adoration for none posted:

My understanding of the tragedy of the commons is that it was an excuse to justify enclosure of common land es decir: these peasants don't know how to care of their land, better these rich capitalists take it instead!

E: and really it continues to be an excuse for "enclosure" of other common goods

Rah! posted:

There are tons of apartment buildings on the west side too, it's not all single family homes. Multiple 5+ story buildings have been built in the western half of SF in the past several years (should've been way more of course), and many more were built back in the day before current zoning was implemented. There's also dozens of midrises and highrises under construction in a single development on the west side, in park merced (which already had several high rise buildings before the new construction, as does neighboring SFSU...it's that multicolored area on the southwest corner of the map).

Shear Modulus posted:

Seems exactly the same as the arguments used to justify US manifest destiny: the natives clearly aren't able to effectively exploit their land so Europeans have the right to kill them and take the land.

Rah! posted:

in SF's case those western neighborhoods are over 50% asian

used to be turbo whitey land, but not for a few decades now

also a lot of those single family homes in SF have additional in-law units on the ground floor, so they have more than one family living in them. But why have just two households on that lot when you could have more

ProperGanderPusher posted:

Granny flats are the loving pits. My now wife lived in one. No internet hookups, wasn’t allowed to have a subtenant despite it having two bedrooms, landlord showed up regularly with no notice to access the water meter and breaker, etc. You have reduced rights as a tenant because you’re technically living in someone else’s single family house.

Kenning posted:

Those in-law units loving suck. I was looking for housing in Daly City a couple years ago and toured a few of them. One or two were pretty decent, and several were dank cramped pits. I've got a friend living in the Sunset right now who's in one of three ground-floor in-law units that are each less than 200 sq. ft. It's not a good way to live, to say nothing about how the upstairs landlord might conceive of their rights to control the affairs of their tenants.

mllaneza posted:

I'm in Park Merced. The development plan has approval for 5,290 new units, mostly in new towers, over about 25 years now. These units are approved, but permits have not been issued. I think they've got funding problems. The first wave of new towers is supposed to include a pair on open space next to my building. Construction was supposed to start two years ago and they haven't even done a final survey. Post-Covid I doubt they get funding to break ground. I'd lose my view due West from the fire escape (gorgeous at Sunset), but having some light retail and a couple of restaurants next door would be nice.

adoration for none posted:

My understanding of the tragedy of the commons is that it was an excuse to justify enclosure of common land es decir: these peasants don't know how to care of their land, better these rich capitalists take it instead!

Foxfire_ posted:

economist guy making stuff up about what he imagined happened with village commons without doing any actual historical research.

Still Dismal posted:

https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1392647001959927810

My ideal solution would be: add X number of units by date Y (with minimum % affordable) or lose your land use authority for 10 years.

Foxfire_ posted:

'tragedy of the commons' as shorthand for individual actors wrecking much larger common things is still a thing

Rah! posted:

Yeah i know they suck i used to live in one lol. Negligent creep landlord, lovely DIY wiring that would shock me, got flooded with sewage twice, nonstop mouse and rat problems, and every other unit in the building were Air BnBs that often had disrespectful guests (love it when people piss out of the window and pile garbage in the hallway and stomp on the floors at 5am lol)

My point was that when it comes to single family homes in SF, a ton of them are not actually single family homes.

withak posted:

Literally how economists work.

Shear Modulus posted:

quote:

California could launch the west coast’s first commercial offshore windfarms
The state and the Biden administration have agreed to open federal waters off central and northern coasts to new windfarms

California has taken a major step towards launching the first commercial offshore wind energy program on the west coast, a project that would open the state’s waters to hundreds of floating turbines and could eventually power 1.6m homes.

The state announced an agreement with the US government on Tuesday that would open federal waters off California’s central and northern coasts to new windfarms, and put the state and the country in a better position to meet ambitious climate targets.

“California, as we all know, has a world class offshore wind resource, and it can play a major role in helping to accelerate California’s and the nation’s transition to clean energy,” said Gina McCarthy, the White House’s national climate adviser.

The new projects, if approved and built, would provide a major expansion of offshore wind power in the US. Currently, there are just two working offshore windfarms – off Block Island in Rhode Island and off Virginia – but more than two dozen others are in development.


The announcement is part of Joe Biden’s plan to create 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. California separately set a goal to produce all electricity by 2045 through renewable energy resources and zero-carbon generating facilities. The plan includes floating 380 windmills across a nearly 400 sq-mile (1,035 sq km) expanse of roughly 250,000 acres north-west of Morro Bay.

The agreement comes two weeks after the Biden administration announced a $3bn project off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts that would power 400,000 homes with 84 turbines. Another proposed project, Ocean Wind, off New Jersey would create 1,100-megawatts of power. Those windfarms would be dwarfed by the scale of the California projects.

The California windfarms would produce a combined 4.6 gigawatts, with the Morro Bay operation providing two-thirds of that output.

