241–250 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've lived in several US cities over the course of my life, and the only constant is that whoever you talk to, the problems are caused by the people who moved there after them.
The two most populous states in the US are California and Texas. One demonizes immigrants for moving in and destroying the local culture / way of life. The other, of course, is home to The Alamo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would like to be educated if there's something I'm missing. Is there a legal maneuver in CA that can prevent people from using their real estate for whatever it's zoned for, excluding frivolous lawsuits?
Yes, many jurisdictions in California require city permits for demolition and the process for getting those permits is by no means guaranteed. In my city after you apply for a permit you have to post public notice for 90 days so your nosy neighbors have a chance to go to the "landmarks preservation commission" to argue that your dilapidated shack in which nobody has lived for 50 years is, in fact, a priceless treasur…
Not a demolition now. Just renovating (90% of the house).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what right do they have to impose on others to change and take damaging consequences so they can be happier or their life easier without compensating them for it?
Views are not protected and neither is zoning. If you want to have the right to exclude apartments from a neighborhood, go ahead and buy all the land. I’d be surprised if single family zoning survived a legal challenge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that fertility is negatively associated with prosperity, then the idea that people will buy these houses because they have children is especially wrong.
I do believe that (see my other response to you). I don't believe that people buy houses because of children. I do believe they want to buy them because of children. I believe they actually buy them because/when they can afford them and prefer to live in a house they own over a rental. (Plenty of people have kids in rental housing, of course.)
The thought of school and a child nurtures in you a kind of "long term" view. I believe that lead to our buying our first home rather than continuing renting.
If we are planning on staying in the same place (school district) for 13 years it suddenly made sense to put down roots of a housing nature as well.
Why is this always framed as a problem caused by people looking for a place to live? I moved to SF for a job. I'm not the one who decided to not build enough new housing for 30 years. I'm not the one who decided to approve all those new office buildings. Yet I was the problem for renting an overpriced apartment from an SF native who bought in the 90s, and now pays less than $8K/yr in taxes on a place worth over $1M.…
The NIMBY problem suggests that it's not so much your fault at all - the locals would have passed zoning laws preventing housing for you from being built, as they did in SF ("protect our views" and such) - but actually the fault of the locals for resisting density upgrades. Imagine, in SimCity terms, if your Low-Density High-Wealth Residential citizens passed a ballot measure preventing you from building Medium-Densi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should Modesto have a say in what gets built in San Francisco? I’m pretty sure the folks in Modesto would be pretty pissed if San Francisco was dictating building rules to them! And Phoenix or Las Vegas aren’t even in the same states or legal jurisdictions. If you told them San Francisco was going to be able to tell them what to build or how, you’d just get laughed at. If you think building a high density apartme…
1. The people in Modesto are pissed! San Francisco’s housing prices have been spilling over into their city for years! And San Francisco imports almost its entire population’s worth of people during the day to work in and contribute payroll taxes to the city. It’s not the great argument you think it is to claim that none of these people have a stake in its land use. Additionally, Nevada and Arizona share a jurisdicti…
SB50 never passed, Modesto can ‘be pissed’ (why exactly?) at the higher property values and income all their residents who work in SF are benefiting from - they don’t seem to be trying to change that equation much! Sure someone is complaining about it, but when is THAT not the case about... everything?
I’m also curious what standing or stake they could claim (you assert they have one) - are they all paying property taxes in SF, or City residents who aren’t being allowed to vote because they commute to their second homes in Modesto? Or are they just driving in and out for jobs, and have as much claim to authority on how the city should run it’s business as a UPS driver dropping off a package?
I’m also curious what legal standing Phoenix or SF could claim for a suit against each other for.... people moving of their own free will between those cities for economic reasons? That would be quite an interesting lawsuit at the federal level for sure! Who would end up paying whom anyway? The city that was too expensive for otherwise qualified labor; so they moved to somewhere cheaper and are now contributing, tax paying, members of society there? Or the evil ‘good citizen’ stealing city luring productive (but maybe not 7 figure earning) folks away with bribes like affordable housing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The renters do - but they often don’t vote. And realistically, would you want to be subject to the laws passed by someone who doesn’t live in your area? Even if they say they’d like to? It’s bad enough with things like federal marijuana laws vs state ones, and those don’t control where you can live or what gets built next to where you already do.
They don't get a say until they live there. Future residents have zero representation.
What else do you propose should happen? Should California allow Texans to vote on state propositions? Should Marin county voters decide on who the Santa Clara County Sheriff is?
Since they haven’t moved there, how could you even decide which hypothetical future residence county they were voting for or eligible in? Would I get to vote in Vail, CO because I’ve always wanted to move there? What if I decide that’s actually silly, and change my mind - are my prior votes now invalid? What if I have 10 different places on my want to move list?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The NIMBY problem suggests that it's not so much your fault at all - the locals would have passed zoning laws preventing housing for you from being built, as they did in SF ("protect our views" and such) - but actually the fault of the locals for resisting density upgrades. Imagine, in SimCity terms, if your Low-Density High-Wealth Residential citizens passed a ballot measure preventing you from building Medium-Densi…
I think it is understandable if people don't want the surroundings of their property cluttered with buildings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The two most populous states in the US are California and Texas. One demonizes immigrants for moving in and destroying the local culture / way of life. The other, of course, is home to The Alamo.
Lived in California for decades now. I have no idea what you are on about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't get a say until they live there. Future residents have zero representation.
So you’re saying people who don’t live in an area...... don’t get to vote on the laws in that area? What else do you propose should happen? Should California allow Texans to vote on state propositions? Should Marin county voters decide on who the Santa Clara County Sheriff is? Since they haven’t moved there, how could you even decide which hypothetical future residence county they were voting for or eligible in? Woul…