America - The Official Thread

[PocketZeven]

what did I wrote in the last post, some aspects are worse "without major increase in population density"




More people more demand for everything, housing, infrastructure, environment which makes things worse for everyone.

More demand is good for the economy though. Your house price will increase, infrastructure will need to improve, which will result in more jobs etc. What is the negative effect for you personally? (for the fourth time)

 

[Danoff]

I'm talking about quality of life, not standard of living. Material aspects are better, but some aspects of QoL are worse than 40 years ago (housing, infrastructure, environment, safety) and that is without major increase in population density (whole country +300k, city +8k). I don't think we can open borders and add unspecified number of people without solving contemporary problems first.

Or maybe I need to man up or something ...

Is crime worse? Is your housing situation worse? Is your infrastructure situation worse? Environment is not really affected on a global scale by allowing people to cross a border.

My point was that more people is what you get over time. But with those more people comes economic growth and development. Not only does that lead to greater overall prosperity, but also greater technological development. Generally speaking, when people are allowed to work, they create increased prosperity and quality of life. This has been the general trend of human history. We have never had more people, and our quality of life is huge.

 

[Keef]

If economy need workers on lower positions we should ask why before taking in immigrants to do the job. Maybe it's because lower positions don't have proper valuation?

I like this idea.

 

[Dotini]

Trump flips the 9th circuit.

“Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

By MAURA DOLANSTAFF WRITER
FEB. 22, 2020

7:06 AM
When President Trump ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.

In few places has the effect been felt more powerfully than in the sprawling 9th Circuit, which covers California and eight other states. Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead.

Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.

“Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush.

To assess the early impact of these appointments, The Times interviewed several judges on the 9th Circuit. Some either declined to discuss their colleagues or inner deliberations or refused to be quoted by name, saying they were not authorized to speak about what goes on behind the scenes.

To be sure, some of the new appointees to the 9th Circuit have quickly won the respect of their colleagues. But the rapid influx of so many judges — most without judicial experience — has put strains upon the court and stirred criticism among judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents.

“Ten new people at once sends a shock wave through the system,” a 9th Circuit judge said.

Among those who have caused the most consternation is Judge Daniel P. Collins, a former federal prosecutor and partner of a prestigious law firm.

Some judges said that in the early months of his tenure, Collins has appeared oblivious to court tradition. He has sent memos at all times of the night in violation of a court rule and objected to other judges’ rulings in language that some colleagues found combative, they said.

Collins also moved quickly to challenge rulings by his new colleagues, calling for review of five decisions by three-judge panels, and some of the calls came before Collins even had been assigned to his first panel, judges said.

Active judges vote on the calls behind the scenes, and the public becomes aware of a failed effort only when dissents are later filed by the judges who favored reconsideration. Judges said it was unprecedented for a new jurist to try to overturn so many decisions in such a short period of time. The court has so far rejected most of Collins’ calls.

“Collins has definitely bulldozed his way around here already in a short time,” one 9th Circuit judge said. “Either he doesn’t care or doesn’t realize that he has offended half the court already.”

Collins did not respond to a request for an interview.

Democratic appointees still make up the majority of active judges — 16 to 13. But the court also has judges on “senior status” who continue to sit on panels that decide cases. Senior status rank gives judges more flexibility but allows them to continue to work, even full time.

Of the senior judges who will be deciding cases on “merits” panels — reading briefs and issuing rulings — 10 are Republicans and only three are Democratic appointees, Smith said.


“You will see a sea change in the 9th Circuit on day-to-day decisions,” Smith predicted.

The biggest change will come in controversial cases that test the constitutionality of laws and the legal ability of presidents to establish contentious new rules. The 9th Circuit is weighing challenges to Trump on a wide array of issues, from immigration to reproductive rights, and the rightward tilt is likely to make it easier for the president to prevail.

