TIME Diet/Nutrition

This Is the Caffeine Capital of America

Here are the places in the U.S. with the most coffee lovers

Everyone knows that America doesn’t run on patriotism and hard work—it runs on caffeine. When Starbucks baristas spell your name wrong, it’s a harbinger of bad luck for the rest of your day; if your hands and mouth don’t suffer from spilled-coffee burns on a weekly basis, you’re not doing it right.

It seems like wherever you go around the country, one thing is for certain: you’ll undoubtedly be able to get your fix and be on your way. In fact, according to the National Coffee Association’s 2013 online survey, 83% of U.S. adults drink coffee, averaging three cups a day per person.

But, of course, some cities are much more wired than others. Out of many buzzing contenders, FindTheHome collaborated with FindTheCompany, to identify the cities in California with the most coffee shops per capita. The competition was intense, but only one city was crowned the beating heart that keeps the American dream…awake.

28. Boulder, CO

Cafés per 10K people: 10.86
Population: 100,363

27. Pasadena, CA

Cafés per 10K people: 10.87
Population: 138,004

26. Bend, OR

Cafés per 10K people: 10.88
Population: 78,128

25. West Palm Beach, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 10.91
Population: 100,778

24. San Rafael, CA

Cafés per 10K people: 11
Population: 58,162

23. Jupiter, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 11.03
Population: 56,219

22. Redmond, WA

Cafés per 10K people: 11.17
Population: 55,505

21. Palo Alto, CA

Cafés per 10K people: 11.19
Population: 65,234

20. Hoboken, NJ

Cafés per 10K people: 11.19
Population: 50,929

19. Fort Lauderdale, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 11.21
Population: 168,603

18. Miami, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 11.61
Population: 407,526

17. Berkeley, CA

Cafés per 10K people: 11.75
Population: 114,037

16. Portland, OR

Cafés per 10K people: 11.80
Population: 594,687

15. Asheville, NC

Cafés per 10K people: 11.89
Population: 84,883

14. Brookline, MA

Cafés per 10K people: 11.92
Population: 58,738

13. Hialeah, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 12.45
Population: 228,943

12. Portland, ME

Cafés per 10K people: 12.53
Population: 66,227

11. Cambridge, MA

Cafés per 10K people: 12.58
Population: 105,737

10. Kendall, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 13.37
Population: 77,018

9. Santa Fe, NM

Cafés per 10K people: 13.95
Population: 68,800

8. Newport Beach, CA

Cafés per 10K people: 14.07
Population: 86,001

7. Delray Beach, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 14.22
Population: 61,875

6. San Francisco, CA

Cafés per 10K people: 14.69
Population: 817,501

5. Sarasota, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 14.83
Population: 52,588

4. Seattle, WA

Cafés per 10K people: 15.01
Population: 624,681

3. Santa Monica, CA

Cafés per 10K people: 15.87
Population: 90,752

2. Boca Raton, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 16.15
Population: 86,671

1. Miami Beach, FL

Cafés per 10K people: 21.70
Population: 89,412

This article originally appeared on FindTheBest

More from FindTheBest:

TIME Surfing

Watch 66 Surfers Break the World Record for Most People Riding a Board at Once

66 surfers, a 42-ft board, 12 seconds of wave-time and a world record in the bag

A total of 66 surfers have broken the world record for the most people riding on a surfboard at once.

Surf champions and enthusiastic amateurs were among those balancing on the custom-made 42-foot board at Huntington Beach, Calif., on Saturday, reports the BBC.

A crowd of 5,000 spectators watched the group as they rode the board for 12 seconds.

The record was previously set in Queensland, Australia, about a decade ago, when 47 surfers managed a ride of 10 seconds.

Guinness World Record adjudicator Michael Empric flew in from New York to judge the event and said a separate world record for the largest surfboard would take a few days to determine.

TIME White House

Obama Hits the Links in California Amid Drought

Barack Obama
Carolyn Kaster—AP President Barack Obama walks across the tarmac to greet people as he arrives on Air Force One at San Francisco International airport June 19, 2015.

Golf courses say they're doing their part to cut back on water consumption

President Obama will golf Saturday on a lush, green course in California, even as the state grapples with a drought of historic proportions. As in past golfing trips, this will likely raise more than a few eyebrows.

