Detroit has deep, fundamental problems. the weather, the utilities, the failed neighborhoods. You can cut costs significantly just by moving to San Diego and not have to explain to prospective applicants why living in a windswept frozen wasteland half the year is appealing.

San Diego has deep, fundamental problems. the cost of living, the homelessness, the failed neighborhoods. You can cut costs significantly just by moving to Detroit and not have to explain to prospective applicants why living in a feces-riddled yet expensive nightmare is appealing.

San Diego is one of the best places to live in the US. Cost of living, homelessness, and failed neighborhoods are no worse in San Diego than in Seattle or Austin. Benefits are perfect weather, proximity to Silicon Valley VCs, recruiting from the University of California system, and a willingness from talent to relocate to join your startup.

Everywhere has challenges. Attracting real talent in the midwest is challenging. Cost of living in industry hubs is also challenging. There's no perfect location to start a startup.

Source: 7 years at startups in the midwest, the south, Seattle, and now San Diego.

I would be shocked if you found it easier to convince candidates to relocate to Detroit than to San Diego.

I grew up in the Midwest. There's no version of reality where I want to move back there.

lol "feces-riddled" san diego is probably the cleanest city in the country but ok

I think you missed the point. The valley used to be (still is actually) a windswept burning desert half the year. Which is part of what makes its 60's self comparable to Detroit.

Sorry, but for all of Valley's problems, the above characterization couldn't be more wrong. You might be thinking of a part of California east of I-5, but Valley as it pertains to the tech hub couldn't be more pleasant from the climate perspective.

You might be right, but as a San Franciscan, who had to stop by the office in Palo Alto today, the sun did feel a bit oppressive =)

I feel like a lot of people don't realize how gloomy and cold SF's microclimate is.

How is urban farming a serious problem to solve?

Food deserts ARE a serious problem.

Growing [X] amount of produce locally would provide a much-needed source of cheap produce and/or revenue to the local community. There's also general health benefits of the added greenery consuming excess CO2. Even better, captured rain runoff goes back into the soil sooner rather than becoming further concentrated with toxic chemicals before it reenters the ecosystem.

Food deserts are a non-problem arising almost entirely from lack of demand for healthy produce.

> Neighborhood Food Outlets, Diet, and Obesity Among California Adults, 2007 and 2009

> Food outlets within walking distance (≤1.0 mile) were not strongly associated with dietary intake, BMI, or probabilities of a BMI of 25.0 or more or a BMI of 30.0 or more.

https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2013/12_0123.htm

> The Geography of Poverty and Nutrition: Food Deserts and Food Choices Across the United States

> Using a structural demand model, we find that exposing low-income households to the same availability and prices experienced by high-income households reduces nutritional inequality by only 9%, while the remaining 91% is driven by differences in demand.

https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/AllcottDiamondDube_FoodDe...

The most energy and carbon efficient way of providing produce is to grow it where it’s easiest to do so and transport it to where there are consumers who want to buy it.

> There's also general health benefits of the added greenery consuming excess CO2.

Added greenery only consumes excess carbon dioxide if you harvest it and bury it in a very, very deep hole, where neither sun nor oxygen can reach it. Otherwise, it only briefly buffers some amount of carbon.

If it increases total biomass, then it does on average sequester that additional biomass. And even if you burn it, well, the next crop will sequester it again. The main problem with burning fossil fuels is that we dug them up out of the ground, rather than take them from replenishing sources that draw CO2 out of the atmosphere.

It perhaps increases the amount of biomass in circulation - but then again, probably not, as it displaces other food (it's not like the western world is facing food shortages at the moment). It doesn't meaningfully affect anything, given that the problem we have is exponential emissions increase.

The best argument for extra consumable plants would be if they displaced carbon-positive farming. Then, all that carbon added to the circulation would subtract from emissions growth.