I don't understand why this is a iron triangle situation.

Higher density housing -- and a lot of it -- solves for all three, right? If not, why not?

I don’t understand, why is urban concentration anathema to environmental protection? It seems instead to be in service of it?

> They are mutually exclusive things.

Source: You made it up.

Being closer to where the things are so you can walk significantly drops the amount of fuel needed for transportation and opens up public transportation as a workable option.

> USA has only built 1.1 million housing units on average over that period;

That's a government issue, not a practical one. How many housing units did China build in that same amount of time?

What an incredibly weird take. Higher density cities are better in virtually any environmental metric per capita. This is widely supported

I mean, it was 16,000-18,000 homes that were destroyed? That's a hell of a lot when you consider that all the other new builds are still in the queue to be permitted too.

I bought some furniture from a guy in Ben Lomond and he told me that after the CZU fires, permitting was the bottleneck for most folks, to the point that even four years after the fires some people still were waiting. It's insane. IMO the bottleneck here is likely staffing. If someone wanted to streamline this they'd actually allocate some emergency funds statewide for this.

"almost a year" isn't a very long time for West Coast permits

The duplex I'm in took... 4-5 years of permitting? Something like that.

Totally insane waits, I agree.

The 2020 CZU Lightning Complex Fires destroyed thousands of homes in the Santa Cruz mountains, a "wilderness" area that has been filled with mountain homes

Many (most) have not yet had permits issued for rebuilding, most commonly because the owners can not meet, or are unwilling to meet, the standards for septic systems.

There have been decades of higher standards for all sorts of code. Nothing nearly as stringent for multifsmlt housing, a code which makes housing six times safer than single family housing. But still strict enough that four decades of no-growth policy left most people completely unaware of how hard it is to build housing.

Yes.

https://recovery.lacounty.gov/rebuilding/permitting-progress...

2162 permit applications received; 1916 applications have full plans submitted. 534 permits issued so far.

Prop 13 is getting repealed practically speaking through time, as the main beneficiaries of the low taxes die; and the taxes they dynastically transfer to their kids get capped; and as those kids choose to sell those homes and move to New York.

There is no one simple solution to e.g. poor performance of US public schools. Repealing Prop 13 isn’t going to close the achievement gap, it’s not even going to slow the fall of performance since 1993, let alone the pandemic.

So not only is Prop 13 sort of being phased out naturally, the repeal would simply put a bunch of renters against rising costs from landlords in the places that actually matter like LA and SF, and you know, as much as I hate Prop 13 in principle, everything has settled on a delicate homeostasis where the people who want to get it repealed fully - which will never happen - will get way more than they bargained for.

The vote was a bit closer than you might think for Prop 15, which was the last attempt, I think, to repeal Prop 13 for investment property. And in 2020 when that ballot measure was voted on the pro-repeal folks were nowhere near as organized as they are today. As I said in another comment I think there's a good chance that if they take another run at it they will succeed in repealing it for investment property because they will message aggressively that they're not after homeowners, which is what the investors convinced the electorate the last time they tried to repeal it for investment property.

And on the topic of residential, up until a few years ago if you died your heirs were allowed to inherit your tax basis, no strings attached, and so the "staggering" you're talking about has never really "staggered" en masse (if I'm understanding the way you're using that word). On top of that, even people who purchased property as late as 2020 are already massively benefiting from Prop 13. Each day home prices appreciate the new homeowner population just keeps replacing the dead in the anti-repeal camp for residential.

Edit: I was trying to put a footnote but it turned into italics so I just dropped the footnote

Please read it. I'm 100% right.

     As used in Section 33700, “firearm barrel” means the tube, usually metal and cylindrical, through which a projectile or shot charge is fired. A firearm barrel includes any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as a firearm barrel, or that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as a firearm barrel once completed, assembled, or converted. A firearm barrel may have a rifled or smooth bore.

Put compressed air (or maybe some capped off black powder) in tube, it will expel a projectile. PVC pipes are readily convertible into a tube through which a projectile is fired.

Have you read the bill? It literally outlaws (without background check) any piece of pipe which you can readily fire a projectile from. You can do that with pretty much any pipe, just by adjusting the charge and projectile size/type.

Even the process used to make PVC pipes is explicitly called out, which is extrusion.

   A firearm barrel includes any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as a firearm barrel

  “firearm barrel” means the tube, usually metal and cylindrical, through which a projectile or shot charge is fired

What are you talking about?