The golf industry is important to California’s economy, supporting over 128,000 jobs and accounting for $13.1 billion of economic activity, but it takes a lot of water to keep those greens and ponds looking pristine.

There are few places in the Golden State where that’s more apparent than the Coachella Valley, home of Palm Springs and Rancho Mirage; the lux oases nestled in the California desert where Obama will be staying.

Across the state, golf course consume less than 1% of the state’s water, but the 120-plus courses in Coachella Valley consume about 17 percent of the area’s water. In 2014, TIME’s Zeke Miller reported that “each of the 124 Coachella Valley courses, on average, uses nearly 1 million gallons a day due to the hot and dry climate, 3-4 times more water per day than the average American golf course.”

“The challenges that we see are really sort of symbolic of the opportunities and the challenges we have with water in California,” says Heather Cooley, the water program director at the Pacific Institute. “Golf courses are large users of water locally, but they can be doing and they should be doing their part to help California respond to the drought.”

To curb the impact of the historic drought, California Gov. Jerry Brown has called for a 25% reduction in potable water-use across the state, but due to the Coachella Valley’s high per-capita water use the area was among those urged to reduce urban water consumption by 36%. Golf courses and other entities that rely on their own ground water sources have been asked to reduce water consumption by 25%.

Heather Engel, a spokesperson for the Coachella Valley Water District said it recognizes the concern over consumption and notes that courses in the area are working to curb their environmental impact.

“Golf courses use water,” she says. “But courses in the area are doing what they can to reduce their water use.”

Eighteen courses participated in a rebate program to replace some grass with drought-friendly turf, she says, and others are allowing non-play areas go brown. Fifty-two courses in the entire valley use water other than the groundwater to keep their courses irrigated, including recycled water and water from the Colorado River.

At the Sunnylands golf course, where Obama has played in the past, officials released a fact sheet on Friday ahead of the President’s visit to highlight the steps the exclusive club has taken to cut back on water. The course has already installed a new irrigation system and replaced 60 acres of turf with drought-tolerant tall grass. And according to the fact sheet, the estate cut back on watering and seeding and plans to reduce watering by 50% on an additional 44 acres of the 200-acre course.

The White House has already sought to deflect the negative attention that the president’s rounds of Father’s Day weekend golf may attract.

En route to California, White House spokesman Eric Schultz wrote off the concern over golfing in the drought as a non-issue. The visit follows a conference call the president had with western state governors about the historic drought, during which he pledged $100 million to help fight wildfires. On Friday, the White House said Obama met with Brown to discuss federal, local, and state efforts to deal with the drought and wildfires.

“This administration’s commitment to helping those affected by the drought is second to none,” Schultz said.

TIME natural disaster

See the Biggest California Wildfire This Year

The 11,000-acre 'Lake Fire' continues to ravage the San Bernardino National Forest

A wildfire that sparked Wednesday afternoon near Big Bear Lake, Calif. had grown to 11,000 acres as of Friday morning, according to a government website.

The fire is the worst of the year, the Los Angeles Times reported. Wind and the dry undergrowth due to drought conditions in the area have contributed to the blaze’s rapid spread through sections of the San Bernardino National Forest. The fire is currently 10% contained, with fire engines, helicopters, air tankers and more than 500 respondents combating the spreading flames.

Hundreds in the area have been evacuated, but government website InciWeb stated that no structures had been destroyed as of Friday. The fire is currently spreading further inland to the south and east.

The fire’s cause remains under investigation.

TIME Education

Why We Need to Keep iPads Out of the Classroom

child-using-tablet
Getty Images

Zocalo Public Square is a not-for-profit Ideas Exchange that blends live events and humanities journalism.

People think tech will magically solve education's problems—they're wrong

It’s still mystifying that in this time of limited educational funding, the people running the Los Angeles Unified School District were such an easy sell when it came to technology.

After LAUSD made an enormous investment in iPads and Pearson educational products developed for those iPads, teachers quickly discovered the iPad program didn’t work as guaranteed and the Pearson applications were useless. Superintendent John Deasy resigned in disgrace, elections changed the school board, and the FBI began an investigation into allegations of bid-rigging.

I’m inclined to believe that those in charge saw the iPad as a magic talisman that could just about transplant knowledge into students’ brains directly, bypassing teachers. LAUSD technophiles saw teachers as low-tech and low-value conduits between students and cutting-edge software and hardware; teachers weren’t consulted on the purchase or given a chance to give the machines a trial. I suspect the LAUSD powers hoped to construct a system that would be efficient as technology can make other aspects of life, like Ubering up an education.

