|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Well the state is already throwing money at the problem via desalination plants - the Carlsbad facility is scheduled to begin operation next year: Yup, a Billion dollar facility to make 7% of the San Diego county needs. Oh and that's the largest plant constructed in the US. Meanwhile, recycling waste water is 1/2 the cost.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2015 00:21 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 06:45 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yup, a Billion dollar facility to make 7% of the San Diego county needs. Oh and that's the largest plant constructed in the US. Meanwhile, recycling waste water is 1/2 the cost. Desalination is more popular with the public, though. Most people don't understand the cost/energy requirements and waster generation of large scale desalination. They're thinking on simpler terms of "we're next to a huge body of water, we have the tech to get the salt out of it, so why aren't we doing it?!" Meanwhile, 'recycled water' conjures up the image of drinking other people's toilet water, which freaks out a good number of people. Sure it's the better solution, but this is politics, and they're going to do what gets them elected.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2015 00:26 |
|
Where do they think the treated toilet water goes, if we don't drink it? That's right, right into the ocean.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2015 01:25 |
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Well the state is already throwing money at the problem via desalination plants - the Carlsbad facility is scheduled to begin operation next year: The "proposed" plant in Santa Cruz is never going to happen because nearly every group I can think of opposed it.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2015 03:45 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:Desalination is not a realistic option for solving the California water problem. They're an incredibly expensive and have huge waste issues. It would be cheaper to just subsidize the pressurizers and sand filters that Ag users need to switch to drop irrigation instead. The plants can provide drinking water to people, and probably enough water to shower. We are never going to run out of residential water in CA. This freakout is loving hilarious.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2015 04:46 |
|
http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-jerry-brown-letting-big-ag-and-oil-gluttons-suck-most-californias-waterquote:Why Is Jerry Brown a Letting Big Ag. and Oil Gluttons Suck Up Most of California's Water? Total tangent, but no matter what else happens theres always that word "Feinstein" in any story about how CA is going to poo poo. Who the gently caress votes for that villainous troll anymore?
|
# ? Apr 4, 2015 18:47 |
|
Pohl posted:The plants can provide drinking water to people, and probably enough water to shower. It won't be long before Santa Barbara is out of residential water. We relied nearly 100% on local water sources before our state water hookup; even now the state gives barely a trickle. When is the state going to hand over more water? We have no idea and no control over that. The city of Santa Barbara pays about $5 million per year for our state water hookup, for which the state promises us 3,300 acre feet per year (1/3 of the city's usage). The ACTUAL allocation last year was 5%, and this year it's a generous 10%. Sweet! That's a cost of only $15,000 per acre foot. In fairness, the hookup at least allows us to buy additional water from rice farmers... at further cost of ~$1800 per acre foot plus returning the water (in equal or greater amounts) over the next decade (it's just a rental, I guess?). OTOH, our desalination plant (missing from the above map for unknown reasons) can provide a third of the city's water for $1500-$2000 per acre foot. Why the hell shouldn't we fire it back up? (We also recycle our wastewater into non-potable irrigation water for $1200 per acre foot. We just refurbished the system; hopefully we can expand it soon too.) In a perfect world there are other options, but the residents of this city can't personally go out and build covers over the California aqueduct, or (legally) burn down all the almond trees in the state. We can (and do) bitch and moan and vote, but so far that's as effective as bare-handed karate chopping at the almond trees. Of the locally-available options that can guarantee us actual water, desalination is a pretty reasonable choice.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2015 19:00 |
|
FRINGE posted:Total tangent, but no matter what else happens theres always that word "Feinstein" in any story about how CA is going to poo poo. Who the gently caress votes for that villainous troll anymore? Parts of California are already running out of residential water, because they depend on depleted aquifers. It's a big ol' state, and almost anything is happening somewhere. I'm seriously contemplating a very simple laundry-to-yard greywater system, because my lot runs straight downhill and I already have fruit trees in a direct line from the laundry machine. The major catch is whether I can trust the rest of the household to turn the diverter valve when they use plant-unhealthy laundry products.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2015 19:20 |
