So, cities like Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose don't densify, even as market conditions clearly warrant it. We can't even manage contained densification along tightly defined corridors--El Camino specifically--because people are afraid of the "traffic" and "Manhattanization" bogeymen.

[high density]

http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/reposi...img4906p13.jpg

This image shows the growth of the bay area throughout history. Where will it continue to grow. As it currently stands the regions population is about 13-14 million.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by darkeconomist

So, cities like Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose don't densify, even as market conditions clearly warrant it. We can't even manage contained densification along tightly defined corridors--El Camino specifically--because people are afraid of the "traffic" and "Manhattanization" bogeymen.

Where do you get the idea that SJ is ignoring the housing issue the same as Mountain View or Palo Alto?