But teaching isn’t always efficient. Often it’s messy, and because it’s messy, the process can produce epiphanies, and sparks of creative thinking.

I taught English for five years at Locke High School in South Los Angeles. One of the highlights of my career was when a student, a kid who dressed like a Crip, asked where I had gotten a short story that I photocopied for the class, Hemingway’s “Hills like White Elephants.”

He said, “It ain’t a real story.”

“Why isn’t it a real story?” I asked.

“’Cause it’s interesting,“ he replied.

I was confused but flattered, and later, as I mulled over exchange, it became clear to me that a kid who was unaccustomed to reading had been engaged at a high level because I had found the appropriate material for him, something that wasn’t complex in language, but sophisticated in action, character, and meaning. I suspect my student had responded to Issues that are raised from the point of view of a woman desperately appealing for her lover not to compel her to have an abortion. This isn’t common in a world where teenagers often get their cues of sexual conduct from sources in hip-hop who don’t share the powers of empathy of a Kendrick Lamar that he demonstrates in “Sing About Me, I’m Dying of Thirst.”

An iPad is an amazing device for transmitting information, but what makes a difference in a student’s life is the information, not its mode of transmission. Appropriate content, provided at the right time in the student’s life, and in the right pedagogical context, is everything. Technology doesn’t guarantee any part of that. An iPad loaded with inane apps is just another boring textbook.

The technology that made this connection with my student possible was the photocopy machine, technology that — when I taught — was rationed, only accessible to administrators, not to teachers, who were condemned to use that ancient but cheap technology of the mimeograph machine. So I paid out of pocket to make sure my students had the material that I thought would engage them. An iPad would have made this process only marginally better than what was available 20 years ago. Tech wasn’t going to magically transform this student, or students like him onto devoted readers.

My magic talisman, in conveying Hemingway to this student, was another teacher, Professor Alan Stephens at UC Santa Barbara. I was lucky enough to have taken a great Hemingway course that he taught that made it possible for me to understand how to teach Hemingway and stress what was valuable — the clarity, the powers of observation, the brilliant dialogue, and also the flaws of racism and anti-Semitism. I learned it well enough to develop curriculum for it, to sell it to these students who often treated their textbooks as if they were written in another language.

Tech isn’t a panacea. On an orderly campus with sufficient funding for workable restrooms and other niceties that enable students to be comfortable enough to flourish academically, it can be a useful tool for well-trained teachers. What tech can’t do is change the culture of campuses where academic achievement is rare.

Locke High School is in an area of Los Angeles suffering from high unemployment and high crime, just as it did 24 years ago when I was there, though. Some students did well and achieved academically, but the majority of these students graduated in the lower percentiles in reading and math. The majority of students did want to graduate and some wanted to go to college, but many of them were rudderless, hoping at best to blunder into a community college or the military. Their choices were informed by brutal reality and existential struggle, then as today. Doing well in school mattered but personal safety and money mattered more.

Under these difficult circumstances, schools that create a sense of order but also respect these young men and women can accomplish miracles. It is not an easy thing to do, and when it is done these schools and programs deserve great praise. USC’s Neighborhood Academic Initiative headed by Kim Barrios is such a program. It’s a seven-year pre-college enrichment program designed for low-income neighborhood students. If they complete the program and meet USC’s admission requirements and decide to attend USC, they are rewarded with a full financial package.

It also supports the USC Family Schools, such as Foshay Learning Center. The students are lively but prepared, and instruction is the highest priority. Students understand that attending Foshay is a privilege that can be revoked. They are expected to buy into the code of conduct of the school and if they don’t consequences follow.

When I attended Foshay in the ’70s, it was one of my worst experiences of growing up. I feared for my life and saw riots, beatings, girls sexually assaulted, and teachers slugged. Now, it’s an entirely different world: kids and their families have bought into the culture of achievement to such a degree that many of their students attend the Saturday Academy at USC and are there by 7:50 a.m. Groggy, but ready to attend S.A.T. preparation classes. As a consequence of all this hard work and support, the black and Latino Students in the Neighborhood Academic Initiative all graduate from high school, and more than 98 percent attend four-year colleges and universities.