Only two of the 9th Circuit appointees have prior judicial experience — Bridget S. Bade and Danielle Hunsaker. They also are the only women among the court’s new judges. Three are Asian Americans — one an openly gay man who has two children with his husband. The other five are white men. Several went to the nation’s top universities.

The American Bar Assn. rated six of the 10, including Collins, “well qualified,” the group’s highest rating for circuit judge candidates. Three received the lower “qualified” rating, and one, Lawrence VanDyke, was found to be “not qualified.”

Though conservative, the Trump appointees to the 9th Circuit are not monolithic. Two Trump appointees — Bade, a former federal court magistrate, and Mark J. Bennett, a former attorney general of Hawaii — are regarded by their colleagues as experienced and collegial.

Trump appointee Eric D. Miller also has drawn positive reviews from both Democratic and Republican appointees. Before his appointment, Miller headed up the appellate division of a major law firm.

“I think he will be a good judge,” a 9th Circuit veteran said.

But Trump appointee Judge Ryan D. Nelson rattled other members of the court when he suggested during a hearing in August that the 9th Circuit remove a respected San Francisco district judge, Edward M. Chen, from a case. The 9th Circuit rarely takes cases away from district judges and only in extreme situations.

Chen, a former ACLU lawyer, was serving as a federal magistrate when Obama elevated him to the district court. Nelson complained about him during a hearing on a case in which Chen imposed an injunction on a Trump plan to take away protected status from many immigrants.

“You can reverse Ed Chen from time to time, but to suggest from the bench that are you are going to reassign” a case is “off the reservation,” one longtime 9th Circuit judge said. “Ed is an extremely well respected judge.”

Another veteran called Nelson’s suggestion “beginner stuff.”

“When he is in a china shop, he doesn’t walk around with caution,” the judge said.

Nelson, an Idaho lawyer who worked as general counsel for a wellness consumer goods company, did not respond to a request for comment.

Ninth Circuit Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, a Clinton appointee, noted that most of the Trump appointees are still in transition, with the heat of the political process of Senate confirmation not far behind them. She said she was optimistic the 9th Circuit would continue to be collegial.

Another judge predicted that even the hard-charging Collins, educated at Harvard and Stanford, “will mellow.”

“I think he will be fine, though he will never be a go-along-get-along guy,” the judge said.

The behind-the-scenes tensions over Collins spilled into public last month in an order rejecting a call, presumably made by Collins, to reconsider a panel’s decision. The panel had upheld a lower court’s ruling in favor of suppressing evidence from a tribal officer’s search of a vehicle on a public highway. The highway ran through tribal land.

Collins, dissenting from the court’s refusal to reconsider, was joined by three judges, two Trump appointees and one appointed by President George W. Bush.

Collins called the panel’s decision “deeply flawed,” “plagued” by legal error and marked by “confused analysis.”

Two Democratic appointees whose ruling Collins wanted reversed wrote that even in the genre of such dissents, Collins’ was was an “outlier.”

“It misrepresents the legal context of this case and wildly exaggerates the purported consequences of the panel opinion,” wrote Judge Marsha S. Berzon, a Clinton appointee, and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz, an Obama appointee.

“This case involves an unusual factual scenario and a technical issue of Indian tribal authority,” they said. “It certainly does not present a ‘question of exceptional importance’ meriting en banc consideration.”

The 9th Circuit court has been dominated by Democratic appointees for decades. In 1978, a federal law created 10 new judgeships on the court, allowing President Carter to fill them all. The liberal Carter appointees were followed by judges named by three Republican presidents and two Democrats.

Clinton’s and Obama’s appointees were not uniformly liberal, however, and the 9th Circuit has been growing more moderate. One study, examining the years 2010 to 2015, found that the 9th Circuit was the third most reversed by the Supreme Court, following the Ohio-based 6th and Georgia-based 11th circuits.

Still, with Democratic nominees heavily outnumbering Republicans, there were usually enough votes to overturn conservative decisions by three-judge panels.

