🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <uisul1ppno8kut3retao5a3kbhld98175o@4ax.com>,
 Scott en Aztl�n <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:48:36 -0700, "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >"Scott en Aztl�n" <scottenaztlan@yahooNOSPAM.com> wrote in message 
> >news:8rhsl1pp1ohumgagbbncmi7sdm50vll8qe@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:11:54 -0700, John David Galt
> >> <jdg@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Enough mindless eco-nut hysteria already.
> >>>
> >>>Population growth is good.  The works of Julian Simon prove it.
> >>
> >> And the works of Niven and Pournelle describe what it will be like.
> >>
> >> The only way to cram 60 million people into the areas of CA where
> >> people actually want to live (i.e. near the coast where the climate is
> >> good) is to build ultra-high-density housing and tow icebergs from the
> >> North Atlantic into Long Beach Harbor so we can melt them down for
> >> drinking water.
> >
> >
> >60M people in California would be 1.66 acres of land per person
> 
> Yeah, but not 1.66 acres of DESIRABLE land. You planning on dumping
> the next 30 million immigrants into to Mohave?

Actually, yes. That's exactly where I expect the market to accommodate 
the demand.  Thanks for pointing this out.  We are also going to 
accommodate a lot with radical socio/cultural changes that tolerate much 
less personal space and much lower quality of life conditions.  The SFV 
can easily absorb additional millions as a million move out and several 
million move into their house and garage and convert the garden shed and 
park a tailer in the driveway.  This is a heterodyning process.  

Remember, I also do not believe the 60 million number at all.  It is a 
scare number to force people into doing something now.  A classic 
planner control tactic.  

> 
> >The number of people in California is determined largely by the number of 
> >jobs that are created in California.   You could drive most jobs out of 
> >California by a law requiring people to use public transit to commute to and 
> >from work.
> 
> I would *love* such a law! ;)

We could clean up the environment, save tens of billions, reduce 
congestion and generally cure most of Kalifornia's ills by enforcing two 
existing laws and reinterpreting another.  1, license registration and 
insurance on automobiles.  There are portions of LA where 90% of the 
traffic is in violation of one or more of these laws.  2, residential 
zoning and legal occupancy restrictions.  3, return to the definition of 
resident for education purposes to mean legal resident.  My children 
attend public school in California and the waste and expense of 
providing "universal" education is built into the system as are the 
reasons for poor testing performance.  

So there you have it.  There exist rules that would achieve most of the 
stated goals of a sustainable, pleasant state but we choose not to apply 
them.