BlameThePeacock

The optimal situation would more or less be every family owning a single home.

A) This is not the optimal situation, and B) Owning a home, and being able to profiting off it appreciating are not the same thing and the latter is the problem

If house prices go down equally across the market, single home owners don’t really lose out Yes they do, this is such a fucking common argument and it's just straight up false.

If you have a million dollar home that you raised your family in, and now want to downsize into a $400k town house, you'd currently get $600k in cash freed up to spend on whatever you wanted. If house prices drop by 50%, you'd sell your $500k home, buy a $200k town house, and you'd have $300k in cash.

The majority of people who would lose money are the MAJORITY of people who own homes, which are single home owners.

That homeowner stands to lose a lot of money if a politician says they will pass a policy that drops home prices by 50%, so they wouldn't vote for that politician.

People like you keep proposing "build more" like it's going to work. Let me ask you this, how many houses would we need to build to drop national house prices by 50%?

The simple answer is "you can't realistically do that" No developer can be forced to lose money in the long term, and they quite literally couldn't build housing at 50% of current prices even if the land itself was completely free. The state could take on a stupidly massive debt to build homes at a loss, but then instead of paying higher rents/housing prices, you're just paying higher taxes.

Currently, there's no realistic way forward. It needs to get far worse (fewer homeowners, so that the balance of voting power shifts to renters) before we can start passing policies to make it better. I expect it to be about 20-30 years before that happens, and then it's probably going to be 20-30 more before the results get realized.

Education around the actual cause of the housing crisis.

Everything in the news and politics is intentionally ignoring the core issue and blaming it on scapegoats (immigrants, corporate landlords, developers)

The single biggest group making the most money off housing by a massive margin? Regular everyday single house owners.

They make up like 65%+ of the residential market, and yet we're busy blaming everything else under the sky while trying to protect that group.

You want affordable houses? House prices have to drop, A LOT, for EVERYONE.

What the fuck does local mean? I just showed you the math that even Los Angeles alone consumes more food than you can possibly grow in California.

You're the one fucking around with "I want a greenhouse above my grocery store" with no real proof that it would matter or be a good use of space.

Your article says it's 40:1 instead of the 10:1 I assumed, but that's still far too little to matter.

Your two floors of farming would still feed less than a hundred people full time, even if they hit those lofty idea targets.

I just replied to your other comment, but even a local network can't feed a city. Let's do some more math.

Los Angeles has about 18 million people, and on average they take about 2 acres of land to feed (it can be less for vegetarians, but lets assume they are just normal people here)

That's 36 million acres needed, which is about 56,000 square miles, which is an area of 280 miles by 200 miles of nothing but farmland.

You quite literally can't even feed Los Angles with a 100 mile diet, even if it was surrounded by nothing but farms (which it isn't)

In fact, California only has about 25 million acres of farmland in total (8 million irrigated, and the rest for animal grazing)

Source local food sounds good, but we import food for a reason. Cities require a ridiculous amount of farm land to feed.

It's a nice utopian idea, but it just doesn't do anything. The aquaponics and greenhouse are just a bad utilization of such prime real estate space, the amount of food produced would be so low as to be a rounding error for the food they would still need to import and you could use that same floor space to house hundreds of more people.

Go look at my comment from a few minutes ago showing the production math for 5 stories of hydroponics.

You could have 5 floors, and it still wouldn't be enough. You could have 30 floors and it wouldn't be enough.

I don't think you understand the scale of farming to human. Even if you're entirely vegetarian it's on the order of 0.5-1 acre per person to grow the required food. That's 20,000-40,000 square feet. Even if hydroponics were involved and cut that by a factor of 10, you'd still be at 2000 square feet per person. A typical grocery store is 25-50,000 square feet, so let's go with the most generous and say 5 floors of 50,000 square feet you could produce enough food for.... 125 people.

The math doesn't math. No reasonable amount of food growth is ever going to be possible inside a city.

A) is just rediculous, the space required to feed even a suburban block is orders of magnitude more than a greenhouse onsite could provide. It may be able to grow enough herbs, but that's about it.

I'm fine with the rest of the idea.

I don't, I wish "we" weren't doing it and "they" weren't doing it either.

I'm honestly surprised we haven't seen a mass drone attack in the US yet from a terrorist group.

It's just so fucking easy from a technology and cost perspective.

Yes and no, "we" absolutely can as long as "we" is the government doing it. Random person probably doesn't have the resources but a well funded group can absolutely do it.

Just because the platforms are censored doesn't mean people aren't finding ways around things.

From the original book "Winnie the Pooh" by A. A. Milne Chapter/Story 6 is called: In which Eeyore loses a tail and pooh finds one

It's public domain, so here's the link if you want to read it. https://americanliterature.com/author/aa-milne/book/winnie-the-pooh/chapter-iv-in-which-eeyore-loses-a-tail-and-pooh-finds-one