Smith predicted the full effect of the Trump appointees won’t be seen until 2021, when they will be carrying full caseloads.

But even now Democratic appointees are likely to be more reluctant to ask for 11-judge panels to review conservative decisions because the larger en banc panels, chosen randomly, might be dominated by Republicans, judges said.

That happened in July after a panel of the three Republican appointees upheld a Trump ruling denying federal family planning funds to clinics that referred women for abortions. A Democratic appointee called for en banc review, and a majority voted in favor. But the randomly selected 11-member panel had a majority of Republican appointees, including two named by Trump.

The 9th Circuit is by far the largest in the federal appeals court in the nation, and its judges are scattered over nine states.

Some judges elect to work alone with their staffs in offices or courthouses near their homes. Most 9th Circuit veterans have yet to have had any experience with the new appointees, and it could take years before they serve on a panel with each of them.

Trump appointed the successors to the late Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Harry Pregerson, two of the most liberal circuit judges in the nation and filled other slots created by Republicans who opted to take senior status.

The new appointees include Patrick Bumatay, the openly gay former prosecutor, and Daniel A. Bress, a former partner at the Washington, D.C., office of Kirkland & Ellis. The ABA rated both qualified. During a hearing in January on challenges to Trump’s immigration policies, Bress appeared ready to side with Trump.

The others are Kenneth Kiyul Lee, a partner in the Los Angeles office of Jenner & Block LLP, who received a well-qualified rating and VanDyke, a former solicitor general of Nevada and a federal deputy assistant attorney general.

In rating VanDyke unqualified for the job, the ABA wrote: “Mr. VanDyke is arrogant, lazy, an ideologue, and lacking in knowledge of the day-to-day practice, including procedural rules.” VanDyke cried during his confirmation hearing when attempting to rebut criticism that he might be unfair to the LGBTQ community.

Trump’s rapid transformation of the circuit courts — three others went from a majority of active judges appointed by Democrats to Republican majorities — was accomplished with the support of Senate Republicans.


Nominations of appellate judges may no longer be blocked by filibuster, and Republican Senate leaders have declined under Trump to follow the practice of allowing an appointee’s home-state senators to veto the president’s choice.

“Trump has set all records for the number of appellate appointees,” said University of Richmond law Professor Carl Tobias.

The federal appeals courts are just one rung below the Supreme Court, and federal judges serve for life.

Though some 9th Circuit veterans expressed unease at the inexperience of some of the new judges, 9th Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan said they would grow into the job.

“Both President Obama and President Trump appointed quite a few young people with really exceptional credentials, but not necessarily judicial experience,” said Callahan, appointed by President George W. Bush.

Four of Obama’s seven appointees had been judges.

“You have to learn to be a judge,” Callahan said.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-02-22/trump-conservative-judges-9th-circuit

 

[Imari]

More people more demand for everything, housing, infrastructure, environment which makes things worse for everyone.

Generally there's also more supply, and with more supply comes economies of scale which tends to make stuff higher quality for an equivalent price.

You know that we're not all stuck with the same dozen houses that we fight over for the next thousand years, right? We can build new ones. That is a thing that we can do. New roads and bridges too. You name it, if people built it before and it's in demand they can and will build it again. This is not some dark ages dystopia where all the knowledge of the past has been lost and we're resorting to picking through the scrap heaps of history trying to find functional widgets.

 

[baldgye]

Trump accused Boris Johnson of 'betrayal' after slamming the phone down on him in a moment of 'apoplectic' fury
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-alone-world-stage-boris-johnson-betrayal-huawei-uk-merkel-2020-2?r=US&IR=T

International businessman incapable of maintaining alliance with ally of some 70+ years

 

[UKMikey]

Trump accused Boris Johnson of 'betrayal' after slamming the phone down on him in a moment of 'apoplectic' fury
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-alone-world-stage-boris-johnson-betrayal-huawei-uk-merkel-2020-2?r=US&IR=T

International businessman incapable of maintaining alliance with ally of some 70+ years

Putting the "special" into "special relationship".