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Gimme a contested Democratic primary, and I will vote against DiFi with both hands. DiFi is a covert Republican, but she votes for my issues more often than any of the Republicans I've seen running for that seat. Pretty much this, yeah. No Democrat is going to run against Feinstein since she's so entrenched, and any Republican who runs against her is invariably going to be a worse choice, since they have to appear further to the right of her (which must be a challenge some days, I wager). Feinstein is absolutely awful, but she's the lesser of two evils, which is about all we get to make a choice between these days.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 00:58 |
|
I'm really bummed it was Boxer rather than Feinstein who retired.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 01:09 |
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I'm really bummed it was Boxer rather than Feinstein who retired. On the other hand, "Senator Kamala Harris of California". On the other other hand, "Senator Gavin Newsom of California" is still possible.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 01:21 |
|
Maybe Napolitano will end her term as UC President when Feinstein retires and run for her seat.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 01:29 |
|
Bizarro Watt posted:Maybe Napolitano will end her term as UC President when Feinstein retires and run for her seat. I don't care how she gets ousted as UC President, just so long as she fucks off somehow.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 01:40 |
|
Leperflesh posted:The fundamental issue you're describing is zoning, and the disinterest people have in cities in allowing higher-density zoning in their backyards. Those laws that dictate a certain density can be changed, simply by rezoning for higher density: but the voters and communities in question don't want to. The landowners in those communities are disincentivized to, because refusing to allow density to increase drives up home prices due to the restriction on supply... and they already own the homes.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 01:40 |
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:On the other hand, "Senator Kamala Harris of California". Kamala Harris is kind of an unethical tool, or was that the point?
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 02:21 |
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:On the other hand, "Senator Kamala Harris of California". Eh, he's pushing his chips in pretty hard for the Governorship. Unless Feinstein hangs on for a really long time, I think the timing is off for Newsome. Unless he loses the race for Governor.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 02:24 |
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:Eh, he's pushing his chips in pretty hard for the Governorship. Unless Feinstein hangs on for a really long time, I think the timing is off for Newsome. Unless he loses the race for Governor. Aside from those two who else are the top tier candidates the CA Democrats have? Goodwin Liu?
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 02:27 |
|
ShadowHawk posted:This actually happened in Mountain View. The city has wildly shifted from representing nimby no-growthers to approving some rather large dense housing projects near something resembling an actual downtown.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 02:28 |
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Aside from those two who else are the top tier candidates the CA Democrats have? Goodwin Liu? Eric Garcetti (Mayor of Los Angeles) is up and coming unless there's been some scandal I haven't heard about. Goodwin Liu is an academic, not a politician. Unless he gets nominated to some higher court, I think he's content being a justice. edit: Maybe John Chiang someday, since he's perennially bouncing around from one elected position to another. Bizarro Watt fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Apr 5, 2015 |
# ? Apr 5, 2015 02:34 |
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:On the other hand, "Senator Kamala Harris of California". President Gavin Newsom You know he wants it.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 03:18 |
|
Litany Unheard posted:President Gavin Newsom So did Gray Davis.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 03:20 |
|
Bip Roberts posted:So did Gray Davis.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 03:28 |
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Aside from those two who else are the top tier candidates the CA Democrats have? Goodwin Liu? Antonio Villaraig.... haha, I can't even finish that sentence.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 03:39 |
|
I'll just mention that every day the fact that my hometown's congressional district wasn't fired up and ready for Ro makes me smile.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 03:45 |
|
nm posted:Kamala Harris is kind of an unethical tool, or was that the point? What's this about?
