|
Space-Bird posted:I really dislike star wars...but I'm with you 100% Is there any way for Marin to be able to shut it down? Didn't google try to build a bunch of housing in mountain view and get completely shut down? I don't think it was low income housing though... I'm sure there's some way like zoning they could block the project. Marin county is horrible, they also block the BART expansion back in the day 
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
etalian posted:I'm sure there's some way like zoning they could block the project. Every time I see this map I am shocked at how good BART was planned to be. Is there any hope of getting this some day?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
etalian posted:I'm sure there's some way like zoning they could block the project. Scale looks weird. Palo alto is down where Sunnyvale should be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Every time I see this map I am shocked at how good BART was planned to be. Is there any hope of getting this some day? No. SF has a huge problem where there is no overriding mayor/city council for all of the urban area, but instead little pocket cities like Marin or Palo Alto of gently caress-you-got-mine and not-in-my-backyard rich fucks. They block anything that would bring the plebs into their neighborhoods.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Dominus Vobiscum posted:Of course we can't possibly treat this like a national food supply problem and call on Midwestern states to grow anything but corn and soybeans, either. Why should farmers in the MIdwest have to change how they do things just because California is full of retards trying to grow oranges in a desert?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Every time I see this map I am shocked at how good BART was planned to be. Is there any hope of getting this some day? Highly unlikely Marin, will block any sort of public transportation and also the area being built up over the last 40 years means new expansions will be insanely expensive to build. A new expansion is planned to extend the line from east bay to san jose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Why should farmers in the MIdwest have to change how they do things just because California is full of retards trying to grow oranges in a desert? I think that this was already addressed earlier in the thread, but this is not to mention that a ton of food crops are either not possible or not economical for being grown in the Midwest due to the climate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Why should farmers in the MIdwest have to change how they do things just because California is full of retards trying to grow oranges in a desert?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Good luck growing those oranges in the Midwest, dude. There is more going on than "farming in a desert". There is "farming in good soil in a climate that permits year-round production". You are not going to be supplying year-round fruits and vegetables from a truck farm in (say) Indiana. There are excellent reasons to rethink what is grown in the Central Valley, and how. Take the Central Valley out of production entirely, and either (A) fly them in from Chile/Mexico or (B) enjoy your canned and frozen fruits and vegetables between October and May. I love how some posters in this thread who don't understand agriculture very well think that farmers are mouth-breathing morons. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
You guys are misunderstanding what I'm criticizing, namely "other states should have to do things just because California is full of fuckups", not "why can't people in the Midwest grow oranges".
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I love how some posters in this thread who don't understand agriculture very well think that farmers are mouth-breathing morons. ??? I grew up in a farm state, Indiana, I woke up to the fricking pork futures, and I have a pretty drat good idea what you can and can't grow in that part of the Midwest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:??? I grew up in a farm state, Indiana, I woke up to the fricking pork futures, and I have a pretty drat good idea what you can and can't grow in that part of the Midwest. I'm not talking about you--I'm talking about people in this thread who criticize farmers in California and elsewhere without having much of an understanding of what they do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I'm not talking about you--I'm talking about people in this thread who criticize farmers in California and elsewhere without having much of an understanding of what they do. If water were not 70 times cheaper if you dumped it on the ground, farmers would dump it on the ground less. Sometimes this means more efficient farming, or putting actual pipes in the ditches rather than earth. Sometimes it means farming something different entirely. Those are both entirely reasonable changes that would happen if we fixed the incentives because, as you say, farmers are not idiots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Farmers are responding to incentives. Yeah there's basically no incentive to make efficient use of water given the cheap rates.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
etalian posted:Yeah there's basically no incentive to make efficient use of water given the cheap rates. Except for the fact water is still a huge cost to farmers. And also that's ignoring the vast number of farms that received no cheap water for the last two years because they received no water at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
The problem is definitely with saving endangered species, and not with how we give free reign to people with Senior water rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:The problem is definitely with saving endangered species, and not with how we give free reign to people with Senior water rights. You need a name change to RandomCarly. :bigtran: I'm sure the vast majority of farmers would prefer to get rid of the seniority system too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except for the fact water is still a huge cost to farmers. And also that's ignoring the vast number of farms that received no cheap water for the last two years because they received no water at all. This is what makes "use it or lose it" policy really silly, since it makes the cost of water free for some and really expensive for others. Make the cost of water reflect reality (or let people trade water rights more easily), and you'll start to see people conserve where it's cheapest to do so. Absent reasonable policy we'll keep seeing farmers flood irrigating while cities seriously debate regulations against herb gardens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Yeah, it's not a binary "care/don't care" thing, it's a "how much should I care" thing. This translates directly into how much dollar costs farmers are willing to pay in order to conserve. Because water is dramatically cheaper for farmers, it shouldn't be at all surprising that their decision about how much to invest in water savings is different from what it would be if, say, the subsidy was per crop grown rather than per gallon dumped on the ground. It's also driven by how it's easier to get the evil water wasting cities to conserve more, while agricultural is backed by big special interest despite making just a 2% contribution to the states GNP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