 

[Rallywagon]

Man, apoplectic? Trump slammed a phone in a fury of stroke or internal hemorrhage?

 

[baldgye]

It's strange, you'd think two wealthy, privileged, lying, arrogant, cheating, narcissists would get along...

 

[Liquid]

Trump accused Boris Johnson of 'betrayal' after slamming the phone down on him in a moment of 'apoplectic' fury
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-alone-world-stage-boris-johnson-betrayal-huawei-uk-merkel-2020-2?r=US&IR=T

International businessman incapable of maintaining alliance with ally of some 70+ years

A US firm that helps to calculate which hospital patients will cost insurance companies the most money has won a juicy NHS contract to calculate which NHS patients cost the most.

Don't worry, the special relationship is still going strong. But Johnson and Trump having a tantrum with each other will never not be hilarious.

 

[Keef]

In the past couple weeks I've had TWO collections bills for things that I already submitted for my worker's comp claim. These companies just can't get their crap together. I wouldn't have to deal with any of this, and wouldn't have to kill my credit score, if we had universal healthcare.

 

[Joey D]

In the past couple weeks I've had TWO collections bills for things that I already submitted for my worker's comp claim. These companies just can't get their crap together. I wouldn't have to deal with any of this, and wouldn't have to kill my credit score, if we had universal healthcare.

I'm not sure if you've dealt with Medicare of Medicaid, but I can assure you they don't have their crap together either. While you might not end up with collection agencies, you will still end up with headaches.

Also, just how long have your bills been outstanding? Medical billing is horrifically slow so if I had to guess it's been over a year since you've had the actual procedure performed if it's in collections. Sounds like you need to be holding your worker's comp insurer because they're clearly dropping the ball on this one.

 

[Keef]

I'm not sure if you've dealt with Medicare of Medicaid, but I can assure you they don't have their crap together either. While you might not end up with collection agencies, you will still end up with headaches.

Also, just how long have your bills been outstanding? Medical billing is horrifically slow so if I had to guess it's been over a year since you've had the actual procedure performed if it's in collections. Sounds like you need to be holding your worker's comp insurer because they're clearly dropping the ball on this one.

I had Medicaid for three years in college and it was the purest experience ever. Signing up was not easy but once I got it I never had to deal with a single thing again, including spending any money. That said, I currently make too much money on unemployment to qualify for Medicaid, so lol.

The collections came from private companies like Labcorp. Hospitals are slow as I've experienced but private vendors are on top of it. They're actually faster than the worker's comp system, apparently. These bills may have slipped through the cracks since I've had dozens of things to file but idk. They even cut me a check for my AME bills which I was excited about. My AME, the FAA doctor, is private practice and doesn't take insurance or anything, which is typical of AMEs. He also charges $250 an hour and is the liaison between myself and the FAA, so those bills have been fun to pay and get reimbursed for.

Here's a pro tip for anybody who reads this thinking about becoming an airline pilot: Unless you've got rich parents, you're gonna have a helluva time. Good luck. Universal healthcare and other education benefits would make your necessary education actually attainable.

 

[Joey D]

I had Medicaid for three years in college and it was the purest experience ever. Signing up was not easy but once I got it I never had to deal with a single thing again, including spending any money. That said, I currently make too much money on unemployment to qualify for Medicaid, so lol.

The collections came from private companies like Labcorp. Hospitals are slow as I've experienced but private vendors are on top of it. They're actually faster than the worker's comp system, apparently. These bills may have slipped through the cracks since I've had dozens of things to file but idk. They even cut me a check for my AME bills which I was excited about. My AME, the FAA doctor, is private practice and doesn't take insurance or anything, which is typical of AMEs. He also charges $250 an hour and is the liaison between myself and the FAA, so those bills have been fun to pay and get reimbursed for.

