Maybe applying Darwin's theory would resolve anti-vaxer's problem?

I saw this article in today's San Diego Union Tribune. Singapore is going to require anti-vaxers to pay for care should they be infected with Covid. Below is the text of it: Singapore won’t pay COVID costs for some Singapore will no longer cover the medical costs of COVID-19 patients who are eligible to get vaccinated against the virus but choose not to, the country’s Health Ministry says. “We will begin charging COVID-19 patients who are unvaccinated by choice,” starting Dec. 8, the ministry said in a statement Monday. Those who are not eligible for the shots will be exempt from the rule, it said, including children younger than 12 and people with certain medical conditions. The announcement came as the number of severe cases, which have been mainly among unvaccinated people, has stabilized but remains high, the ministry said. Of about 280 intensive-care beds for COVID patients, 134 are occupied, and most are among those not vaccinated, a senior minister of state, Janil Puthucheary, said at a news conference. Would a similar policy in the US make sense? Why should an insurance company (or the Government) pay the high cost of medical care for someone who blatently ignores medical advice? It isn't clear to me why the anti-Covid vaccination people believe what they do. These vaccines appear to have been tested more thoroughly than any of the previous ones, and also seem to perform better. I've never heard that same group protest against the huge series of vaccinations that we all get routinely -- Diptheria, pertussis, typhus, tetanus, polio, flu, smallpox, pneumonia, measels, mumps, rubella, varicella, menangitis, hepatitis, etc. Yes, they were all tested, but not with the latest technology, and their efficacy was not as high as the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine is against Covid. Maybe if the people who refused the vaccine were also refused from receiving care, future generations would not have to deal with this sort of distorted logic?

Retain Sand On the Beaches of Oceanside CA

A hundred years ago, Oceanside had beaches 100 yards wide. Since that time, we have lost about 3 feet of beaches each year so that in much of Oceanside we have no beach. The only good beach remaining is North Harbor Beach, which is retained by the Jetty (or Groin) at the mouth of the San Luis Rey River. Throughout Oceanside's history, the residents and City Council has rejected installing jetties or groins on the rest of the beaches. When sand is deposited on our beach it washes away in just 2 or 3 years. Millions of dollars in sand nourishment is wasted each time. The City of Oceanside needs to retain the sand on our beaches. Here's a video that shows a good way to do it: https://vimeo.com/577256118 #SOSOceanside

Housing Crisis in San Diego?

The San Diego Union Tribune ran an editorial today asking of the "public willing to tackle the housing crisis?" I'm not sure the public is willing! I'm also not sure the situation is actually a "crisis." Why do we need to have lower cost housing in an area where land is most expensive? Where are the economists? Economics would say that the normal situation is for prices to rise naturally until supply and demand come into balance. In a normal situation, retirees or disabled would move to lower cost areas so they could stretch their income further. There are areas throughout California that are lower cost, and there are places all over the United States that are lower cost. As those people would move away, their housing would become available to workers in the area. Why wouldn't retirees want to move to the huge amounts of open spaces available for affordable housing in other states? Why must Southern California accomodate so many people? The problem is that governmet policies have distorted the market in such a way that aggrivates the shortage. Some of them are: 1. Proposition 13 which keeps taxes on properties low. So many owners of properties keep the homes even though they rarely use them. Buildable lots remain empty because it doesn't cost the owner much for keeping it and hoping the values will go higher. 2. Capital Gains taxes. Even though long-term capital gains taxes are lower than taxes on current income or wages, it is still significantly high on properties that were purchased in the 1970s or earlier. Why sell and pay the tax, when we can hold the property and enjoy it? 3. The tax basis "step up" at death. Many owners of properties in San Diego, particularly in the coastal zone have signficant capital gains. If we wait for the owner to die, the heirs get the benefit of the "step up" of the basis to the value at death. This is a huge tax saving! So many people are simply keeping properties off the market and are using it just for short getaways waiting for that "step up" -- 4. Affordable housing to most people means low rent. Investors would build homes, condos or apartments for rent, if they knew they had good opportunities to earn above-market rates of return. Why take the risk of building or buying a property when you can get returns on stock market investments with less risk? However the state, cities and counties have passed rent control laws that put significant caps on what could be earned. Even though the caps are not too tight, there are threats and attempts to tighten those caps -- particularly if we have significant inflation. 5. The recent changes in income tax laws have put caps on the SALT deduction which actually removes a benefit from first-time home buyers. 6. The Coastal Commission says they want to encourage affordable housing and much of San Diego County's housing stock is within the coastal zone. However their bureacracy has added another layer of paperwork, approvals, and risk involved in making those investments. The Commission puts restrictions on making minor improvements to coastal property. If an improvement is made, the property is no longer protected as "existing construction" prior to the Commission so basically loses important property rights. The commission is also pushing the concept called "Managed Retreat" for response to sea level rise. That concept prevents owners from defending their own property from sea level rise. So different from other parts of the country where, for example, the Army Corps builds levees to protect Louisiana homes. 7. The cost of buying a home in a PUD or Condo is usually less than a stand-alone single family home. The higher density, as described in the article is also considered desirable. However, the State and local governments make it very difficult for people to obtain mortgages in PUDs and Condos. The mortgage applications are subject to seemingly arbitrary standards concerning construction, insurance, association reserves, and rental occupancy. In addition, the state continues to make knee-jerk reactions to problems and passes laws which make it much more difficult for an association to be managed by volunteer boards. All of these above constraints could easily be resolved by the government. But because each of them involve short-term pain for long-term gain, the sound-bites would tend to make those changes unpopular. Until we get legislatures with guts, integrity and technical understanding, the problem will continue.