etalian posted:It's also driven by how it's easier to get the evil water wasting cities to conserve more, while agricultural is backed by big special interest despite making just a 2% contribution to the states GNP. I was unaware the contribution to the GNP was the measure of how best to use water. If so, we should stop wasting water on natural flows because those add 0% to the Californian GNP. Of course the big special interest groups in favor of natural flows will try to stop you, but that's just evil special interest groups, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I was unaware the contribution to the GNP was the measure of how best to use water. It's a pretty good measure for for-profit entities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's a pretty good measure for for-profit entities. By this logic we should be increasing the amount of water used in Oil & Gas extraction. It produces larger economic returns than just wasting it in rivers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I was unaware the contribution to the GNP was the measure of how best to use water. If so, we should stop wasting water on natural flows because those add 0% to the Californian GNP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Free-flowing water is an important part of many tourist and recreation attractions - a sector which is a bigger part of the state's GNP than agriculture. Hmmm, mentioning economic concerns means you can only take this to it's logical extreme. It's either laissez faire Somalia or full communism. Choose one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Free-flowing water is an important part of many tourist and recreation attractions - a sector which is a bigger part of the state's GNP than agriculture. Yeah but we managed to have a tourism industry in California before the current allocation scheme gave 40-50% of California's water to natural flows, so if we stopped allocating as much to natural flows, why everyone could take as long showers as we like and only a few fish will suffer. I mean, the point here is to have as little impact on cities and their growth right? Otherwise why would we be complaining about conservation measures in cities (while most ag users just get no delivered water at all)? Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
The point, when poitning out that ag is just 2% of our GDP, is that cutting the profitability of the ag sector by reducing their water allocation will not have a significant impact on california's economy; at least not directly. It is not a blanket condemnation of the concept of agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The point, when poitning out that ag is just 2% of our GDP, is that cutting the profitability of the ag sector by reducing their water allocation will not have a significant impact on california's economy; at least not directly. It is not a blanket condemnation of the concept of agriculture. Not to mention the drought has been ongoing since 2002 and emergency reserves like groundwater only have a year supply: http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/13470/20150316/california-has-only-one-year-of-water-left-warns-nasa-scientist.htm Also due to great political leadership/ostrich in the sand response there wasn't any sort of full scale response over the last decade to prepare for the current crisis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
etalian posted:Also due to great political leadership/ostrich in the sand response there wasn't any sort of full scale response over the last decade to prepare for the current crisis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Shrugging and assuming that things will work out for the best has been a pretty succesful S.O.P. for the last 150 years. Also no governor wants the reputation as the man who destroyed agriculture in central valley in the name of gay liberal environmentalist policies. Just keep on pumping water to make almond milk for hipsters and the next administration can figure out a solution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I was unaware the contribution to the GNP was the measure of how best to use water. If so, we should stop wasting water on natural flows because those add 0% to the Californian GNP. Leperflesh posted:The point, when poitning out that ag is just 2% of our GDP, is that cutting the profitability of the ag sector by reducing their water allocation will not have a significant impact on california's economy; at least not directly. It is not a blanket condemnation of the concept of agriculture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:To be clear, we could still subsidize the hell out of agriculture if we wanted to because farmers are such important special political snowflakes. Just make the subsidy based on something other than how much water they use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Problem is even if you could switch over to more efficient agricultural, it would take time, political and lots of money. With only a year left in reserve at current rates there's not enough time to make a difference given how the total supply is already a critical level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:By this logic we should be increasing the amount of water used in Oil & Gas extraction. It produces larger economic returns than just wasting it in rivers. Are there undeveloped Oil & Gas fields in California that would be viable with more water? Do go on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Are there undeveloped Oil & Gas fields in California that would be viable with more water? Do go on. Steam-injection is a great way to use a ton of water to get more oil out, and we already use it a bunch in California, so we could expand its use. Or just begin development of Monterey Shale and hope the most recent reserve estimates were wrong. Either way, I bet they'd generate more jobs per gallon or GNP per gallon than domestic use by poor people would, since apparently that's a useful metric. The point I'm trying to make is, measuring the usefulness of water by the economic output of using that water is a dumb metric. etalian posted:With only a year left in reserve at current rates there's not enough time to make a difference given how the total supply is already a critical level. Good news, the "1 year left in reserve" isn't accurate and the scientist who is quoted as claiming that is saying he never did: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0320-drought-explainer-20150320-story.html quote:State water managers and other experts said Thursday that California is in no danger of running out of water in the next two years, even after an extremely dry January and paltry snowpack. Reservoirs will be replenished by additional snow and rainfall between now and the next rainy season, they said. The state can also draw from other sources, including groundwater supplies, while imposing tougher conservation measures.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
etalian posted:With only a year left in reserve at current rates there's not enough time to make a difference given how the total supply is already a critical level. Can you please stop spreading this bullshit stat around? Numerous places have debunked it and the guy who the op-ed was based on said he said no such thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The 4th District Court of Appeals is due to rule on the legality of tiered water pricing this week. If the court upholds the lower court ruling, tiered water pricing will be illegal in Orange County, making it that much harder to cut water usage. Unsurprisingly, the 4th District Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
NPR spent a ton of time this weekend talking about earthquakes, past and future, in California. It looks like the US Geological Survey has the odds of a major earthquake (7.0+) on the San Andreas fault at 72% within the next 30 years. Any interesting articles about how the state is addressing this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Chuu posted:NPR spent a ton of time this weekend talking about earthquakes, past and future, in California. It looks like the US Geological Survey has the odds of a major earthquake (7.0+) on the San Andreas fault at 72% within the next 30 years. Mostly ignoring from a structural point. Half of LA would collapse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
At least the dreams of an anime neo-LA would be fully realized post-quake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 11:06 |
|
|
incoherent posted:At least the dreams of an anime neo-LA would be fully realized post-quake. Agreed. No one is willing to take this sort of thing as seriously as it should be taken. Basically the best hope is that the government gets in bed with the insurance agencies again, and comes up with some sort of mandatory structural refurbishment program to line the pockets of the 1%. The Southeast has hurricanes, the Northeast has blizzards, the Southwest has drought, and the Northwest has earthquakes. It's the new normal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 05:55
|
|
