>

LA is actually more dense than most American cities.
Given the population density, maybe standard suburban homes aren't really the thing. Affordable apartments maybe? People have to live somewhere, but not everyone needs a 1/4 acre with a garage and a garden. It would be nice, but at some point there's just not fucking room. And if there were room, there isn't enough water to build out like that much more. >

People need to own, not rent.  It's the basis of generational wealth. >

People can own apartments. >

Speak to Bloomberg about that.  Blackrock isn't offering rent to buy keep licking their ass to the detriment of your peers. In the long run,  YOUR economy will be damaged. >

If only there were effectively unlimited water to pipe into that new housing. There is a way to handle this: BAN ALL LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and Ventura counties. Good luck with that.
Banning may be too extreme, so require separate water meters for landscaping, and charge multiples of residential water charges. >

Actually, California banning water intensive crops like almonds would save a lot of water. >

I have no problem with that. Another excessive use of water is alfalfa, which also means cattle ranching in California outside the northern Bay Area and into Mendocino and San Joaquin counties is ridiculous. >

Makes too much sense. >

It's the land that is expensive, not the house. >

Then why is LA so spread out?