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 04:35 |
|
Family Values posted:What's this about? I'm not sure myself. I was trying to say it wasn't a net bad.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 04:39 |
|
The only negative thing I can remember about Harris involved a guy who was in prison under three strikes, but was declared innocent on appeal. The AG Office tried to say they didn't need to release him, even if he was innocent, because he missed the filing deadline for his writ of habeas corpus. Edit: Here it is. Daniel Larsen was the guy: http://californiainnocenceproject.org/read-their-stories/daniel-larsen/ quote:The court found that Danny was innocent, the police officers who testified at his trial were not credible, and his trial attorney was constitutionally ineffective for failing to call witnesses on Mr. his behalf. Wicked Them Beats fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Apr 5, 2015 |
# ? Apr 5, 2015 04:53 |
|
^^^^^^^ I didn't even know about that one. Family Values posted:What's this about? She's been supporting DAs who commit perjury and falsify evidence to get convictions. The one from Riverside is only a start. Kern had a fabrication scandal as well and she's been busy defending them too. Edit: phone posting, but this is re:kern and references the riverside one in a link http://observer.com/2015/03/california-prosecutor-falsifies-transcript-of-confession/ AG would be who would indict those DAs too. nm fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Apr 5, 2015 |
# ? Apr 5, 2015 05:03 |
|
She also dated Willie Brown back when Brown was speaker in the State Assembly.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 05:09 |
|
Litany Unheard posted:President Gavin Newsom A replicant president would be a big improvement IMO
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 05:47 |
|
The rich should be forced to do the commuting if they want their fancy places. Otherwise they can live like normal people. http://truth-out.org/news/item/2989...ys-to-get-there quote:Five Reasons Why San Francisco Needs to Use Public Lands for Public Benefit, Not Luxury Housing Spend less on rent and hire a chauffeur. Also bring out the guillotine for developers gouging the area into destruction. Cant wait for the city to crumble from the inside because all the servants leave and the neo-rich forget how to cook and wipe their asses. Ring the Easter bells its time for a spiritual war!
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 18:20 |
|
I want to believe you're being sarcastic, but I don't think you are.quote:Stop trying to solve affordable housing through market-rate housing, and instead tax large businesses directly. quote:Housing needs are driven by economic activity and growth, so why not look to the industries that create the needs for housing to provide subsidies for affordable housing? quote:There's plenty of high-cost housing being built. That part of the market takes care of itself. quote:Better for the economy to look instead to tie economic activity and economic growth to the creation of affordable housing. Cicero fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Apr 5, 2015 |
# ? Apr 5, 2015 18:35 |
|
Because what you just said is totes working for San Fran already.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 18:41 |
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Because what you just said is totes working for San Fran already.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 18:43 |
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Because what you just said is totes working for San Fran already.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 18:45 |
|
FRINGE posted:Well you see vicious and destructive profiteering is a sign of health because Obviously it's just greedy developers causing the problem. Developers in places like Phoenix or Houston aren't as greedy, so that's why housing is more affordable there. Leperflesh posted:"Profiteering" is an opinion. Developers attempting to build housing in SF face an approvals process that can be measured in decades, along with incredibly unusual and burdensome restrictions and requirements. A developer does not have unlimited funds to devote to a multi-year planning and design and approvals process that could (and often does) end up with the project simply failing. That same developer can take their money and time elsewhere. Cicero fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Apr 5, 2015 |
# ? Apr 5, 2015 18:48 |
|
As low-wage workers increasingly can't afford to live in or near SF, SF businesses have been forced to pay increasingly higher wages for low-wage workers. The city now has one of the highest minimum wages in the country, for example. It's not a complete solution - as mentioned, students are pretty hosed, and there's a lot of people just living in tiny rooms, illegal inlaws, etc. who help to hold down wages by accepting a lower wage for a job. Ironically, rent-controlled apartments also hold down wages - if those people had to pay market rents, they couldn't afford to live here for what they're being paid, and the employers would be forced (collectively) to pay higher wages to attract the same workers. The economics of the situation are completely inescapable. SF can either greatly increase the rate at which it builds housing, or, it can see skyrocketing wages across the board. The former requires NIMBY taxpayers and neighborhood associations and activists etc. to stop blocking housing, simultaneously