[HN Gopher] To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to...
___________________________________________________________________
To Ease Housing Crisis, California Lawmakers Vote to Open Suburbs
to Development
Author : bartart
Score : 20 points
Date : 2021-08-26 19:08 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| lordloki wrote:
| They might be better off banning short term rentals such as
| AirBnB, and banning investment and foreign SFH ownership.
| sul_tasto wrote:
| This is about profit for housing developers, period. They can
| make more money on units on established areas with highly rated
| schools, instead of building apartments or townhouses further
| out. It's no different than the school redistricting initiatives
| democrat-leaning school boards are pushing under the guise of
| 'equity,' so that more housing can be built near highly rated
| schools for a higher profit. There's no noble cause here. It's
| plain corruption.
| mrcartmenez wrote:
| Higher density is more economically efficient for local
| authorities, does less harm to the environment per resident and
| encourages greener behaviour from individuals, for example
| discouraging car use.
|
| Spars suburbs do no one any good other than those fortunate
| enough to be wealthy enough to live in places that end up being
| subsidised by high-density neighbourhoods, often home to poorer
| residents.
| grillvogel wrote:
| suburbs typically cost less per sq foot than dense areas.
| higher density only benefits developers who can now get
| revenue on the N plots of land they converted from 1.
| grillvogel wrote:
| i never understood how newcomers are more entitled to live
| somewhere than the people who already live there
|
| any counter arguments, or just downvotes?
| EliRivers wrote:
| I suspect the downvotes are more about your passive-aggressive
| reframing of the subject, and also your bullshit "I never
| understood" opening. Act like a child and you'll get treated
| like one.
| N1H1L wrote:
| > Act like a child and you'll get treated like one. reply
|
| +1. Succint, and great response
| grillvogel wrote:
| so what you're saying is you don't have an argument. i
| genuinely have never understood the claim that residents of
| an area are obligated to change it in order for more people
| to move there and change their existing quality of life
| lemoncucumber wrote:
| You keep posting strawman after strawman, and that's why
| you're getting downvoted.
|
| > newcomers are more entitled to live somewhere than the
| people who already live there
|
| Nobody said that besides you.
|
| > residents of an area are obligated to change it in order
| for more people to move there and change their existing
| quality of life
|
| Again, nobody said that besides you.
| grillvogel wrote:
| the entire premise of the article is literally about how
| those mean single family home owners prefer to keep
| single family zoning and how the california government is
| advancing a bill to go ahead and increase density anyway
| detaro wrote:
| And it neither gives "more entitlement to newcomers than
| to current owners" nor does it "obligate current
| residents to change it".
| ChainOfFools wrote:
| hey it could have been much worse, i.e. drawing a connection
| to colonialism
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-26 23:02 UTC)