Here's a pro tip for anybody who reads this thinking about becoming an airline pilot: Unless you've got rich parents, you're gonna have a helluva time. Good luck.

Oh, Labcorp...I hate Labcorp. It's little wonder you're having issues with them, they are incredibly shady and tread dangerously close to breaking the law by paying genetic counselors at hospitals and in return get business from them. I'm sure they found a legal loophole, but it's so incredibly close to a violation of the Stark Law I'm not sure how they continue to get away with it.

Regarding Medicaid though, out of all the stories I've heard yours in one of the few that doesn't have a bunch of headaches involved with it.

 

[Keef]

Regarding Medicaid though, out of all the stories I've heard yours in one of the few that doesn't have a bunch of headaches involved with it.

Yeah, once I actually got signed up which was an ordeal, I didn't hear a word from them for three years. I think I had to renew it once. Maybe Ohio Medicaid doesn't suck as bad as others.

 

[novcze]

Generally there's also more supply

more supply you say ... ok next time I drive around the block trying to find a parking spot I'll wish for more people with cars because that will apparently create more parking spots, also when water reserve is low and people can't water their gardens that will be resolved with more demand and when housing prices are already skyhigh with demand from our own citizens (new apartments are sold out years before house is built) more people will magically make it better.

Environment is not really affected on a global scale by allowing people to cross a border.

Who is saying anything about global scale, local environment suffers. More people more waste more cars more pollution. Economic growth will not help with environment, you can see it in the USA, your population doubled since 60's but waste production almost tripled.

More demand is good for the economy though. Your house price will increase, infrastructure will need to improve, which will result in more jobs etc. What is the negative effect for you personally? (for the fourth time)

Demand is good if you want to sell something. Why you persistently ask what is the negative effect for me personally, do you think I'm an exception?
I live in local environment, use infrastructure and want to buy a new apartment or house.

If you look at QoL ratings https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/rankings_by_country.jsp and sort it by "property price to income ratio" you can find us right down there between Peru and Uruguay. Great QoL

I would also be willing to bet that police use discretion for speeding tickets there much like they do here in the U.S. (and probably everywhere else).

speeding tickets are their income (not literally), same as parking tickets, they wouldn't bother with warnings ... maybe people crossing street on wrong place get warnings, but you can't compare it to illegal entry.

But ok, you guys need illegal workers, I got it. I would be ashamed though.

 

[Danoff]

Who is saying anything about global scale, local environment suffers. More people more waste more cars more pollution. Economic growth will not help with environment, you can see it in the USA, your population doubled since 60's but waste production almost tripled.

That's the only part of my post you're willing to comment on?

I take it you would just rather the trash was somewhere else. Not in your backyard as it were. Economic growth absolutely helps with the environment. You can see in the USA, where our air pollution is lower than earlier levels.

Waste production may go up, but waste management improves with population as well.

 

[Imari]

more supply you say ... ok next time I drive around the block trying to find a parking spot I'll wish for more people with cars because that will apparently create more parking spots, also when water reserve is low and people can't water their gardens that will be resolved with more demand and when housing prices are already skyhigh with demand from our own citizens (new apartments are sold out years before house is built) more people will magically make it better.

Do you know what the word "generally" means? It means that there are exceptions. But let's take a look at your examples.

If there's more cars then there's incentive for someone to use a building as a parking garage. Most major cities I've been to have buildings dedicated to parking. There's also incentive for alternative forms of transport, like trains or trams, bicycles, ridesharing, and so on. Maybe this doesn't happen in some areas, but it's not because there aren't solutions to the problem of physical space being a limited resource that cannot be created.

I live in Australia so I'm well aware of the problems of limited water. But that's not something that is created by humans (mostly, you can but it's fairly prohibitively expensive at the moment). That's where laws and management come into it, but if communities have been built beyond what the local water supply can support then that's a major planning problem. I don't think that's a valid counterexample, it's like complaining that it's too cold at the South Pole. That's just part of the limitations of the physical environment.