with voters electing people who will reform the approvals process. The latter will happen inevitably if the former doesn't; SF can and will survive as an enclave of the rich, provided those rich people are willing to pay outrageous sums for haircuts, coffee, sewer maintenance, bus fare, groceries, and everything else. FRINGE posted:Well you see vicious and destructive profiteering is a sign of health because "Profiteering" is an opinion. Developers attempting to build housing in SF face an approvals process that can be measured in decades, along with incredibly unusual and burdensome restrictions and requirements. A developer does not have unlimited funds to devote to a multi-year planning and design and approvals process that could (and often does) end up with the project simply failing. That same developer can take their money and time elsewhere. The only incentive for a developer to bother with SF's hosed up system is profit. And in order to provide sufficient incentive to brave the hosed up process for years, there has to be a very fat profit. SF has done this to itself. "Profiteering developers" are the only kind of developers SF can have, because SF has made it impossible for a profit-based business to attempt to build less profitable housing.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 18:56 |
|
Leperflesh posted:"Profiteering" is an opinion. Developers attempting to build housing in SF face an approvals process that can be measured in decades, along with incredibly unusual and burdensome restrictions and requirements. A developer does not have unlimited funds to devote to a multi-year planning and design and approvals process that could (and often does) end up with the project simply failing. That same developer can take their money and time elsewhere. The amount of restrictions, regulations, and ordinances anyone has to jump through to get anything done, literally means only the most wealthy developers/people are able to pay there way through the red tape, and build anything in the city. People think they're voting in more 'egalitarian' ordinances, but really all it does is further restrict the housing stock in the city. There's a huge incentive for property owners to keep development down, buy property, sit on it, and flip it later for profit. You don't even have to add value to your property. There are entire cottage industries built around this, due to zoning ordinances and people convinced all development is evil. Edit: One of the funniest thing I saw on the ballot last year was a proposal to build a multi use day/night athletic field around GG park. There were two propositions on the ballot. One to renovate, and develop the athletic fields, and the other to essentially stop it. quote:A City of San Francisco Parks and Athletic Fields Renovation and Conversion Council-Referred Measure, Proposition I ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of San Francisco, California. It was approved. quote:A City of San Francisco "Golden Gate Park Athletic Fields Renovation Act" Preservation Initiative, Proposition H ballot question was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in the city of San Francisco, California. It was defeated. I love how Proposition H was clearly a bunch of rich NIMBYies in the area who didn't want any development. I also love how their entire angle was "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE NATURAL GRASS!!?!?" I'm sure a chunk of people saw "natural grass" and voted for it, solely on "Yah I love nature idk". People have found a way to leverage far left environmentalists to further profiteer of the dismal situation. hell astro course fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Apr 5, 2015 |
# ? Apr 5, 2015 20:04 |
|
Don't forget: redevelopment, the most evil one of all! Not only are you doing new development, you're kicking out a bunch of rent-controlled apartment-dwellers, knocking down an old building, and then you're gonna build new, not-rent-controlled housing... at higher density (a taller building perhaps)? Where is everyone going to park? You've ruined the skyline! My view will be different! Those people in their $900 apartments they've had since 1978, probably several are grandmas on fixed incomes. I have sympathy for people suddenly being evicted from places they've lived all their lives, I really do. Especially if the eviction is effectively an eviction from the entire city, because there's no market-rate apartment available that this person can possibly afford. But the only reasonable solution is to build enough housing to keep the market rate down, and for every proposed project that gets defeated by the neighborhood activists, there's a dozen that were never even proposed for the same reason. The city has a backlog of demand on the order of a hundred thousand units or so, at least. The only way to get that kind of housing into SF without paving over its green spaces is to knock down existing housing and replace it with higher density. Redevelopment is the only option to lower housing prices in the city, and it will take a lot of redevelopment and construction before the effect changes from "slows down the increase in housing prices" to "housing prices become flat year-over-year" to "housing prices actually start to decline."
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 20:15 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 06:45 |
|
If only another earthquake could level San Fransisco so redevelopment could actually happen.
|
# ? Apr 5, 2015 20:30 |