this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
449 points (93.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43945 readers
846 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
the "downside" you state is actually a benefit to society
i do agree that agricultural and business uses are a bigger deal than lawns or car washing in terms of water use, and the fact that almonds are farmed in california is a goddamn travesty, to name but one example. however, lawns cause or exacerbate way more problems to a much greater extent than you probably realize, and reducing how many of them we have, ideally in favor of local ecology if not just denser land use patterns, is a much greater benefit than you're giving it credit for. california's zoning codes have also been improving in this regard, though they're still... not great. point is that i do agree with you that that policy doesn't focus where it's really needed, but it's also not as useless as you think.
a fair critique, but also, far fewer californians per capita die to gun violence vs. the national average. i'm sure other factors play into that, but it certainly isn't evidence that the policy hasn't helped.
now, i'll give you two examples of my own. early in governor gavin's term, he was given a bill called "complete streets" that would have dramatically improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure throughout the whole state, and he vetoed it. and that sucked major ass. but then he went ahead and signed sb50, which forces all municipalities in the state to build some actual goddamn housing, and specifically dense housing near transit. and i'm a huge fan of that. san jose has really jumped on it with gusto and has actually had their average rent drop somewhat, although the bill is still relatively new and its benefits aren't likely to really be felt for a while yet. my main criticism here is how tons of the cities here are so nimbyed out the ass that it took the state government's intervention to do literally anything about the housing crisis.
there is much to critique about california, but not all california critiques are created equal.