Housing prices being very high is interesting. If housing prices are so high why would there not be builders everywhere building houses as fast as they can? If you want to make money, it seems like a perfect opportunity, and it is. That's why you see apartments being sold years before they're built, the builders are actually going as fast as they possibly can to try and meet demand. Any new builders on the scene are going to have customers beating down their doors.

The reality is that it's not about how many people there are wanting to buy houses as much as that buying a house seems to make it easier to buy another house. You can buy another house, and have the rent from that paying the mortgage. And so on and so on up to the limit of what a bank is willing to lend you, which if you have several houses already paid off as assets and income can be very high. Likewise, banks are far happier to lend to a person who has already paid off four homes than someone who has never owned one, it's simply good risk management for them. It's hard for a first time home buyer to compete in such a market, and so you end up with this sort of binary mode of people with multiple houses and people with none. At least that's how it's seeming to shake out in Australia, but I'd be surprised if it's much different elsewhere after what we all observed in 2008. That's not really anything to do with population or immigration though. It's economics and it happens in countries of basically all sizes.

 

[novcze]

Waste production may go up, but waste management improves with population as well.

Waste production will go up and half of that waste is still going into landfill regardless of economic growth.
Less overall emissions are due to technological advancements and environmental regulations, in this case good economy helps.

If there's more cars then there's incentive for someone to use a building as a parking garage. Most major cities I've been to have buildings dedicated to parking. There's also incentive for alternative forms of transport, like trains or trams, bicycles, ridesharing, and so on. Maybe this doesn't happen in some areas, but it's not because there aren't solutions to the problem of physical space being a limited resource that cannot be created.

Look, we don't live in stone age, we have parking houses, public transportation and bicycle/scooter/car sharing but nobody is going to tear down apartment building nearby historic city centre to build a new parking house. So physical space is limited, also we can't grow outskirts because we also need to grow crops somewhere, there was already notion that too much of good soil is taken by new development.

Problem with parking in my area will be improved with residential parking, if you think about it it's like immigration laws

I live in Australia so I'm well aware of the problems of limited water. But that's not something that is created by humans (mostly, you can but it's fairly prohibitively expensive at the moment). That's where laws and management come into it, but if communities have been built beyond what the local water supply can support then that's a major planning problem. I don't think that's a valid counterexample, it's like complaining that it's too cold at the South Pole. That's just part of the limitations of the physical environment.

Exactly, you can't add more people to already resource constrained environment, that would be bad planning. There are new challenges that come with climate change and we started adjusting to keep more water in environment, but it will take some time.

Housing prices being very high is interesting. If housing prices are so high why would there not be builders everywhere building houses as fast as they can?

Because they can not build houses "everywhere". There is land use planning but changes and approving takes time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because they can not build houses "everywhere". There is land use planning but changes and approving takes time.

What does the lead time for planning permission have to do with builders not building houses? It's part of the process and building companies know the way through it very well.

 

[Liquid]

What does the lead time for planning permission have to do with builders not building houses?

Or illegal immigration.

It certainly isn't illegal immigrants who snap up every new project on a mortgage before they are finished.

 

[novcze]

What does the lead time for planning permission have to do with builders not building houses? It's part of the process and building companies know the way through it very well.

Everything? We apparently can't build stuff illegaly on land not designated for building.

Or illegal immigration.

yeah let's conflate everything together, truth remains that we can't lose control over migration and illegal entry is still crime.
If you guys are feeling brave change your immigration laws.

Funny thought, republicans once played a role in abolition of slavery and now they can stop exploitation of illegal workers.

 

[Joey D]

Funny thought, republicans once played a role in abolition of slavery and now they can stop exploitation of illegal workers.

Illegal immigrants work on their own free will a get paid for the work they do. If they don't like the pay, conditions, or treatment of their employer, they leave. It's nothing like slavery and certainly isn't exploitation. Illegal immigrants, in America at least, come here because the risk is worth it for the money they make compared to what they're going to make in their home country.

