California's Economic Collision Course: Immigration and Water

[simms3_redux]

Conveniently there is an Ignore User list that every member can add other members to. I have dumped sopas ej into that bucket, as I found his views too opposing to my own to even read.

An Israeli firm/team was probably selected because of the fact that Israel is mostly desert and on a salt water sea with no large source of fresh water, and so it has had to build up a number of Desal plants itself. Thus engineering firms there have an expertise.

Lastly, the Bloomberg story has a bit on the environmental impacts, and on a wide variety of facets of the deal, the players, the situation on CA, etc.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...r-drought.html

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

No, I can't, because I haven't done the research. My comment was more a general statement, because I myself had asked in a previous post if the environmental concerns with desalination plants had been mitigated, but nobody has answered that.



Suppose that one of the engineering firms building the Carlsbad plant were from China and I had said "My other problem with this Carlsbad plant is that one of the engineering firms building it is based in China. That really pisses me off," how would that have come off? Would it be assumed that I had said that because maybe I would have preferred that all firms building this plant were American? I would think conservative Americans would agree with that. And, would Crawford have assumed that I was racist against the Chinese?



How is it "hate speech" to make a very objective comment and observation, saying that a nation-state is illegally occupying territory and is killing the people who are living in that territory? That is fact.

The delusional ones are the ones who are denying that fact. It is clearly, obviously, a problem, of the colonizer opressing the colonized. Is that a delusion?

Now, back to California's water woes. And while we're at it, how about that immigration "problem" that author of the article in the initial post was talking about?

Sopas, I think people are overreacting to your original statement. Unlike the others, I don't think that you intended to, or made a racist statement in your original post. People need to learn that there is a difference between racism and nationalism. All that said, I would not rush to judgement on things...Israeli's, Desalination, or otherwise.

[ssiguy]

Left wing, right wing, it doesn't matter........$68 billion for HSR is an absolutely ridiculous amount of money. It's made worse by the fact that HSR is something the upper middle class benefit from not the poor or working class as they can't afford to take it nor can they make it a tax write off. If it came in at half that price it would still be an absolute waste of money. Spend a couple billion, upgrade current corridors and be done with it.

It wouldn't matter if it got you from LA to SF in 10 minutes, nothing can justify even half the cost they are proposing. California would be far, far better off putting those funds into urban transit {where the lower income would actually benefit}, improve it's public schools, greatly increase water production, fix the current infrastructure, and provide training for the unemployed.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Left wing, right wing, it doesn't matter

Meanwhile, in reality, California railroads are indeed a completely partisan issue. Conservative republicans decree all transportation must only be privatized and for-profit, and liberals and Democrats want a public option.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by spoonman

Just to share the numbers, the Carlsbad Desalination plant will be the largest in the US, and will have capacity to provide water for up to 250,000 people. The cost of the facility is $1 Billion. While expensive and the facility massive, we certainly need more of these down here and across the state. The facility will be operational next year.

The wastewater/groundwater replenishment plant in OC provides water for 20% of residents in a county of 3 million. It cost $481 million dollars, which is a bargain and doesn't come with the environmental baggage that desalination has. San Diego had the opportunity to build one more than a decade ago but voters' immaturity won out.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by fflint

Meanwhile, in reality, California railroads are indeed a completely partisan issue. Conservative republicans decree all transportation must only be privatized and for-profit, and liberals and Democrats want a public option.

You missed the point, he was pointing out the ridiculous cost and benefits of the proposed hsr in California.

[mello]

Originally Posted by ocman

The wastewater/groundwater replenishment plant in OC provides water for 20% of residents in a county of 3 million. It cost $481 million dollars, which is a bargain and doesn't come with the environmental baggage that desalination has. San Diego had the opportunity to build one more than a decade ago but voters' immaturity won out.

Can you provide some links that verify that 20 percent figure OCman? That seems very high for only half a billion. Why aren't other municipalities all over the state jumping on that if it is so efficient? So none of that water crosses the county lines of Riverside or LA? Once you hit LB it gets cut off lol

[fflint]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

You missed the point, he was pointing out the ridiculous cost and benefits of the proposed hsr in California.

Tex here just proves my point: California railroads have been submersed in national partisan politics. Conservative Republicans want all transportation to be privatized, oil-based, and for-profit; Democrats and liberals want a clean public option.

This thread was built on a sleazy Republican Party hack's crie de guerre, partisan warfare with zero intellectual honesty, credibility or reason. I'll say it again: this is yet another example of why Republicans have been booted out of governance in California.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by fflint

Tex here just proves my point: California railroads have been submersed in national partisan politics. Conservative Republicans want all transportation to be privatized, oil-based, and for-profit; Democrats and liberals want a clean public option.

This thread was built on a sleazy Republican Party hack's crie de guerre, partisan warfare with zero intellectual honesty, credibility or reason. I'll say it again: this is yet another example of why Republicans have been booted out of governance in California.

"High Speed" railroads? Yeah, sure. Insomuch as they are exclusively pet projects of partisan democrats and liberals, they are certainly submersed in the political mire. The point of the article, which anyone can agree or disagree with, is the money that would be dumped in a project many consider a boondoggle could be better spent on other projects of public benefit, such as water purification, especially in consideration of the mass influx of immigrants that will demand drinking water.....but not high speed rail from nowhere to nowhere.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

"High Speed" railroads? Yeah, sure. Insomuch as they are exclusively pet projects of partisan democrats and liberals, they are certainly submersed in the political mire. The point of the article, which anyone can agree or disagree with, is the money that would be dumped in a project many consider a boondoggle could be better spent on other projects of public benefit, such as water purification, especially in consideration of the mass influx of immigrants that will demand drinking water.....but not high speed rail from nowhere to nowhere.

