111–120 of 543 posts
Paradise on Earth and home to the world’s brightest-future industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming from much less eco-friendly places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
should the "democrats" have just let them fail? what would a different party have done? why did the party even matter?
Yes they should. Because the alternative is subsidizing the same bad behavior across the the entire nation and bankrupting our grandchildren before they’re even born.
If you want to actually stop that bad behavior, we need to massively overhaul how we address whitecollar crime in this country so that bad actors face real consequences.
I can only comment on the Bay area which has plenty of land and lots of entrenched vested interests. Take a town like Atherton which is full of billionaires like Marc Andreesen who talk about how they want builders etc... But they are allergic when it is in their tony neighborhood of the zillionaires. The hypocrisy of the NIMBYs at full display: https://a16z.com/2020/04/18/its-time-to-build/ https://en.wikipedia.org/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense, but housing policy should focus on helping people at the bottom, which will eventually trickle up to the people at the top (where you are) Price control is an illusion and demand will outstrip supply for a long time But state-sponsored, ugly, tall affordable apartment blocks will save from misery those who need it the most (i.e. the homeless) and offer a surplus supply to perhaps not lower current prices…
The state can invest billions of dollars into affordable housing, and simultaneously allow private developers to invest billions of their own dollars to meet demand from people at the top. Impeding the latter does nothing to help the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Motive isn’t evidence. I haven’t seen any serious criticism of data collection methods. Just doubting results based on “stood to gain” is silly unless there’s actual evidence. In what world would there be a conspiracy to reduce california population by 200k?
Considering that is how congressional seats are apportioned, there is plenty of reason to fudge the numbers.
Likewise in Los Angeles, pretty much everything other than the beach cities and the hollywood hills are a complete eyesore and look like any random suburb on the west coast. Nothing of value would be lost if most parts of LA were demolished to build high rises.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need for highrises; just take all the places where 40' single-family houses are allowed, and allow 40' multifamily houses.
I'm ok with taller buildings if we ever finally allow more CLT construction in this state. Our building code is antiquated and silly, and the construction industry itself is probably the least innovative or capable industry in the entire US, which is probably to be expected with the way we've treated it to such awful boom and bust cycles.