Verbum Dei in Los Angeles is another school that that overwhelmingly serves low-income black and Latino students in a community that suffers from high unemployment and high crime. Students at Verbum Dei all graduate and are admitted to multiple colleges and universities. Here, too, students buy into the demanding culture of the school, with tons of homework and school-required work (yes, they work, at law firms and other high-income businesses).

The commonalty of these very different success stories is not the emphasis on tech gadgetry but making the investment in creating a culture for achievement and getting the kids and their families to buy into it.

Seemingly, Deasy and the technophiles didn’t see what should have been obvious: an iPad is an amazing device but it isn’t so amazing without content or the right pedagogical context. School reform isn’t expensive tech and high-stakes testing; it’s the incredibly difficult task of creating highly functioning, transformative educational communities. Tech isn’t a shortcut. We are asking teachers and schools to fight the war on poverty when we won’t even admit that we are doing exactly that.

The hundreds of millions already spent and wasted by LAUSD on this misadventure serve as a very expensive cautionary tale.

Jervey Tervalon founded and directs the Literature for Life/Locovore-Lit Los Angeles project. This article was written for Zocalo Public Square and is supported by a grant from the California Wellness Foundation.

TIME Ideas hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary and expertise on the most compelling events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. To submit a piece, email ideas@time.com.

TIME California

Ellen Pao Will Likely Need to Cover $275,000 in Legal Expenses

Ellen Pao speaks to the media after losing her high profile gender discrimination lawsuit against venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers in San Francisco, California in this March 27, 2015, file photo. Pao faces an uphill battle should she choose to appeal her defeat last week in a gender discrimination lawsuit against former employer Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm. REUTERS/Beck Diefenbach/Files
Beck Diefenbach—Reuters Ellen Pao speaking to the media after losing her high profile gender discrimination lawsuit against venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers in San Francisco, on March 27, 2015.

The judge has ordered the former venture capitalist to reimburse her adversary in a high-profile Silicon Valley gender discrimination case.

Nearly three months after losing a discrimination case against investment firm Kleiner Perkins, and a back-and-forth on who will foot the trial bill, Ellen Pao will likely have to pay more than $275,000 to cover her adversary’s legal expenses.

On Wednesday afternoon, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold Kahn issued a tentative ruling that ordered Pao to reimburse the high-profile venture capital firm nearly $275,967 for some of the costs it incurred while successfully defending itself against her lawsuit. Pao, a former venture capitalist at the firm, had accused Kleiner Perkins gender bias and retaliating against her for speaking out.

She ultimately lost the case, but she succeeded in sparking a wide-ranging discussion about gender bias and the lack of women at many Silicon Valley companies.

Kahn wrote that while Pao, who is currently interim CEO for the online forum Reddit, does have significant financial resources, she doesn’t have enough money to cover the full $864,680 Kleiner Perkins had sought. The firm had originally asked for $973,000, including the expert fees, before reducing the amount.

The judge has scheduled a hearing Thursday to finalize the matter.

Following the tentative ruling, Kleiner spokeswoman Christina Lee issued the following statement referencing her firm’s efforts to settle the lawsuit for $1 million before the trial:

We’re pleased the court has reached a fair result. This tentative ruling recognizes that our settlement offer was reasonable and made in good faith. It also recognizes the cost rules still apply when a plaintiff refuses a reasonable settlement offer and forces the parties to go through an expensive trial.

Earlier this month, Pao filed paperwork to appeal the decision in her case. But she has said that she will drop it if Kleiner agrees to pay her $2.7 million.

This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

TIME Labor

Why the California Ruling on Uber Should Frighten the Sharing Economy

The question at the center of several similar cases is likely worth billions

This week a ruling from the California Labor Commission was made public because popular ride-sourcing company Uber appealed it. A San Francisco-based driver named Barbara Ann Berwick brought a case alleging that she is an employee, not an independent contractor as Uber claims. It emerged that the commission ruled in her favor, saying the company owed her $4,152 in expenses. But this could lead to rulings worth much more.

Filed in March, the ruling is non-binding, has no legal bearing on any other drivers, and won’t force any money to change hands. But Uber’s decision to appeal will now move the fight to California’s court system where — along with several similar lawsuits pending in the state—it could set a binding precedent for a multi-billion-dollar question plaguing the booming on-demand economy: Do such companies have employer-employee relationships with tens of thousands of American workers?