State officials have spent years trying to advance plans for wind development and California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, noted that the Trump administration inhibited those efforts. He praised the plan, saying that developing offshore wind would be a “gamechanger to achieving California’s clean energy goals and addressing climate change”, and promised to expedite the state’s environmental review process to hasten production. He also said he included $20m in his revised budget proposal this month to invest in the project.

“We value process but not the paralysis of a process that takes years and years and years that can be done in a much more focused way,” Newsom said.

The US has lagged behind Europe on developing offshore wind power, and advocates of the plan have cited their successes as examples. But the plan is not without opposition and key obstacles remain.

For one, the Pacific Ocean is far deeper than the Atlantic, where infrastructure can be built directly on to the seafloor. California’s wind energy will have to rely on floating turbines, and the technology is still fairly new.

Fishermen are also concerned that construction and operation of projects on this scale could disrupt the ecosystem. They claim that they were not consulted on the impact the locations could have on their industry.

“We feel we’ve not been invited to have a seat at the table. We feel we’re on the menu,” said Mike Conroy, the executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations.

The area off Morro Bay is a fishery for tuna and sword fish and he is concerned that the floating turbines could change migratory patterns of whales and other species. If blue and humpback whales, for example, are forced closer to shore, it could bring closures of Dungeness crab fishing.

Opposition is also expected from coastal property owners who have expressed dismay over the impact floating turbines may have on their ocean views – and ultimately their property values.

The project is expected to take years to establish, as the interior department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which oversees this kind of development, will process and respond to public feedback on the plan.

But, some of those hurdles have already been handled. The Department of Defense, which pushed back against California’s attempts to develop a wind energy program in the area for years, due to its use of the area for training and operations, is now on board.

Environmental groups, including Audubon and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which have expressed concerns about how the plan could impact wildlife, also issued statements in support of the project with the caveat that fish, seabirds and marine mammals are protected.

The Environmental Defense Center, which was founded in Santa Barbara after a massive offshore oil spill in 1969, echoed that sentiment, calling for minimal harm to species and coastal communities.

With support from those groups, the Department of the Interior plans to finalize the site next month, and could open leasing by next year.

“Today’s announcement reflects months of active engagement and dedication between partners who are committed to advancing a clean energy future,” said the US interior secretary, Deb Haaland, in a statement. “The offshore wind industry has the potential to create tens of thousands of good-paying union jobs across the nation, while combating the negative effects of climate change.”

CPColin posted:

Morro Bay being twenty minutes from me in SLO entitles me to say, "gently caress you and your property values, lol"

Who wants to look out at a boring, featureless horizon? Not me! I grew up in Santa Barbara and am maybe the one person who actually liked the twinkle of the oil rigs. Why not have the twinkle of some fan blades out there?

sb hermit posted:

I second that notion.

An urbanized first world environment has no room for "oh no my views" if adding offshore wind can do so much good. The way I see it, your exclusive access to your exclusive views means that the number of people who give a poo poo about a ruined view is going to be exclusively you. Maybe I might care more if it's a public beach or a public overlook.

DrSunshine posted:

This seems like good news. It's a start, and I hope to see more. Offshore wind turbines look super futuristic and I hope that future walks along the seawall will feature lovely views of the offshore turbines whirling away like silent giants in the fog.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/26/california-windfarms-coast-biden-administration

sb hermit posted:

I second that notion.

An urbanized first world environment has no room for "oh no my views" if adding offshore wind can do so much good. The way I see it, your exclusive access to your exclusive views means that the number of people who give a poo poo about a ruined view is going to be exclusively you. Maybe I might care more if it's a public beach or a public overlook.

Jaxyon posted:

Yeah "oh no my views not wind turbines" anywhere from LA to SB is hilarious because it's endless oil rigs already

forkboy84 posted:

Wait, America has 2 offshore wind sites? That's pitiful, less than Scotland.

FCKGW posted:

Well, we also have a shitload of onshore windfarms, including the second largest in the world. We have more windfarm sites than anywhere else although China has more total capacity.

sb hermit posted:

I second that notion.

An urbanized first world environment has no room for "oh no my views" if adding offshore wind can do so much good. The way I see it, your exclusive access to your exclusive views means that the number of people who give a poo poo about a ruined view is going to be exclusively you. Maybe I might care more if it's a public beach or a public overlook.

Boat Stuck posted:

I don't get why people think wind turbines ruin the view. If anything, they drastically improve the view.

It's like how a sky with a few clouds floating around is more interesting and scenic than a featureless blue sky.

Boat Stuck posted:

I don't get why people think wind turbines ruin the view. If anything, they drastically improve the view.

It's like how a sky with a few clouds floating around is more interesting and scenic than a featureless blue sky.

Boat Stuck posted:

I don't get why people think wind turbines ruin the view. If anything, they drastically improve the view.

It's like how a sky with a few clouds floating around is more interesting and scenic than a featureless blue sky.

Kestral posted:

Undisrupted natural vistas are more aesthetically appealing to a lot of people than natural vistas plus human intrusions. People retreat to nature for a reason. That doesn't mean we should ban wind farms, we need that renewable energy, especially since we no longer give the slightest consideration to nuclear, but there is merit to choosing their location carefully.