HSR wasnt just proposed for shits and giggles. Its in response to capacity issues at the airports and roads. California continues to grow in population and we either have to account for this population growth by building new airports in the LA / SF areas, increase highway capacity or build a new way, HSR.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

HSR wasnt just proposed for shits and giggles. Its in response to capacity issues at the airports and roads. California continues to grow in population and we either have to account for this population growth by building new airports in the LA / SF areas, increase highway capacity or build a new way, HSR.

I think there's a middle ground, where, yes, blind opposition to HSR is reactionary and short-sighted, but, yeah, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that $70 billion for a single rail line with middling ridership projections is a bit much.

I mean, wouldn't, say, $30 billion be enough to upgrade every single intercity rail corridor in the state to a medium high speed electrified network (like what you see in 90% of the intercity lines in Europe, or on the Northeast Corridor)? The super high-speed lines like proposed under CA HSR are rare, even in Europe, and not necessary for competing with airlines.

Then take that remaining $40 billion and one could do amazing things with urban transit, desal, affordable housing, conservation, education, or whatever. Even in a high cost state like CA, the remaining $40 billion would be an enormous number. Here in NYC, $40 billion would be enough to completely transform the city's urban transport network, and we have insanely absurd transit improvement costs.

But, all that said, if CA voters don't mind spending $70 billion, and if they're paying the costs for the most part, not the feds, then they have a right to do so.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by fflint

Tex here just proves my point: California railroads have been submersed in national partisan politics. Conservative Republicans want all transportation to be privatized, oil-based, and for-profit; Democrats and liberals want a clean public option.

Yep, Tex here with my 6 shooter...... And fists full of oil of money.

Didn't realize I'm Republican for pointing out a boondoggle.

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

"High Speed" railroads? Yeah, sure. Insomuch as they are exclusively pet projects of partisan democrats and liberals, they are certainly submersed in the political mire. The point of the article, which anyone can agree or disagree with, is the money that would be dumped in a project many consider a boondoggle could be better spent on other projects of public benefit, such as water purification, especially in consideration of the mass influx of immigrants that will demand drinking water.....but not high speed rail from nowhere to nowhere.

This. ~$70 billion dollars on HSR is a lot money no matter how you cut it, and who actually knows what the final price tag will be?

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

HSR wasnt just proposed for shits and giggles. Its in response to capacity issues at the airports and roads. California continues to grow in population and we either have to account for this population growth by building new airports in the LA / SF areas, increase highway capacity or build a new way, HSR.

And a $70 billion HSR is the best idea yall can come up with?

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think there's a middle ground, where, yes, blind opposition to HSR is reactionary and short-sighted, but, yeah, it isn't unreasonable to conclude that $70 billion for a single rail line with middling ridership projections is a bit much.

I mean, wouldn't, say, $30 billion be enough to upgrade every single intercity rail corridor in the state to a medium high speed electrified network (like what you see in 90% of the intercity lines in Europe, or on the Northeast Corridor)? The super high-speed lines like proposed under CA HSR are rare, even in Europe, and not necessary for competing with airlines.

Then take that remaining $40 billion and one could do amazing things with urban transit, desal, affordable housing, conservation, education, or whatever. Even in a high cost state like CA, the remaining $40 billion would be an enormous number. Here in NYC, $40 billion would be enough to completely transform the city's urban transport network, and we have insanely absurd transit improvement costs.

But, all that said, if CA voters don't mind spending $70 billion, and if they're paying the costs for the most part, not the feds, then they have a right to do so.

This as well. $70 billion can still get a lot of projects and infrastructure, from water, transportation, to clean energy.

[Perklol]

Originally Posted by llamaorama

And that's not even a lot of money, in the grand scheme of things.

Hold back on building a freeway overpass or two in the next decade and the state would save just as much money.

what a wreck.

+1

What about the expansion of highways which has done enough damage already. Globally and aesthetically speaking. Cars had enough of their share for the past 70 years at the expense of the environment and water.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

HSR wasnt just proposed for shits and giggles. Its in response to capacity issues at the airports and roads. California continues to grow in population and we either have to account for this population growth by building new airports in the LA / SF areas, increase highway capacity or build a new way, HSR.

Shit and giggles or not, high speed rail has always been the wet-dream of the left. Some people, apparently very few on this forum, think the money required for this very limited in scope project could be better spend on something else. I suspect secure and clean drinking water supplies will be more valuable to all those new Californians than the ability to whisk up to wine country on a slightly smaller carbon footprint.

[Valyrian Steel]

California can afford this project. Worry about your own states.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

This as well. $70 billion can still get a lot of projects and infrastructure, from water, transportation, to clean energy.

Those issues need to be addressed, but again, so does the LA / SF corridor, which if im not mistaken, is by far, the busiest in the US in terms of air travel.

[fflint]

Let's be clear--if this dedicated money earmarked for CAHSR isn't used for CAHSR, it evaporates. All the idle talk about how this money could fund a whole bunch of other things is pie-in-the-sky dreaming. It cannot legally be used for water treatment, or freeways, or airports, or anything else.

The propaganda piece at the top of this thread was written by a former Chairman of the California Republican Party. Its purpose is to advance the interests of the Republican Party's donors and hacks, at the expense of everyone and everything else. It's not even nominally a "city discussion"--why is it in City Discussions, anyway?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by fflint

Let's be clear--if this dedicated money earmarked for CAHSR isn't used for CAHSR, it evaporates. All the idle talk about how this money could fund a whole bunch of other things is pie-in-the-sky dreaming. It cannot legally be used for water treatment, or local rail, or anything else.

If CAHSR were to be cancelled, the fact is that $70 billion could be redirected to other uses. Not directly through the same allocation, but it could be done. The money doesn't "evaporate".