That might sound like a mundane bureaucratic distinction, but it’s a concrete reality for the drivers, personal shoppers and lunch deliverers who enjoy the flexibility of setting their own hours but do not get standard employee benefits like overtime pay and worker’s compensation. In California, unlike most other states, employers are explicitly on the hook for reimbursing employees for all expenses necessary to do the job. And if the workers like Berwick win their cases, there are more than 15,000 other drivers in San Francisco alone who might want to be reimbursed too.

“Uber has essentially shifted to its workers all the costs of running a business, the costs of owning a car, maintaining a car, paying for gas,” says Shannon Liss-Riordan, a Boston-based attorney who has a class-action case pending against Uber in California federal court. “Uber has saved massive amounts …. It’s important that the labor laws be enforced so that the companies can’t take advantage of workers that way. Uber’s a $50-billion company and I think it can afford to bear the responsibilities of an employer.” She expects her trial will be underway by next year and will make arguments for class certification later this summer, saying this ruling “could be a lot of help.”

In a statement to TIME, an Uber spokeswoman said that its drivers embrace their status as independent contractors. “It’s important to remember that the number one reason drivers choose to use Uber is because they have complete flexibility and control,” she says. “The majority of them can and do choose to earn their living from multiple sources, including other ride sharing companies. We have appealed this ruling.”

Liss-Riordan has also filed a class-action case on behalf of workers for house-cleaning company Homejoy, as well as delivery service companies Postmates and Try Caviar, arguing that they have been misclassified as independent contractors when they should be treated like employees. Other cases are pending against ride-sourcing platform Lyft and grocery-delivery company Instacart. “Instacart does all it can to distance itself from the employer-employee relationship,” lawyer Bob Arns told TIME when that case was filed. “Why does a company want to do that? It’s to keep the bottom line lower, to unfairly compete against other companies. That’s the crux of our case.” Instacart did not respond to a request for comment for that story.

The growing independent-contractor workforce is a key reason that companies like Instacart and Uber have been able to grow so quickly, because the cost of organizing independent contractors is much less than hiring employees. There’s no requirement to pay unemployment tax or ensure that workers are making at least minimum wage. In many cases, the companies don’t have to pay for the smartphones or data plans workers use on the job. They don’t have to deal with the costly spools of red tape that come with federal and state withholdings and healthcare and anti-discrimination laws.

David Rosenfeld, a labor law expert and lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, says a California superior court will likely set a trial date in a few months. If the judge agrees with driver Berwick, the rulings could be appealed back and forth all the way up to the California Supreme Court. That process could take years. But the California courts have been sympathetic to workers and Rosenfeld says its unlikely the state’s highest authority would overturn a ruling made in their favor. In the meantime, he says, lawyers like Liss-Riordan can “show the ruling around” as evidence that helps build their cases, if not a precedent to use in court.

“This is big, high stakes problem for them,” Rosenfeld says. While Uber emphasizes that the labor commission ruling is only about the status of a single driver, he notes that if Uber beats Berwick in court that doesn’t bar other drivers from bringing similar claims. Liss-Riordan says she has been contacted by more than 1,000 Uber drivers who believe they’ve been wronged. And her doors have been open to other “1099 economy” workers who want to file their own claims.

“A lot of companies are watching Uber and seeing whether it’s going to be allowed to get away with this,” she says. “These companies want to have it all. They want to have control over their workforce so they can provide this consistent quality service they sell to the public but at the same time deny it has any obligations to these workers that it is treating as their employees.”

How much control companies like Uber have over these workers will be central to the cases. Does their ability to kick drivers off the platform, their ability to set rates, their mandates to follow certain protocols amount to an employer-employee relationship? Uber has repeatedly argued that they are not a transportation company but merely a technology platform that helps willing drivers connect with passengers willing to pay for a ride.

But in denying a summary judgment in the class-action case earlier this year, District Judge Edward Chen wrote that Uber’s claim that it is not a “transportation company” is “fatally flawed.” In the March ruling, the labor commissioner wrote that Uber is “involved in every aspect of the operation.” A 2012 ruling from the labor commission, however, found that another Uber driver was, in fact, an independent contractor and describes Uber as a “technology company.” In the statement, Uber says similar commissions in five other states have come to the same conclusion.

