[jeffbee]

There isn't anything wrong with urban gardening itself. The problem comes when anti-development groups impose policies to prevent any building from casting a shadow on anything. Greenery and open space are both good and important, and gardening is a fine hobby. But urban gardens don't feed anyone and if there is a choice between housing people in an existing city, or protecting an existing garden from shadows, we should choose the housing every time.

Same thing goes for rooftop solar power: it's fine, but protecting it is not important.

[matkoniecz]

> The problem comes when anti-development groups impose policies to prevent any building from casting a shadow on anything

OK. But how it makes

> rooftop solar and urban gardening (or "farming" if you must). Both are ecological catastrophe

claim true?

[jeffbee]

Just going from my local experience. The build-nothing approach to housing in Berkeley, championed by zucchini-hugging (google it) hippie morons, combined with the solar access ordinance that prevents development even along major transit corridors. This has caused an explosion of car-dependent exurban sprawl in former wilderness, wetlands, and farms.

[matkoniecz]

> Just going from my local experience.

OK, that makes more sense.

> zucchini-hugging (google it)

Nothing relevant gets found

[CatWChainsaw]

That makes sense, thank you for clarifying.