Quote:
didn't you read Socal's post? If you shut down the water source to CA, then a huge chunk of the nations food supply is also cut down.
As for urban sprawl... We can't really help it if people used to move out here from across the world and across the nation. Given the current economic state of the world, CA probably already peaked population wise. Was too much developed? I don't know. The rate of development probably was appropriate for the rate of growth (or the demand at the time).
Question for spalind:
Where do you draw the line for sprawl? What is considered "ok" in your mind? Obviously people in CA don't have a high enough IQ to answer this. If it weren't for sprawl, we would all be living in great big cities in high rise apartment buildings. Is that what you want?
OK, finally a reasonable response that asks intelligent questions...#1--as far as the nations food supply goes I think all of you would admit that only a very small percentage of the nations food supply is grown in SoCal, I would hazard to guess that less than 5% of the nations food supply is grown in that area...most being in the midwestern states....#2-- as far as what level of development is OK...I'm not sure....I think the horse has left the gate on this one...at this point the sprawl is irreversible due to the fact that America is a country where everyone must "move forward" meaning bigger and bigger houses and developments...I dont think enormous high rise buildings in crowded cities are the answer either....I think a much smaller population would be the closest answer I can think of....turn back the clock to the population of the early 20th century....somewhere around the 100 million mark I think would be sustainable on the land we have without too much damage....