These cases apply only to workers in California. So the endgame could look a few different ways if these on-demand companies lose their cases, all of which would require a change in business models. Operations could be shut down or take a different approach in California. Companies could start shouldering the costs of treating their armies of workers as legal employees. Or they could change the way they operate—giving up control over their workers and therefore control over the quality of their services—in order to keep treating them as independent contractors.

The latter, Rosenfeld says, is what FedEx recently decided to do after paying $228 million to settle claims from 2,000 pickup and delivery drivers in California who alleged that they were mislabeled as independent contractors. That high ticket price was directly related to California’s law requiring expense reimbursement. But making the decision to give up oversight is not an easy one. “You lose control of your brand,” he says. “And you lose control of your model.”

Uber v. Berwick California Labor Commission Ruling

TIME cities

Airbnb Uses Data in San Francisco to Fight Back Against Critics

airbnb
Chris Weeks—Getty Images/Airbnb A general view of atmosphere is seen at Airbnb's Hello LA event at The Grove on September 30, 2013 in Los Angeles, Calif.

The company is releasing its own assessment of how Airbnb affects the city, which paints a rosier view than previous reports

Lawmakers in San Francisco are set to vote on two proposals Tuesday that could restrict locals’ ability to use home-sharing company Airbnb. But before they do, the firm is releasing its own report assessing its impact on the city.

Airbnb’s report, obtained by TIME (and viewable through the link above), is adding to a pile of reports that have already attempted to assess the company’s economic benefits and costs to the city. The company’s data team used proprietary information about Airbnb users that government agencies do not have access to; although that means no one can double-check Airbnb’s figures, the company says it is the most realistic picture of how the service is affecting the City by the Bay. Their take: assertions that Airbnb is cannibalizing much-needed housing stock are overblown.

A central question in months of heated hearings over Airbnb has been whether it creates an economic incentive for landlords to take units off the market in order to rent them out full-time to tourists on home-sharing platforms. With housing in short supply, rents have skyrocketed and lower-income residents have been forced to leave the city. That has made some residents aggressively wary of anything that might be squeezing out the middle class. Meanwhile, other San Franciscans have testified that income earned from using Airbnb has helped keep them in their homes.

Perhaps the most important number in these reports is the estimate of how many nights per year a host would have to rent a unit out before they’d be making more money doing the Airbnb thing than if they housed a traditional, long-term tenant. There is no way to know how many landlords are, in fact, hoarding their units from locals to rent them out to tourists, but this number provides a picture of when it would make economic sense to do so.

The San Francisco Planning Department estimated this breaking point is 257 nights; a report from the city’s independent budget and legislative analyst’s office estimated 59 nights. Airbnb arrived in between the two, at 211. The company’s data researchers calculated the figure by comparing the average nightly earnings of Airbnb hosts in San Francisco to market-rate rental prices.

The share of Airbnb listings in San Francisco that are rented out more than 211 nights per year, according to the company’s report, is 6.1%, representing less than 1% of total housing units in the city and just over 1% of vacant housing. The most damaging estimate from previous reports, which was calculated using assumptions Airbnb disagrees with, suggested that Airbnb could be responsible for nearly one fourth of vacant housing units being taken off the market.

While those numbers, based on different approaches to the U.S. Census Bureau’s statistics on vacant housing, will continue to be debated, there are some general points about home-sharing’s benefits that are generally agreed upon. All stays at Airbnbs are being taxed like hotels, so the city gets a 14% cut of that revenue. These additional housing options, which may offer a more immersed-in-the-city experience than traditional hotels, likely attract more tourists to the city. Those tourists then spend money that helps fuel the local economy.

Hosting via Airbnb was technically illegal until 2014. All rentals for 30 days or fewer were prohibited by law. The board of supervisors, the city’s lawmaking body, legalized short-term rentals with a landmark piece of legislation, which compromised by setting certain caps. Under that law, residents can list their homes 90 days per year when they’re not present and an unlimited amount of days when they are. One proposal being considered Tuesday, penned by progressive Supervisor David Campos, would restrict all users to just 60 nights per year. Another proposal from Supervisor Mark Farrell and Mayor Ed Lee would set caps on both at 120 days.