 

[Liquid]

yeah let's conflate everything together

You brought it up.

When asked why "illegal" immigration is a bad thing, you yourself went on tangent about population density, housing crises and people being unable to buy new flats or houses because they're already bought before they are finished, you brought all that up without anyone prompting you.

So yes, I stand by that what you ranted on about had nothing to do with illegal immigration, which was your original point.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Everything? We apparently can't build stuff illegaly on land not designated for building.

You can't build something without planning permission (although I only know the UK's NPPF in-depth, not any other country's), that doesn't mean you can't get planning permission. It's the first stage of house building and, therefore, is what house builders do.

The existence of planning permission is a rubbish excuse for house builders not building houses.

 

[novcze]

You brought it up.

When asked why "illegal" immigration is a bad thing, you yourself went on tangent about population density, housing crises and people being unable to buy new flats or houses because they're already bought before they are finished, you brought all that up without anyone prompting you.

So yes, I stand by that what you ranted on about had nothing to do with illegal immigration, which was your original point.

It was actually about legal immigration (which include open borders situation)

I'm not against legal immigration, but it should not decrease quality of life for citizens, absolute no go for me is increase in population density.

and I was prompted with

Why?

I didn't know it would be so hard for some to understand, that we can't take in any significant number of people if we already have problems.

You can't build something without planning permission (although I only know the UK's NPPF in-depth, not any other country's), that doesn't mean you can't get planning permission. It's the first stage of house building and, therefore, is what house builders do.

The existence of planning permission is a rubbish excuse for house builders not building houses.

Oh, I was talking about 'land use planning' or 'zoning plan', meaning if you have piece of land designated as field or wood, you can't build house on it without change in zoning plan.

 

[Danoff]

I didn't know it would be so hard for some to understand, that we can't take in any significant number of people if we already have problems.

You view people as problems. I don't. People solve problems.

 

[Rallywagon]

It was actually about legal immigration (which include open borders situation)



and I was prompted with



I didn't know it would be so hard for some to understand, that we can't take in any significant number of people if we already have problems.




Oh, I was talking about 'land use planning' or 'zoning plan', meaning if you have piece of land designated as field or wood, you can't build house on it without change in zoning plan.

Getting zoning changed is as easy as putting in a request with your municipality. I'll grant that it's easier when the zoning change will make the municipality more on tax revenue, such as breaking a large, multi-acre plot of land into smaller parcels for building, but as long as their is no environmental reason, such as being a wetland, then having a properties zone changed isnt all that difficult. Though, that was what our experience was in a small town, might not be as easy in a place like NYC or LA.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

On the subject: From my experience in SF: Building anything is very very hard. Lots of crap flat land (current project needs a combined 7 miles of underground piles - 365 x 100ft deep - just so it doesn't sink into the earth during an earthquake - an 8-figure price tag just for underground concrete for a building with no basement), lots of hills that are steep enough to be prohibitively expensive to build on, an incredibly strong NIMBY sentiment throughout - with real teeth, extremely expensive permitting processes (had a project with damn near $20m in fees...) extremely cumbersome entitlements processes (good luck getting approval for anything in less than a year) and sky-high construction costs (I'm talking $1000/sf routinely). Any project that gets built in the SF bay area is basically a miracle. Of course San Francisco is a tiny plot of very expensive and unstable land, so all of this kind of goes without saying.

From my experience in Dallas: Building anything is pretty easy. Almost none of the above apply - granted it's mostly fueled by engorging on more and more prairie land which results in this sort of infinite field of low density sprawl - lots of Applebees, basically.

So it's not as simple as builders build, depending on your location.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So it's not as simple as builders build, depending on your location.

It is. Builders get the appropriate permissions, lay the appropriate foundations and services, and build the appropriate buildings. They then sell the buildings. All building projects come with challenges - but it really is as simple as builders build, that's what they do. Otherwise they'd be notbuilders