<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Environment roundup	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/08/environment-roundup-48/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/08/environment-roundup-48/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:28:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/08/environment-roundup-48/comment-page-1/#comment-346561</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Aug 2017 16:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=65755#comment-346561</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The LA Times article on housing reflects a very limited picture of the things that impact new housing.  Certainly regulatory issues can reduce the potential for development.  However, the California jurisdictions I&#039;m familiar with have not discouraged new housing development to maintain rich neighborhoods.  However, they are still nowhere near meeting goals for some other, very basic, reasons.  We had many developments with phased housing in place and ready to move forward.  However, in 2007-2008 the market dropped and various large developers either went bust or had to seriously re-work their plans.  New building slowed to a trickle while large areas with the regulatory requirements met remained empty. 
 Subsequently the drought forced cities and counties to scramble to identify sufficient water resources for existing housing stock.  Adding water connections is not generally an option when there&#039;s no water coming out of existing taps.  The infrastructure development required to deal with that issue is not a matter of a few months or years, but of decades.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The LA Times article on housing reflects a very limited picture of the things that impact new housing.  Certainly regulatory issues can reduce the potential for development.  However, the California jurisdictions I&#8217;m familiar with have not discouraged new housing development to maintain rich neighborhoods.  However, they are still nowhere near meeting goals for some other, very basic, reasons.  We had many developments with phased housing in place and ready to move forward.  However, in 2007-2008 the market dropped and various large developers either went bust or had to seriously re-work their plans.  New building slowed to a trickle while large areas with the regulatory requirements met remained empty.<br />
 Subsequently the drought forced cities and counties to scramble to identify sufficient water resources for existing housing stock.  Adding water connections is not generally an option when there&#8217;s no water coming out of existing taps.  The infrastructure development required to deal with that issue is not a matter of a few months or years, but of decades.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