The average number of nights a user is renting out a listing is 90 per year, according to Airbnb, and 80% of San Francisco hosts actually live in the place they’re listing; more than 70% use the income to help pay their rent or mortgage. “This report makes clear that the vast majority of Airbnb hosts are regular San Franciscans sharing the home in which they live and using the money they earn to pay the bills and make ends meet,” says Airbnb spokesperson Christopher Nulty.

What remains murky is exactly what’s happening with the remaining 20% — and how many of those 1,000 or more listings are second homes or apartments that could be easing the housing strain.

MONEY home improvement

Why 2 Iconic Household Status Symbols Are Disappearing

aerial view of homes with green lawns and pools
Colin Matthieu—Getty Images

The pool and lawn industrial complexes aren't happy.

As you may have heard, California is suffering from an epic drought. Strict new regulations have been put in place just this week to severely limit the water use of households and businesses. Even before these rules were adopted, city crews had begun patrolling neighborhoods to issue warnings—and, when appropriate, fines—to property owners caught wasting water. Starbucks was recently pressured into pulling the plug on its California bottled water operation, while one city (Cupertino) canceled its fireworks show for the Fourth of July because the field where it normally takes place would need 100,000 gallons of water to cope with the crowds.

Two incredibly common household features have been targeted as wasteful as well. One is the front lawn, which has been demonized for decades as especially unnatural, unnecessary, and costly in dry climates such as California’s. As the San Jose Mercury News reported in a story about the anti-lawn trend, “About half of California’s residential water use goes to landscaping, and much of that to watering lawns.” In wealthy communities where large lawns are common, landscaping can account for 70% or more of the household water use.

Throughout the state, rebates are available to help homeowners cover the cost of replacing lawns with more eco-friendly, low-maintenance landscaping. According to the Associated Press, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has experienced a 20-fold increase in rebate applications from homeowners interested in replacing their thirsty turf. In parts of northern California, rebates issued in the first four months of 2015 surpassed the total from all of 2014.

One Los Angeles homeowner explained how he didn’t need all of the $5,000 rebate he received to convert his lawn to drought-friendly lavender, sage, and pampas-style grasses, so he used the leftover funds to go on a cruise. He’ll be saving money each and every month now that he doesn’t have to water the lawn too.

The other common water waster that has been drawing heat is the private household pool, considered much more of an extravagance than a boring, basic lawn. It would seem to be more of an overt water waster too, what with tens of thousands of gallons needed in one shot just to fill the thing up.

It comes as no surprise, then, that many homeowners are giving up on their pools. In San Jose, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, pool removal permits have outnumbered installations by a factor of four. Restrictions in many municipalities that ban homeowners from filling new pools certainly play a role in owners deciding not to install pools in the first place.

Yet the pool industry lobby is arguing that pools aren’t nearly as wasteful as many people think. A new campaign called Let’s Pool Together notes that lawns require far more water than pools. Therefore, as screwy as it might sound, by installing a pool instead of an expanse of grass, a homeowner is actually supposedly saving water.

Environmental experts question the pool lobbyists’ math, noting that neither pools nor lawns help the water conservation effort. As for which wastes more water, Peter Gleick, president of the environment and sustainability research nonprofit Pacific Institute in Oakland, says that it’s basically a wash.

More importantly, the pool-vs-lawn debate misses the point. “These are luxuries, and we’re in a really bad drought,” Gleick explained to the AP. “Everybody needs to step up instead of pointing the finger at the other guy.”

TIME Environment

California Drought Leads City to Cancel Fireworks

The football field where Cupertino residents typically gather to watch the display requires 100,000 gallons of water to prevent damage

California’s drought is putting a damper on one town’s Fourth of July festivities. The city of Cupertino in central California announced this week that its annual fireworks display had been canceled because the field where it’s held requires too much water.

According to the city, it takes 100,000 gallons of water to keep the Cupertino High School football field in good condition after the fireworks display.

In an effort to conserve water, the school’s district denied the city’s request to use the field for the 2015 festivities. Because the city couldn’t find an alternate site, officials had to cancel the fireworks.

The city’s spokesman told NBC News Bay Area that though people are upset about the cancellation, they generally understand.

“People are very disappointed,” Rick Kitson told NBC. “Who doesn’t love fireworks? But overall, I think they get it.”

The state of California is currently experiencing one of its most severe droughts. Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of an emergency in January and in April he issued an executive order calling for a 25% reduction in urban water usage.

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com